Vegetarian's guide to talking to carnivores

Bells:

Not all the same rights, of course. Nobody is advocating that chickens get the vote, or that chickens have the right to remain silent when under criminal prosecution.

The argument is that a chicken ought to have some basic presumption that it cannot be killed arbitrarily for the mere pleasure of a human being. Human beings already have this right. If you think chickens ought not to have it, then you need to provide some argument as to why they ought to be denied it. And "Because it's a chicken" doesn't work - that's basically a racist argument as I explained previously.

(Note that I can give you a good argument as to why chickens ought not to have the right to vote.)

Great! You're making progress.

Can you explain to me why a dog is a "being" but a chicken is not?

Note that "because it's a chicken" and "because it's a dog" is a racist (speciesist) argument. And we already know that discrimination on the basis of race is a no no. (I assume you agree with that as a general moral principle.)

You sound like you're trolling.

Is it that you really don't understand the point that I have put to you three times or so now, or are you just being belligerent and playing dumb?


Asguard:

Where do these bodies come from? Are we talking natural deaths, or culling by humans?

I don't know what the thrust of your question is.

You seem to be talking about pest species that cause environmental destruction etc. This thread is about choosing to raise and kill animals for food. I think you've gone off on some weird tangent of your own.

By and large, to take Australian rabbits as an example, the vast majority of feral rabbits that die in Australia are left to rot and waste away where they die. The vast majority of such deaths go completely unobserved by human beings.

On your other point, I don't think we are "meant" to be predators. That implies either a God who is telling us what we are "meant" to be, or perhaps that evolution has a "plan" for us. Which do you think it is?

The vast majority of meat that you consume, Asguard, is not wild meat. It is meat raised specifically and deliberately by human beings for your consumption. I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that your meat diet does not consist primarily of kangaroo, camel or wild pork. I'm betting it consists of cattle, sheep and pigs that you buy vacuum-sealed from your local supermarket.

If you're asking about whether I would eat a random wild animal that had died a natural death, the answer is most likely no. If you're asking whether I would eat a wild animal shot deliberately by a human for food, my answer is almost certainly no; that practice is morally equivalent to farming the animal for food, at least when it comes to the interests of the animal.

 

More for Bells:

No. Because, as has already been pointed out several times, the total amount of vegetable matter needed to produce in meat the same energy content as a kilogram of vegetables is at least several times more.

No problem.

Are you aware that about 50% of the world's population right now lives on a basically vegetarian diet?

Not by much. See the statistics I posted earlier in the thread. Meat is much more inefficient than vegetables in terms of protein delivered per kilogram of input into its production.

Most leather from cattle, say, is completely wasted.

To repeat: nobody is suggesting that you give all of the rights of a human being to a cow. We're talking about the basic right to be left alone - to live a life. Or, to put it another way, not to be treated as mere property of another, who can do as he or she wishes with you. Compare slavery.

You're not looking hard enough. A banana quite obviously does not feel pain in the same way that a cow does. A banana is quite obviously not conscious in the same way that a cow is. You accuse me of comparing cows to human beings, but I'll tell you that it is quite obvious that a cow is a lot closer to a human being than it is to a banana (or a bean, or a lettuce). Yet, for some strange reason, in your classification of things that it is ok to eat, you lump in the cows with the bananas rather than with the humans. And the clincher is that you seem to have no justification at all for doing so, other than a speciesist prejudice that can roughly be equated with racism.

I assumed you would have the mental agility to realise that "banana" in the context could just as well be replaced by "lettuce" or "bean" or any other kind of plant (non-animal) food. Looks like I was wrong and I'll have to spell things out more carefully for you.

You're right. Because the only basis you have offered up so far is blind speciesism. Is that all you have?

Your answer has been "No, I wouldn't eat a human - just because it's a human!" In other words, a repeat of your speciesist non-argument.

Before you go any further, you ought to read this:

[enc]Equal consideration[/enc]

(That saves me from typing it all out again.)

See, in particular, the section on plants at the bottom of the page.

It's not an all-or-nothing thing, Bells. There are many different types of rights. I'm not arguing that a cow ought to have ALL the rights of a human being - just some of them. Like the basic one to continue existing unmolested.

I say the damage to the environment that my vegetarian diet produces is far less than your meat-eating diet (and you eat vegetables too, don't you?).

As for the "sneering" etc., see the opening post, which predicts exactly this kind of defensiveness and hurt feelings when you confront a meat eater with the moral argument.

On the face of it, this is pure nonsense.

How are you making these comparisons? Explain. In what sense is a cow "the same" as a banana? In what sense is a human totally different from a cow?

Most of the time it's not a case of "I must eat this cow or a human being will die". If that was the position you found yourself in, by some strange set of circumstances, then you might well be justified in eating the cow. But the actual choice you're faced with, usually, is "I can choose to eat this cow, but if I don't no human will be harmed and also the cow will be able to go on enjoying its life".

Aren't they all on a par with beans and bananas?

Begging the question. "I eat them because I eat them."

What we're discussing is whether you're morally justified in eating them, remember?

My choice involves the killing of far fewer animals than yours does.

But you don't really care how many animals die, do you? That hasn't come up as a factor in your reasoning up to this point. Do you care about killing a banana? If not, then why would you care about a cow, which you say is no different? Or a dog, or a cat, or a whale, for that matter?

From the calf's point of view, the effect is exactly equivalent to a human child being killed. A calf might live a natural lifespan of 15 years (say). A human child in a first-world country might live 70-90 years (say). As a proportion of life lived before being killed, you can do the maths and work out an approximate equal percentage of life lost in each case.

So you owe no moral duties at all to calves (cows, dolphins, dogs)? Or do you? Do you think you have some god-given right to exploit all non-human creatures as you see fit?

A facetious non-response. Ho hum.

No. I do not. Not ALL the same rights. But some basic rights.

I haven't palmed anything off. Of course I have some impact on the environment, merely by living my life. A vegetarian diet, all things considered, has less impact than a meat diet. But that's not my primary argument for vegetarianism. My primary argument is the moral one.

 

So? The point is that we don't want your pests because of what introduced species can do to our environment.

We already have enough introduced pests to deal with as it is.

Oh, and you can start preaching when your apple growers stop bitching about our fire blight

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

So what's your point? One uninformed border guard? Should we judge Australians by Kevin Bloody Wilson?

Here's what the Ministry of Health has to say on the matter, the only thing that really counts:
Spiders in New Zealand: What to look out for & Keeping yourself safe

Turns out microbial contamination of honey, by bacteria, from various sources - including the bees themselves, is in fact possible, in spite of any antibacterial properties honey has:
Microorganisms in honey.

 

I'll bet you eat rice, too. AND meat.

On average, probably about the same distance, or a little less, than your food travels.

In terms of total energy, we have to start, of course, in factoring in the huge disparity in energy consumption from growing the meat vs growing the rice in the first place. Then, we can offset the costs of transport (if they are different). I think that, on a balance, the total energy balance still comes out in favour of the vegetarian diet.

 

What was it Robert Muldoon once said?

Oh yeah...

Every New Zealander that moves to Australia raises the average I.Q. of both countries​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Asguard:

My primary argument for not eating meat has always been an ethical one. I have never relied on health and environmental considerations. Of course, if a vegetarian diet was bad for human health, then I might find it necessary to eat meat after all. But it isn't. And if a vegetarian diet could be shown to severely damage the environment compared to a meat diet, then again maybe I could be persuaded to eat meat. It's a long shot, since "the environment" of course includes the animals in the environment. But there's no evidence that I'm aware of that a vegetarian diet is worse for the environment than a meat diet.

All my arguments are based on reason, not faith. They can be refuted, in theory, by appropriate evidence and counter-argument.

My diet is probably much the same as yours, only without the meat. I eat weet bix and drink milk and eat bread and eat beans and corn and peas and potato. I eat pasta. I eat rice. I eat spinach. I eat fruit. Probably you also eat these things.

Then you'll be able to link to the posts where

(a) my illogicality on eggs was shown; and
(b) where I mentioned quick bullets and compared them to destruction of a whole environment.

Of course, you can't produce either of these pieces of evidence.

I have not once mentioned aboriginal people in this thread.

I'm glad you're trying to minimise your environmental impact. Really, I am. That's great, Asguard.

Now you just need to realise that you can reduce it even further by going vegetarian.

It would also be good if you could look at the ethical arguments for vegetarianism. Right now you seem a little fixated on looking after number 1 (health arguments) and the general environment (which of course also impacts on number 1), to the exclusion of considering the interests of the animals you consume.

 

I am of "black" stock. Now, James is fully aware of this. So he determines that because I do not give 'equal consideration' to chickens, it is akin to determining blacks being of lesser value to whites. Substitute the race with homophobics and gays and you may see and understand how it might be construed as being deeply offensive.

Do you think homophobia is akin to my seeing chickens as being of 'lesser value' to humans?

I am more concerned about the fact that I am being accused of trolling (I think it's been 3 times now) because I refuse to give equal consideration to chickens as I would to a human being.. That I am trolling because I say 'it's a chicken'..

____________________________________________________

So sustenance is pleasure?

Go from there and you will understand why I do not consider a chicken to be equal to a human. It is an animal that is part of the food chain. Just we are part of the food chain for certain animals when we venture out into the wild or the oceans..

Because my dog is a part of my family and no, my saying because it is a dog, is not a "racist" argument. On that point, you are trolling and attempting to flame. What is next James? New rules about how and why discriminating against animals is now racism (or specism) because we eat meat? A dog and a chicken is not the same. I am sure to some they are and good for them. To me they are not. I do have a right to such an opinion.

Let me see if I get this right..

You start this thread with an article that is pure flaming and trolling and not based on any scientific fact whatsoever. In fact, the article blatantly lies and sets out to insult non-vegetarians through false statements intended to inflame and abuse. You attempt to ignore the unscientific and baseless accusations and lies made in the article and try to get everyone to focus on the "moral" ideal of vegetarianism. The argument then follows to where I say that a chicken does not get equal consideration or rights as a human because it is a chicken and you accuse me of trolling, after you make some lame statement by saying 'because it's a chicken' is akin to a white person denying basic human rights and equal civil rights to blacks because they are blacks.. to me, a person of colour.. And then you have the nerve to ask me if I am playing dumb?

And you accuse me of trolling? Are you joking?

Now, should I take this accusation of trolling as a mere accusation James? Or a threat from an administrator and from Enmos a moderator?

Remember, you are accusing me of trolling and playing dumb because I don't consider a chicken to be equal to a human..

And as has been mentioned before, one would need to grow several different types of vegetables and grain to supply people with their dietary needs and to meet the needs of what they would normally get from a piece of meat and a glass of milk. If we were to use your 3 fields example. The one field of vegetables would not suffice to feed the village, if one takes away the access to livestock. So more fields would have to convert to vegetables to support and supply the village with the sufficient dietary needs. Now, livestock, as people are finding, do best eating grass and weeds, which should be encouraged, as it causes less damage to the environment and also ensures nicer tasting meat and also means less fertiliser being used..

Which yes, would amount to more pesticides being used and more fertiliser which will damage the soil and the environment.

When one factors in the famine, drought and abject poverty where people do not have access to food and are instead resorting to eating clay and leaves and wheat they get from foreign aid, I am not surprised. Having said that, from your own statement, it means that the other half of the world's population eats meat.

And vegetable agriculture causes just as much damage to the environment and kills off as many native animals and fish..

Leather from cattle goes to many uses..

So now you are comparing eating meat to slavery?

How about my basic right to live my life and eat what I choose without being accused of being "racist" and of committing "slavery" and without harassment and threats and sneering moral indignation from you?

Do you think I should have that right James?

Both are part of our food chain.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ah here we go. The sneering insult about my mental agility.

You continue to charm James.

You mean speciesism that is racism that is speciesism? Make up your mind. You virtually accused me of racism because I don't consider a chicken to be equal to a human being and then tried some weird argument about actual racism being the same as my saying that a chicken is not the same as a human being.

Yes I suffer from specisism. So do you.

If push came to shove, I would consider eating a human (akin to what the Uruguayan rugby team who crashed in the Andes.

So you disregard that some plants feel pain?

So you accuse me of "racism" for eating meat because you do not consider cows to be human or...?

You mean the OP that was designed to get this kind of reaction by flaming and trolling in the article and telling blatant lies? Gee James, I wonder why people would balk at such lies and statements made as facts without any truth to it?

Why do you think that is?

Why do you think people might be offended when their diet is deemed a "flesh consuming fetish" after the lies stated about their diet? Why do you think people may be a bit defensive when they are told that they lack judgement because they are "carnivores", as though we are some kind of wild animals?

I don't know James. How is saying a chicken does not have the same rights as a human the same as saying a black person does not have the same rights as a white person?

A cow is the same as a banana in that both are fit for consumption by humans and animals alike. How is a human different from a cow?

Hooves and udders aside you mean?

Or I can eat a steak and tell you to mind your own business..

Only when I am eating them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I thought that was clear enough to you by now. I do consider myself morally justified in eating them. You do not. You have a right to your opinion and your diet and I have a right to mine.

Correction. Your choice involves killing animals you do not consider within your moral justification.

Do I care that animals die? Yes. But I also consider my life and my diet to be of vital importance to me. Yes, I eat meat and vegetables and fruit and yes, all die for me to be able to eat them. I'll put it this way James, if I was a vegetarian, I would not be sitting on a mighty white pedestal and consider myself morally superior. All involves death of some sort or other.

Again, you compare a child and a calf to be of equivalent value..

About as god-given to your moralistic accusations, insults and indignation because of my diet you mean?

Tell me James, what duty do you owe me to eat as I please?

Do I owe any moral duties to calves? I owe them a moral duty to ensure they do not suffer and are treated well.

You mean you wish to grant animals rights you refuse to grant people because of their diet?

A moral argument that will involve death either way. What was it you said earlier? Ah yes.. "ho hum"..