Where are the Omnivores?

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:57 am

I have scheduled for tonight Dec 22nd @ 8PM ET a show entitled, "Veganism
or Omnivorism: Which Makes More Sense?" Two of my scheduled omnivores
bailed on me and left me hanging so I need your help if you can. This
program will be live and should have a distribution of about 30,000.

We plan on discussing the nutritional and moral issues related to what
we eat.

I hope you can assist.

My Vegan guest is Richard Spencer, the host of Infidel Radio. He's a
highly articulate guy and has researched Veganism pretty well. He believes
Veganism is the best lifestyle for moral and healthy reasons.

Thank you for your time. I you can help.

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:45 am

I'm an Omnivore and a layperson... i'd be happy to call in, Reggie.

I'm not a trained nutritionist, but i think i can defend the omnivorous standpoint with SOME small measure of skill.

plus, i have defended the standpoint on more than one occasion on the forums and I have some thoughts on the morality of diet.

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

Morality? we're prewditors, just look at the possition of our eyes, that and scavangers (Look at the length of our small intestines) We evolved needing both. Modern technology and horticulture has allowed us to be picky but when it comes to the crunch the "nature" one is omnivour leaning towards herbivour for main runs but still needing meat. I have only a cell or I'd call in lol

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:21 am

heck, i was on a cell the whole time and i came in clear, i think.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

this was an incredibly interesting show! i was hesitant in downloading it, but i couldnt help but be terribly interested throughout the entire show.. i knew a little bit about Veganism but this was a great discussion, i learned alot.

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:25 am

fattychunks wrote:

this was an incredibly interesting show! i was hesitant in downloading it, but i couldnt help but be terribly interested throughout the entire show.. i knew a little bit about Veganism but this was a great discussion, i learned alot.

I wish I had been around to listen live.

Lot's of false arguments against veganism here.

For example, the arguments that nutritionally veganism is bad for children is simply false. Just check out any of the Dietician associations in America, Canada or the UK. All these associations say their is nothing unhealthy about veganism - even for children.

Many people, including reporters do not understand the term "veganism", and so wrongly report any food fad that excludes all animal products as being representative of Veganism. They have been a few cases, where fruitists, and other raw foodists, have fed their child nothing but raw grain, such a diet is bad for their health, and will lead to death. This would be like reporting, that a omnivore couple who fed their child nothing but meat (no veg, cereal etc, only meat), represents your typical omnivore diet. A child on such a diet would also evelop serious health problems that would lead to death.

The other argument is that since there is some suffering involved in raising food, then why try to reduce it?
Well there is some suffering involved in the very fact of being alive, so why try to reduce suffering. Just because some suffering is inevitable cannot not be used to argue that the amount of suffering should not be diminished.

As Richard said in the programme, there is a ratio of roughly 1 to 10 when it comes to plant food. For example most of the world's soya, which uses 100's of hectares of land, is fed to animals. If that amount of soya was used for human food, we would not need to grow as much soya. This refers to other cereal crops also. The idea that we would have to grow more crops, because more people beome vegan is false, we would have to grow less.

We are evolved creatures. To say Chickens are "Inanimate objects that move" is just ridiculous.
In all mammals all vital organ control is in the brain. The idea that a chicken's heart and other vital organs are not connected to its brain, and controlled by the brain is simply false.

We are evolved, why do we have nerves? To feel pain, and this ability protects us. Why do you think other animals have nerves, if not to feel pain. The function of nerves for them serves the same purpose. The whole evolutionary advantage of nerves is that one wishes to avoid pain and so move away from a source of pain and potential harm. To say animalswith a nervous system do not feel pain makes no sense to me.

Richard Dawkins refers to those who see no connection between the functions of things like nerves to cause pain in both human animals and non-human animals as having a 'discontinuous mind'. He says "But it is we that choose to divide animals up into discontinuous species." The idea that there is no continuation across species of nerves causing pain etc, Dawkins sees as belonging to a world-view that has not come to terms with the full implications of evolution.

Another example would be things like fear, stress etc. The discontinuous mind argues that non-human animals cannot be said to experience fear, stress etc. However, on what justification is this conclusion made? It is certainly not based on any biological facts.

Fear, stress, causes the human body to shiver, blood pressure to rise, shortness of breath, faster heartbeat, increases of adrenalin etc; yet non-human animals express the same symptons when they are placed in stressful situations.

Also, we also know, that many of these more basic emotions are caused by hormones and chemicals in the brain. Mammals also produce these same hormones and chemicals in stressful situations. To conclude from this that they do not experience stress, fear etc, seems an odd conclusion. Dawkins is not afraid to call such a view 'specism' and symptons of the 'discontinuous brain" ie, that there is no continuation across species of similar physical traits (And I would call pain, stress, fear etc, physical - in that they have physical causes, and are only experiences by physical organisms).

Another point raised in the programme, is that people in USA and Europe are not conditioned to see Dolphans etc., has food, we see something 'wrong' about this. But why do we? Does this 'wrongness' not show that people's view of what is morally exceptable about animal food changes? And does not history show it moving towards a growing concern for the welfare of non-human animals. In which case Veganism is merely a continuation of an evolving moral view. If we say that morality is relative to society, then we have no reason to oppose slavery, apart from our society disaproves. But does one want to claim that there is nothing immoral about slavery, and if there is, surely it is the treatment of the individual being (slave) that is immoral. Therefore what present society, or other societies thing is 'moral' when it comes to mere cultural norms is a false argument.

Our morality should judge our cultural norms, not our cultural norms our morality.

Another view is that some how animals raised for food, such as chickens and pigs etc, are not intelligent. Not sure why intelligence as any say in this matter. Are we saying that intelligent human beings should have greater rights to be free from pain caused by needless human activity, as opposed to less intelligent human beings. Are severely retarded human beings, incapabe of feeling pain, stress, fear?

As Jeremy Bentham said

Quote:

The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

The example about meat in a vat sees IG give the game away and defeat Scott's arguments. Eating meat (from a dead animal) is a moral issue. Would one choose to eat meat from an animal raised and killed if one could choose the same meat grown in a vat - ie, it tasted the same and looked the same. If one would not, then one must ask why? If one is going to claim to be ethical, then one must look at that question seriously.

To say it tastes good is not a good enough answer, A slave owner liked the wealth etc that owning a slave give him. But surely morality is not judged by what 'tastes' good, by what is most pleasurable to our own well-being as opposed to the well-being of others.

Morality to me includes courage - the courage to do the right thing, it includes effort - being prepared to put the effort into doing the right thing.

I think to live a courageous life and to use one's energy for the greater good is a better way to live. There is something cowardly about saying "I do not want to be inconvenienced."

In ethical issues there is no fench sitting, it is impossible to be nutral.

nogods

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:59 am

Charles Darwin wrote in The Descent of man.
"The social instincts which no doubt were acquired by man, as by the lower animals, for the good of the community, will from the first have given to him some wish to aid his fellows, and some feeling of sympathy. Such impulses will have served him at a very early period as a rude rule of right and wrong. But as man gradually advanced in intellectual power and was enabled to trace the more remote consequences of his actions; as he acquired sufficient knowledge to reject baneful customs and superstitions; as he regarded more and more not only the welfare but the happiness of his fellow-men; as from habit, following on beneficial experience, instruction, and example, his sympathies became more tender and widely diffused, so as to extend to the men of all races, to the imbecile, the maimed, and other useless members of society, and finally to the lower animals, - so would the standard of his morality rise higher and higher."

Asa Grey who was Darwin's strongest supporters in America wrote in 1880

"We are sharers not only of animal but of vegetable life, sharers with the higher brute animals in common instincts and feelings and affections. It seems to me that there is a sort of meanness in the wish to ignore the tie. I fancy that human beings may be more humane when they realize that, as their dependent associates live a life in which man has a share, so they have rights which man is bound to respect."

I think there is a reason why most theistic religions oppose vegetarianism, they see it as implying human's and non-human animals share the same interests.

Darwin shows that we not only share the same interest's but the same life, we evolved together, and those forms of life that have a brain and a nervous system have evolved similar physical experiences as ourselves: pain, fear, stress etc, pleasure, ease etc.,

As Peter Singer says
"If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—in so far as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary way. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin color?"

nogods

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

i had no idea this issue got so deep.. thats all i can really say
lol

**what i need to add though is that i was truly captivated by the arguments for veganism over moloth's position.. even though i respect moloth intently.

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:05 pm

Great posts Nogods, as usual. Smile

Once I move out. I think I'm going Vegan.

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:51 pm

Thats the problem with defending against the vegan position... in the end, it IS the most moral position... in the perfect world. Also, in this perfect world, no one would die, and we could find a way to sustain human civilization without polluting AT ALL. It just comes down to the ability to survive while using it. Yes, vat-meat would be the perfect answer... frankly, i'm glad that BOTH sides have found such a 'easy' answer and compromise. Very Happy

For us upper 2% of humans on Earth, sure, its great... we might be able to afford veganism or vat-meat. but for the other 5,999,000,000 people, its simply not possible. their own survival still trumps the discomfort of lessor organisms.

I wonder... Does Richard or nogods , own and drive a car? Just think of the incredible damage they do (and support). The processing and burning of fossil fuels the incredible amount and number of chemicals AND biological substances used in the manufacture and upkeep of automobiles such as oil, lubricants, anti-freeze (which normally has animal products), rubber, vinyl, plastic, etc...

The fact is, simply being alive causes death in other lifeforms. yes, it is immoral to support the killing of animals... but, by the same logic, it is moral to not eat plants, kill bacteria or cause ANY sort of discomfort or anguish upon ANYTHING. Plants are living entities, too. bacteria have complex internal structures that respond to stimuli; they attempt to escape from detrimental effects and try to seek out sustenance.

If Richard and nogods were TRULY moral, they would not use electricity, drive cars, operate computers or telephones, eat any sort of produce that had to be harvested, processed or transported by machines or use, take part or support basically ANY facet of the modern world.

The Amish have the right idea. THEY are the truly moral ones. If Richard and nogods wish to NOT be lazy or dishonest in their stance on cruelty and/or deprivation of the Earth, they should move to central Pennsylvania, immediately.

The point is (as i tried to make during the show) that it is a matter of personal tolerances. I assume vegans tolerate the damage done to the environment that it took to create the electricity to power the computers and telephones they used today. How do they reconcile that? What about the plastic, the heavy metals, the factory production of all of the components of the computers and phones? the infrastructure to support them?

Are they OKAY with the pollution that they have caused? no? then why don't they do something about it? otherwise, they're just as big of hypocrites as the REST of us... and have no right to make omnivores out to be immoral, lazy or dishonest in their eating of meat AND vegetables.

Its all a matter of reasonable tolerances.
Personally, i find it intolerant to murder another human being.
I find it tolerant to kill a chicken and eat it.
By the same token, i find it perfectly tolerant of a wild animal to eat a human... its what they do, given the chance.
I am intolerant of the torture of animals... intentionally causing pain, anguish or discomfort merely for the sake of doing so. Kill the animal, quickly and painlessly as possible... that is STILL a far better fate for the creature than ANYTHING old Mother Nature had planned for it. THAT is a higher morality already.

...and just to annoy everyone... my brother and i went to Longhorns for dinner tonight. I had the New York Strip and my brother had a chicken sandwich.

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:53 pm

I am sorry I missed this. Working nights has its downside.

As a supertaster, eating most vegetables is simply not an option for me.

Just Arrived Joined: Oct 26, 2005 Posts: 8

This is Richard from the show. Thanks for the support nogods.

You claim that the ratio for turning plant food to animal food is 1 to 10, but I claimed it was 1 to 100. Now that I think about it, I think I may have mixed up my facts. The 1 to 100 ratio is what we would have if we raised and consumed carnivores. I'm sorry for this slip.

Listening back through the debate, there were two places where I did not reply with the speed and strength I would have liked to. First, when Moloth asked about the use of pesticides, it was something I had never thought about. I was trying to conceptualize a vegan world better while still talking in the debate. I think I did a fair job responding to the claim but the most obvious response evaded me. As Moloth stated, the vermin we'd be displacing or killing with pesticides are killed by ranchers anyway. Whether we're killing vermin to protect our plant or animal food, we must protect our food somehow. So his point did not give any weight to the case for omnivorism.

Second, when he asked who we would be held accountable to for killing a cow, I had a pause and said "let's see." I was really trying to figure out his question, but it sounded like I had no answer. Once I realized how simple the question was, the answer was obvious. In my opinion, it's the same answer we have for who everyone is held accountable to for behaving morally in a godless universe: ourselves and each other.

Moloth, to respond to some of the points you raise, I think nogods did a pretty good job of anticipating your questions. The point is that we must cause some amount of harm in order to sustain ourselves but it does not follow that we are justified in not attempting to reduce that harm. So yes, your question about the cars is the reason I don't drive when I can walk. For all situations like that, if we can determine a reasonable solution for minimizing the harm we cause, we should put forth that effort. If you have suggestions for me in other areas of my life, great. I'll be glad to hear them. But we already have pinpointed one such solution for minimizing harm with our diet... so why not go vegan?

As you point out Moloth, for you it is a matter of personal tolerances. Fine. But this sounds like nothing more than a way of saying, "well, I just won't let myself be bothered by it because I'm comfortable with my way of life now." But this is even after you admit that veganism is the most moral diet one can choose. It is this sort of apathy that we would all be better off without. Why go to Longhorn when you know you could be a more moral person?

So let's go back to my three main points I made in my introduction.

First, there is no nutritional reason that I am aware of to not be vegan, but many nutritional benefits to being vegan. Even if it turned out that we cannot be fully healthy people on a vegan diet, we would only be justified in omnivorism to the minimal extent required to sustain us.

Second, there are many environmental benefits to being vegan. You can claim vegans are as hypocritical as the rest of the omnivorous world but I think this is clearly not the case. There is no reason to not strive to reduce the harm we cause the environment simply because it is hard to do so consistently.

Third, as we all seem to agree, being vegan is the most moral choice. This whole "meat from a vat" argument isn't a compromise for a perfect world. We already have the equivalent of vat meat--it's called tofu, seitan, tempeh, and other texturized soy and vegetable protein.

Another point I wanted to make in the debate but barely had a chance to mention is that the use of antibiotics in farm animals makes it harder to fight disease in humans. About 70 percent of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. goes to farm animals to help them survive in the abject conditions they are forced to live and to fight infections in their bodies. This causes the increased resistance of bacteria to our antibiotics and thus constitutes a moral concern not for the animals, but for us.

Trust me, I know it's difficult to adjust to not eating Reese's cups, cheese pizza, and ice cream. Chick-fil-A still smells good too. But I am satisfied with my diet regardless, and I was formerly a meat-lover.

So, we've established that veganism is the most moral dietary option and it's better for us nutritionally and environmentally. With these three things established, my case is made.

So really, why not go vegan? Allow me to share the lyrics to a song I wrote for my band titled No Gods, No Dairy . Laughing

"Refusal to face an issue is to fear the worst is true.
Engraved on bodies standing as living graves, so reads the epitaph: here lay those led to the slaughter to indulge the appetite of the thoughtless, of the selfish, and of the complacent
Unwilling to consider the consequence of their actions and the pain they promote.
It's to have ears yet not listen.
It's to have eyes yet lack vision.
Giving yourself to the convenience that consumes, forsaking the conscience that condemns.
The test of character: will we reject apathy?
The test of decency: how we treat those at our mercy.
Life's not a commodity.
It's on your hands. Blood runs through those machines.
Life's not a commodity.
It's in your mouths. Blood runs through those machines.
The oblivious are not the guiltless.
When the comfort of my life creates suffering in another, when my luxury sponsors misery, I will change.
When the step to action from awareness can be seen it should be made.
If I could break free from this prison of illusion of self, with the empathy given to me in that moment, I will change."

Don't forget, Nicholas Everitt at 4pm this upcoming Wednesday -- it's going to be a great show!

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:39 pm

Richard, your points are pretty good. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with vat meat so long as it tastes properly like meat. I want catfish, deer, veal and mature beef, pork, turkey, chicken, lamb, gator, and many other varieties of meat to come from it. All of those meats have a distinctly different flavor from each other, one that I can detect. If this could come about (and someday it will so long as Fundies are ignored), I will be happy to have meat without causing any harm.

Richard, are you familiar with Super Tasters? We are a small percentage of the populace that have super sensitive taste buds that react negatively to cause violent gag reflexes upon tasting many/most vegatables. It is not psychosematic. It is not an act. It is a physical reaction triggered by some chemical in many vegatables that our taste buds react to as if it is a poison. This leads to us becoming very picky eaters lest we have a reaction. I mean the gagging with watery eyes at best reaction, loss of stomache contents at worst reaction.

Now I can eat most beans, love corn, potatoes, spicy peppers, peas, and similar starchy vegatables. If broccoli is steamed to the point that it becomes super soft, I can eat it as the chemical is broken down. I can even do lettuce in small amounts. That's about the limit of my ability to eat vegatables. I don't even like onions and will use garlic instead when possible. I can't even get used to the taste of alcohol. Yuck!

This condition is assumed to have arisen from a time when primative man had to be careful about what was consumed lest it be laden with toxins. I do believe it has outlived its purpose in the modern day, but I have not found a way to desensitize myself. For such a person as I, I cannot agree that Veganism is a valid option.

I respect your position, but just want you to realize that not everyone can hope to follow your path, not even if we come to agree with your position morally.

And because I don't remember if I did this already or not, I will take the time to do so now...

Welcome Richard! Merry Mithras Day and a belated happy welcome to thee!

Kimmie, Loki's little Valkyrie.

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:12 pm

Moloth wrote:

Thats the problem with defending against the vegan position... in the end, it IS the most moral position... in the perfect world. Also, in this perfect world, no one would die, and we could find a way to sustain human civilization without polluting AT ALL. It just comes down to the ability to survive while using it. Yes, vat-meat would be the perfect answer... frankly, i'm glad that BOTH sides have found such a 'easy' answer and compromise. Very Happy

Hi Moloth,

Before responding, I should say I have been vegetarian for almost 20 years, vegan for the last 15. So to give my age away ;-(, this means I was an omnivore for 24 years. My partner, has been vegan for the last 13 years (He went vegan when we decided to start living together), so he was a meat eater for 32 years.

I mention this because for me, this shows that I, and other vegans, are in no moral position to condemn meat eaters. Nearly all vegans (Accept those raised as vegan - I know a few) have been meat eaters. Veganism is something people come to in different ways. So, though I argue it is the more ethical stance, I am not argueing from a 'holier then thou' position.

The main problem I see with your argument is the post is that you argue for an impossible standard, ie, to be the cause of no nsuffering what so ever, and since that standard cannot be reached, why worry about the unnecessary suffering.

Again, you could say people could do more to avoid unnecesarry sufffering, and you may be right. However, this cannot be taken as an argument to say avoiding what one reasonably can is not an ethical step.

I may find it unavoidable to walk across my neighbour's lawn to leave my driveway. That would be wrong, but an understandable infringement of their property. However, because I infringe their property by walking across their drive way, this does not justify me infringing their property rights, by walking into their house uninvited when ever I feel like it.

Same with all ethical issues, because we cannot do everything, this does not justify doing nothing.

Moloth wrote:

For us upper 2% of humans on Earth, sure, its great... we might be able to afford veganism or vat-meat. but for the other 5,999,000,000 people, its simply not possible. their own survival still trumps the discomfort of lessor organisms.

Let us assume you are right about your 2% figure, I disagree as you will see below. So what? If the only way some people could eat was by eating higher primates - it was that or starvation - then that would justify their eating of higher primates. However, since we do not have to eat higher primates - it would be unethical for us to do so.

So the same goes for other forms of sentient life. If others have to eat, then they 'HAVE' to, but what has that to do with you or me. We do 'NOT HAVE' to.

I do not agree with this 2% figure. Tradidionaly, in many cultures, meat has not been a stable diet. Also, they have been communities that have been vegan for many centuries. Chinese Buddhists etc, are often vegetarian -Chinese Buddhist monks and Nuns- have to be vegetarian. This vegetarianism is often vegan - though the word for vegan is a new word - created in 1944 when Donald Watson and Elsie Shrigley founded the British Vegan Society.

In a Chinese Sutra it says "In the quest for food and clothing, some people may take up hunting, others fishing, others the slaughtering of oxen, sheep, pigs, dogs in order to make food and clothing, all with the thought of obtaining a regular livelihood. And yet, I find that persons who do not engage in such professions still have clothing and still have food to eat. By no means are they fated to die of exposure or starvation."

If one visits Taiwan, one will see plenty of 'Buddhist' vegan food - such a diet has been around for centuries.

Meat: Luxury not necessity
Meat eating in many parts of the world is a luxury, indulged in to mark special occasions, it is only in wealthy countries, does meat eating become a regular - often daily- part of someones diet.

Moloth wrote:

I wonder... Does Richard or nogods , own and drive a car? Just think of the incredible damage they do (and support). The processing and burning of fossil fuels the incredible amount and number of chemicals AND biological substances used in the manufacture and upkeep of automobiles such as oil, lubricants, anti-freeze (which normally has animal products), rubber, vinyl, plastic, etc...

How does this relate to our diet. I agree you raise ethical issues about consumerism in general. But this does not relate to the ethical debate about veganism. This seems to be fslling back to the argument, that because one cannot do everything, why bother doing anything.

If all social reformers had such a view, women would still have no rights, slavery would still exist etc.,

Moloth wrote:

The fact is, simply being alive causes death in other lifeforms. yes, it is immoral to support the killing of animals... but, by the same logic, it is moral to not eat plants, kill bacteria or cause ANY sort of discomfort or anguish upon ANYTHING. Plants are living entities, too. bacteria have complex internal structures that respond to stimuli; they attempt to escape from detrimental effects and try to seek out sustenance.

Such a view to me seems to avoid the knowledge we now have from evolution. We know that animals are related to us, the relation can be found in our DNA. I strongly recommend Dawkins "The Ancestor's Tale" in which these connections are made clear. To me The Ancestor's Tale is a moral argument, and not just a scientific one - though I do not think that is one Dawkins planned - not that Dawkins would object.

Plants do not have nerves, a brain, the same hormones as us. There is no biological reason to assume that they feel pain, stress etc. Yes, bacteria reacts to light, but so do some organic elements. A photo negative reacts to light, that does not make it sentient.

But brains, nerves etc evolved in non-human mammals, long before primates came on the scene.

Richard summed it up well in the programme when he said "Why eat something that can run away from you?" When it comes to food, the beatle Paul McCartney summed up my own position when he said "I don't eat anything with a face?"

If Richard and nogods were TRULY moral, they would not use electricity, drive cars, operate computers or telephones, eat any sort of produce that had to be harvested, processed or transported by machines or use, take part or support basically ANY facet of the modern world.[/quote]

Is this a defence of meat eating? If so you need to explain it. Once again, your arguing because we cannot avoid all cruelty, why avoid any. Also, meat eating is a deliberate act of cruelty, in that the act of slaughter is essential and directly related.

There is an analogy. when a mororway is built. We know that so many people will die in car accidents ion that motorway. Now no one would argue, that the people who build the motorway, intend to kill people in car accidents.

The same cannot be said of the meat industry. Animals are not slaughtered as an unintentional and unavoidable consequence. It is directly related.

Moloth wrote:

The Amish have the right idea. THEY are the truly moral ones. If Richard and nogods wish to NOT be lazy or dishonest in their stance on cruelty and/or deprivation of the Earth, they should move to central Pennsylvania, immediately.

The point is (as i tried to make during the show) that it is a matter of personal tolerances. I assume vegans tolerate the damage done to the environment that it took to create the electricity to power the computers and telephones they used today. How do they reconcile that? What about the plastic, the heavy metals, the factory production of all of the components of the computers and phones? the infrastructure to support them?

Again there is no coirrelation here. Your saying that because some suffering is unavoidable, why worry about suffering? Take electricity, no one, who is sensible - unless like the Amish they have some bazarre religious belief- can argue that that modern technology has not made life better for human beings. To avoid such technology, is the basically knock human culture back a few hundred years. No one can argue that to avoid eating meat would be to knock human culture back hundred's of years.

The question is can we do things kinder, with less cruelty - personally I am not a vegan for enviromental reasons - for me it is just an added bonus that it also benefits the enviroment.

I am a vegan purely on ethical reasons to do with cruelty, I want no animal to suffer just to sastisfy my palatte. Personally I do not see my palatte as impoprtant as modern culture, electricity, communications etc.,

If one wants to argue that one's palatte is essential to modern culture and society, I think you will have a difficult time presenting such a case.

Now when it comes to the environment, there are ethical things to consider. Such as car travel, electricity etc. There are things we can do to encourage that these things be produced more ethically. For example, how much research from governments is spent into developing safe clean energy alternatives. Not much. These issues we can campaign on for the enviroment. But as arguments in favour of meat eating they do not work.

So far not one positive argument has been presented for meat eating. The only argument seems to be, well we can't be completely cruelty-free, so why even try to be as cruelty-free. Especially when all we are talking about is how could something tastes. (Not that I accept that there is no such thing as delicious vegan food. All I can say, is come and live with me and my partner for a week, I am sure you will find our diet tasteful.

Moloth wrote:

Are they OKAY with the pollution that they have caused? no? then why don't they do something about it? otherwise, they're just as big of hypocrites as the REST of us... and have no right to make omnivores out to be immoral, lazy or dishonest in their eating of meat AND vegetables.

Again this is purely negative, one can't stop all crime, so why stop any? One can't stop all pain, so why stop any? The argument as no ethical reasoning to support it.

Moloth wrote:

Its all a matter of reasonable tolerances.
Personally, i find it intolerant to murder another human being.
I find it tolerant to kill a chicken and eat it.

But tolerance changes, as does morality. What is the essential difference between a human being and a chicken, when it comes to pain, fear, stress etc., very little. If you say it is to do with reason, you would first need to show that reason is an important attribute when it comes to pain, stress etc, I do not believe it is.

Secondly, if your argument is purely that human's reason and are more intelligent, then you should have no objection to eating severly mentally disabled people. If we could clone severly disabled children for their flesh, -So there are no parents involved whose interests need to be taken into account- no one loves these severly disabled babies - they have been cloned for the purpose of providing human society with food, would you object?

Why? I cannot see how you would escape the charge of specism. ie, well they are like me, so it matters. Is trhis not what all prejudiced views think, that the 'other' is not like them.

We need to compare like with like, when it comes to animal cruelty - we are comparing pain, stress, fear etc, it is that which all animals should be compared with, can tey feel pain, stress, fear etc. If we were comparing intelligence then your point would stand, that we are more intelligence - but since intelligence is not needed to feel pain, stress, fear etc., one is comparing chalk with cheese, if one wants to compare pain, fear and stress, then compare it with pain, fear and stress, not with skin colour, intelligence, height, sex, or with species.

what matters is can and does it feel fear and distress? species is irelevent. If it has a brain, nerves, senses then is can fear pain, fear and stress, be it human or not.

Moloth wrote:

By the same token, i find it perfectly tolerant of a wild animal to eat a human... its what they do, given the chance.

Well, most animals cannot make moral decisions - just as very young children, and some very sever brain damaged people are not capable of.

One cannot get a should from a could? I could kill you, but that does not mean I should. Yes, a wild carnivore animal has to kill to live, but that does not mean I have to kill to live, neither does it mean that I should kill.
You need to provide an animal for why youm as a rational moral human being should - and an argument that is not based simply on such minor self-interests as palatte.

Moloth wrote:

I am intolerant of the torture of animals... intentionally causing pain, anguish or discomfort merely for the sake of doing so. Kill the animal, quickly and painlessly as possible... that is STILL a far better fate for the creature than ANYTHING old Mother Nature had planned for it. THAT is a higher morality already.

Again, why is this relevent? Just because nature is nutral (neither cruel or kind - only moral intentional beings can be cruel or kind), why should you as a moral intentional being not take unintentional nature as your example. You do not do this about other things, some lower primates deliberately kill the young of their new mate(s)- not to eat them, but in order to ensure that the family they raise are their own off-spring.

Why not follow that example? If you are going to take unintentional nutral nature as your guidance for morality, then you seek to be moral on those issues you take nature as your example.

Whether you like it or not you are an intentional moral being, you cannot shirk off that fact. One cannot ignore it and claim to be ethical.

Moloth wrote:

...and just to annoy everyone... my brother and i went to Longhorns for dinner tonight. I had the New York Strip and my brother had a chicken sandwich.

Does not annoy me.

I would just ask why? Why be cruel on this issue, when one can so easily practice empathy. Who is the worse off for practising empathy? No one! Who is the better off?

I shall leave the thread pondering that question as I am sure by now one can guess what my answer would be.

nogods

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:29 pm

SvZurich wrote:

Richard, your points are pretty good. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with vat meat so long as it tastes properly like meat. I want catfish, deer, veal and mature beef, pork, turkey, chicken, lamb, gator, and many other varieties of meat to come from it. All of those meats have a distinctly different flavor from each other, one that I can detect. If this could come about (and someday it will so long as Fundies are ignored), I will be happy to have meat without causing any harm.

Richard, are you familiar with Super Tasters? We are a small percentage of the populace that have super sensitive taste buds that react negatively to cause violent gag reflexes upon tasting many/most vegatables. It is not psychosematic. It is not an act. It is a physical reaction triggered by some chemical in many vegatables that our taste buds react to as if it is a poison. This leads to us becoming very picky eaters lest we have a reaction. I mean the gagging with watery eyes at best reaction, loss of stomache contents at worst reaction.

Now I can eat most beans, love corn, potatoes, spicy peppers, peas, and similar starchy vegatables. If broccoli is steamed to the point that it becomes super soft, I can eat it as the chemical is broken down. I can even do lettuce in small amounts. That's about the limit of my ability to eat vegatables. I don't even like onions and will use garlic instead when possible. I can't even get used to the taste of alcohol. Yuck!

This condition is assumed to have arisen from a time when primative man had to be careful about what was consumed lest it be laden with toxins. I do believe it has outlived its purpose in the modern day, but I have not found a way to desensitize myself. For such a person as I, I cannot agree that Veganism is a valid option.

I respect your position, but just want you to realize that not everyone can hope to follow your path, not even if we come to agree with your position morally.

And because I don't remember if I did this already or not, I will take the time to do so now...

Welcome Richard! Merry Mithras Day and a belated happy welcome to thee!

Kimmie, Loki's little Valkyrie.

Hi Kimmie,

You raise an interesting point, let us say, for the sake of argument it is totally valid, then all it shows is why Super Tasters may have to be omnivoures, but since that is only a small amount of the population, the vast majority of people still have to be vegan.

As for supertasters, yes they will have a more limited dietry choice, but no more then people who suffer from severe meat allergies, who avoid meat not for ethical reasons, but for medical.

Also, there is now so much food alternatives for vegans that even supertasters should be able to find somethings to their liking. Usually, we think of food as meat and two vedg - either in a casserole or on a plate etc.

However, this is cultural - not to say this is not a difficulty (In the nature - nurture debate I nearly always comeout on the said of nurture), but there are many other ways to approach food.

The thing is to go about it slowly. Try alternatives, there are loads to try. Find dishes that you enjoy, and slowly, over time, replace the meat with these. It does not have to be a fast process, but it can be done. If one chooses.

As for those who are not supertasters, what's your excuse;-)

nogods

nogods


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore