Where are the Omnivores?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

Quote:

...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.

lol

now, i have an uncle who's been a butcher for 15 years, and when richard said that cows scream, let me tell you, my uncle described it the same way with sheep. they try as much as possible to make sure that sheep do not see the other sheep get killed, but when they do, my uncle says it's the most horrible thing you ever hear in your life. it's totally different then other their normal sounds, he says. what he says he does then is takes that one out right away and tries to end it's misery right away. he says it's the worst part of the job. personally, i would never be able do what he does, ever.

BUT what he does say is they try to do things as morally as possible. this isnt one of these huge mass killing facilities that i think richard use to. everything is done by hand, not machines, which is how McDonald's shit is made. I've stopped eating fast food stuff a long time ago because of the way animals are truly just treated as nothing more then shit.

My uncle said a sheep had stuck it's head out around the pen once, and he didnt notice it until it screamed as he killed the sheep he had in the butcher area. he had to pull it out and kill it fast because what he's experienced is that the scream becomes contagious and the other sheep will get worked up from the one who saw another sheep get killed. now, even though this is the most moral (maybe? i have no idea...) this shows me that these sheep were truly able to understand distress and it makes me really re-examine everything about how we eat food.

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:32 am

fattychunks wrote:

Quote:

...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.

lol

now, i have an uncle who's been a butcher for 15 years, and when richard said that cows scream, let me tell you, my uncle described it the same way with sheep. they try as much as possible to make sure that sheep do not see the other sheep get killed, but when they do, my uncle says it's the most horrible thing you ever hear in your life. it's totally different then other their normal sounds, he says. what he says he does then is takes that one out right away and tries to end it's misery right away. he says it's the worst part of the job. personally, i would never be able do what he does, ever.

I suppose one of the reasons I was always open to vegan arguments, and quickly went vegan after reading only one book on the subject, I knew no vegans at the time, was because as a child I lived near a slaughter house.

I passed it on the way to school, I always avoided going that way on Tuesday afternoons and Thursday mornings, because that was when the pigs were slaughtered. The squeels that could be heard if one walked too near that place were blood-curdling. I always fely uncomfortable about eating meat as a result.

If only pigs were not so blody tasty. A friend sent me a vegan Xmas card lasy year. It was a cartoon of three cows in a field, a fairy god-mother was granting them three wishes. The first two cows ask for a warmer barn, better food etc, the last cow said "I have only one wish 'Please make cattle taste really really fowl.' "

nogods

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:44 am

Nogods, if I had experienced what you did, I might have had the exact same reaction. *hugs*

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:55 am

SvZurich wrote:

Nogods, if I had experienced what you did, I might have had the exact same reaction. *hugs*

Hi Kimmie,

One of the problems with raising this subject, is that one can easily come across as self-rightous and smug.

I am not, smug and holier-then-thou, (at least I hope not), and I certainly do not make a judgement about individual meat eaters (I use to be one), merely about meat eating itself.

nogods

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:07 am

No worries darlin. After you and I first tussled on a vegan discussion, I came to realize that you are not a Fundie about it. You do not seek to force your way upon me, and I have no wish to force my way upon you, my friend.

How is Tokyo this time of year? It was summer 1997 when I visited for a day, and very hot and humid back then.

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:32 am

It seems that the primary point is that of morality... THAT is why i bring up OTHER aspects of 'moral living' such as electricity, cars and computers.

I'm saying that if you want to make the world a better place, and live morally, why stop at diet? isn't that just taking the easy way out? I mean, for you/us 2%ers, its EASY to live a vegan life, as you've stated many times...

Instead of stopping HUMAN suffering (wars, homelessness, starvation, injustice) you seem to be FAR more concerned with the fates of animals that have been created for the sole purpose of foodstuff.

You are willing to put forth the self admitted minuscule amount of effort to ease the lives of some non-sentient animals, but when it comes to HUMAN suffering just how much effort do you put into that?

Do you support wars and the rape and murder of women and children? If you live in America and you pay taxes, yes... yes you do. In the same way that buying lipstick supports the cruelty towards animals (and should obviously stop on moral grounds) then why not move to Switzerland and stop supporting the destruction and misery of HUMAN life.

Yes, you're talking about diet... but your talking about diet, not on a taste, cultural or sustenance level, but on a much deeper moral level. If the GOAL of your diet is to ease suffering, then the easing of the suffering is you goal and eating what you want comes second, correct? SO lets take this line of thought to its logical conclusion.

I AM NOT advocating a " 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. " i am pointing out that your concerns and efforts are depressingly misplaced... When there is HUMAN suffering in the world, do you put just as much effort into your lifestyle into alleviating THAT, or do you simply save the chickens and call it a day?

My point isn't "one can't stop ALL crime, so why stop any?" that is a straw man made to misrepresent my position.
Its "one can't stop all crime, so stop the most heinous ones before spending energy on the minor ones."
In the scheme of life, in human experience, i am more concerned with the fates of fellow humans than of the monumentally stupid and non-sentient ground fowl that is between my slices of bread.

If you put the effort into saving HUMAN life and alleviating HUMAN suffering that you do into saving the cows and chickens, maybe us upper 2%ers (or whatever the number may be) could one day have the luxury of being concerned more of where our food comes from. once we take care of some big issues, then we will all be able to take a long, hard look at what our diets cause in other creatures.

You try to point out that eating meat is immoral and should stop.
I'm pointing out that if morality is the basis for your diet, why isn't it the basis for other, MUCH more important and pressing aspects of life, first?

You accuse omnivores of being morally and intellectually lazy/hypocritical because of our acceptance of eating bloody slabs of still-sobbing suffering. Isn't it just as lazy/hypocritical to NOT put effort into MORE moral actions, given the chance?

Some of us are simply more concerned with what we see as other, more importnant things. Just as you're NOT doing everything you can to stop human suffering, i am not doing all that i can to stop animal suffering. we seem to both gain something for that selfishness. We, as individuals have different levels of tolerance for different aspects of life. If you're going to put so much effort into ONE aspect, why not put that effort into more important, more effective aspects first? wouldn't THAT be the more moral thing to do? If morality is the goal, aren't there better ways of spending your effort for now?

In the end, the Vegan position IS very solid... but so is the pacifist position. No one is going to argue, "well, yes.. Wars are good and necessary" just as anyone is going to say "killing things to eat it is moral". In the perfect world, we wouldn't even need to kill plants to live. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have wars either. lets tackle the important issues before wasting too much effort and time on the minor ones.

And, by the way, tofu is NOT vat-meat, so don't EVEN try to make that comparison. Vat-meat is meat. Tofu is not meat. meat is meat.

Just as your experiences in life can turn you off to meat, you MUST admit that it is purely circumstantial. If you were a tribesman in Africa, and you and your family would starve without the slaughter of cattle, surely you admit that you see this situation in a completely different way. the morality situation would be COMPLETELY different... you'd not be worrying about the fate of the cow, but of your family. it would be the moral thing to do.

If you're a upper 2%er, wouldn't the more moral thing to do be to more concerned about human welfare, still? Have we really reached a point where the well-being of farm animals outweighs the well-being of humans? You're part of the infra structure that effects both... and you choose to be concerned with the animals?

EDIT: also, please be aware that i am NOT the best or most qualified to debate about this topic... i'm a layperson and have NO formal education in diets or veganism. I'm sure that i'm missing important and profound 'pro-meat' arguments... i'm just putting my own personal reasons and thought-processes out there. Smile

As an individualist, i fully support the personal choice of an omnivorous, vegetarian or vegan diet. Whatever makes you happy.

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 3:44 am

The energy loss argument is moot. The energy comes from the sun, which is renewable.

However, bioavailibility is a concern of mine. Non-animal based food matter has extremely low bioavailibility, while animal based food matter has an extremely high bioavailibility.

Fiber is good for aiding digestion, but you've got to eat a LOT of it in order to get enough nutrients and calories to live a healthy life.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

Quote:

instead of stopping HUMAN suffering (wars, homelessness, starvation, injustice) you seem to be FAR more concerned with the fates of animals that have been created for the sole purpose of foodstuff.

this is where i see the flaw of veganism right now. though i definately wish we had no suffering at all, the human suffering has to be #1 priority on the global scale. but if we can anything at all to end at least a little suffering, period, then i see where vegans come in. yet suffering is life, everything suffers. then it's just up to tolerance and accessibility to end that suffering.

Just Arrived Joined: Oct 26, 2005 Posts: 8

fattychunks wrote:

Quote:

instead of stopping HUMAN suffering (wars, homelessness, starvation, injustice) you seem to be FAR more concerned with the fates of animals that have been created for the sole purpose of foodstuff.

this is where i see the flaw of veganism right now. though i definately wish we had no suffering at all, the human suffering has to be #1 priority on the global scale. but if we can anything at all to end at least a little suffering, period, then i see where vegans come in. yet suffering is life, everything suffers. then it's just up to tolerance and accessibility to end that suffering.

Chunks,

There is nothing wrong with stating that human problems come first. However, I do not believe this line of thinking poses any threat to veganism for two reasons.

First, as I pointed out on the show, the current methods of producing meat, eggs, and dairy in mass quanities creates problems that are human problems.

Second, as Peter Singer stated, when people claim that human problems come first, I can't help wondering what it is they are doing to eliminate human suffering that compels them to continue to exploit the cruel exploitation of farm animals. Thus, as I also pointed out briefly on the show, going vegan is just a dietary change. You are going to spend time eating anyway so it's not something that really requires any of your free time. Plus many people find that they live on a vegan diet cheaper and thus free up funds that they could then donate to philanthropic efforts.

So what's the conclusion? Not only does eating vegan eliminate certain human problems, it does nothing to distract from our ability to work on solving them and may even aid those efforts.

I agree with Moloth that this issue does come down to an issue of tolerances. However, we also agreed that eating meat and other animal products is a moral issue that he's simply too apathetic and lazy to work on. This simply means that his personal level of tolerance allows him to lead an inconsistent lifestyle. I do not mean to attack him personally--he admitted that.

For some reason Moloth imagines that he has a good point by bringing up other issues where we damage our environment. Certainly driving cars counts. But this sort of argument is absurd. It boils down to him claiming, "Well, you're a hypocrite too , so lets both turn a blind eye on the situation." No, I won't. We need to focus on all issues like those Moloth addresses and weigh the consequences and consider our alternatives. When it comes to our diet, the choice appears obvious as even Moloth admits--veganism is the most moral decision.

I find two things striking when debating veganism. First, it is harder to convince someone to adopt a vegan diet than to leave theism. I'm not kidding. Second, most atheists who argue against veganism display a level of inconsistency in doing so that they would never tolerate in theistic arguments. (perhaps those are variations of the same point)

What I may have not made clear yet is that I'm not asking everyone to just become vegan tomorrow. It's not that easy. The chances are that most people have many habits they'd need to break and a lot of adjusting to do. Just as I didn't become an atheist overnight, but rather came to freethought at the end of a long process, so might many people need to make small changes to their diet over time. Perhaps cut out meat on certain days of the week or limit yourself to certain kinds of meat, then eventually both. Maybe start buying organic milk or using soy milk (I suggest Silk Enhanced) in your cereal (you won't even tell the difference!). Maybe just try some imitation meats and see how you like the taste. If your grocery store doesn't have any (but they probably do), ask them to start carrying it. They'll listen to you.

In doing this you'll find yourself feeling better both physically and mentally. Don't just dismiss veganism because you can't make the jump all at once--I couldn't either! I was vegetarian for a few years before I ever tried veganism. Then, I even went back to vegetarianism a couple of times. Of course my reasons for going vegan the first time were questionable, but nevertheless it was a process.

Don't be afraid to get started! You'll be glad you did.

But, at the same time, be careful not to start eating enormous amounts of things like cheese and french fries after giving up meat. Be smart about it Wink

Richard

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

i sincerely wish i could even slowly make the change, but i'm poor as hell. i eat a lot of noodles, so almost unwillingly i think i'm vegan? haha

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:32 am

fattychunks wrote:

Quote:

instead of stopping HUMAN suffering (wars, homelessness, starvation, injustice) you seem to be FAR more concerned with the fates of animals that have been created for the sole purpose of foodstuff.

this is where i see the flaw of veganism right now. though i definately wish we had no suffering at all, the human suffering has to be #1 priority on the global scale. but if we can anything at all to end at least a little suffering, period, then i see where vegans come in. yet suffering is life, everything suffers. then it's just up to tolerance and accessibility to end that suffering.

Hi fattychunks,

I shall be replying to Moloth's post, but you found one of the more intersting quote, and so wanted to reply to that.

First of all, who says that vegans are more concerned about animal suffering as opposed to human suffering? Why the assumption that the one excludes the other?

Most vegans I know would be shocked to think that they care not a fig for human suffering, in fact the very basis of ethical veganism naturally includes human suffering. To give a short summary of Vegan ethics, it goes something like this

Since unnecessary Animal suffering should be avoided (The Golden rule - Do not do to others, what you do not want others to do to you.), therefore one should do what one can not to be the cause of unnecessary suffering.

What I would ask is 'Where does the above exclude human beings?'

Human beings are animals, not to be concerned about the removal of unnecessary human suffering, is not to be concerned about removing unnecessary animal suffering, since human's are animals. Therefore, the very basis of vegan ethics, includes a natural concern for human suffering, since human's are animals too.

It is this point that usually annoys people who oppose vegan ethics, or seek to avoid examining their own conscience in light of those ethics. Many people dislike being classified as an animal. But for atheists, what are we? We are not God's creatures? We do not have a soul? We do not have intrinsic value, 'sanctity of human life' has no meaning, in and of itself, in an athiest universe. So of course we human beings are animals.

Therefore vegan ethics includes human suffering, it does not exclude it.

The ones being exclusive are those who view animal suffering as unimportant, as if the tinniest amount of human suffering, is always worth more then the greatest amount of non-human animal suffering? But on what bases is this made?

In fact it is worse then this, they assume that human pleasure, ie, the palatte, is worth more then animal suffering. If you place their pleasure on one side of their scales of justice, and animal suffering on the other, then they measure the pleasure of their palette, as more important then the suffering of non-human animals. I can see no ethical validity in such crooked scales of jusitice.

Moloth wrote:

"Instead of stopping HUMAN suffering (wars, homelessness, starvation, injustice) you seem to be FAR more concerned with the fates of animals that have been created for the sole purpose of foodstuff.

How does Moloth know that I, or other ethical vegan's are 'FAR' more concerned? What I suspect Moloth dislikes, is that ethical vegans are 'EQUALLY' concerned.

Removing unnecessary animal suffering through becoming vegan, is easy to do, time and effort wise. One has to eat, whether one is an omnivore or a vegan. It is not as if vegans cannot be involved in other issues, because being vegan they have to eat, while omnivores do have the concern to be invloved in other ethical issues, because they do not have to worry about this pesky thing called eating using up their precious time.

So this and/or argument is simply false.

Moloth wrote:

you seem to be FAR more concerned with the fates of animals that have been created for the sole purpose of foodstuff.

On what evidence is this claim made? None!

You know nothing about me, Richard, and I suspect the vast majority of vegans in the USA or UK.

As a vegan I am concerned about other issues, for example - third world debt is something that greatly concerns me, which is why I do what I can to actively support the Jubilee Campaign, and its call for the cancellation of all third world debt.

I also give 10% of my income to Oxfam. I have done this for a number of years. I felt ethically that I should do this, for the same ethical reasons I am vegan. I can make a contribution to reducing suffering.

Peter Singer, a person whose ethical writings have had a marked effect on my lifestyle, pursuaded me of the need to give to third world charities with his arguements about absolute poverty v absolute wealth. The ethical basis for me doing this, is exactly the same ethical basis for my veganism. (You can find this argument in Singer's book "Pratical Ethics" - which I highly recommend).

So, I know from my own experience, and the experiences of other vegans that I know, that the claim ethical vegans are not concerned about the suffering of human animals, is in most cases false.

When it comes to ethical concerns, there are somethings we can do which have an immediate effect for the good. For example, along with millions of others around the world, I campaigned against the invasion of Iraq. Despite all the efforts millions of people but in to this, the democratic wish of the world's majority was ignored, and the war went ahead.

Yet, I do not have to worry that my efforts to remove some animal suffering will not be effect, I know - and not just hope- that by going vegan some animal suffering is reduced. And not only that, but I still have as much free time, as I would have if my diet included animal products, to campaign on other issues.

Peter Singer has very little time for people who present the argument Moloth has presented here, he would ask right out "What are these moral concerns that you campaign about that mean you have no time to change your diet?" Like Singer, I suspect the answer is "those who ask such questions, are unlikely to be involved, in any meaningful way, in other ethical campaigns.

Matthew Scully says it very well when he said

Quote:

Animal Suffering is not a moral problem to be solved, but a moral opportunity to fill our own lives with acts of compassion. Kindness to animals is not our most imprtant duty as human beings, nor is it our least important. How we treat our fellow creatures is only one more way in which each one of us, every day, write our own epitaph - bearing into the world a message of light and life or just more darkness and death, adding to the world's joy or despair.

One can argue that kindness to animals is amongst the lesser concerns of human charity - and for that reason one of the easiest to be dismissed. And it is true that they will always be enough injustice and human suffering in the world to make the wrong done to animals seem small and secondary. Though surely justice is not a finite commodity, nor is kindness, or compassion.

Where we find wrongs done to animals, it is no excuse to say that more imprtant wrongs are done to human beings, so let us concentrate just on those. A wrong is a wrong, and often the little ones, when they are shrugged off as nothing, spread and do the greatest harm to ourselves and others. When a small simple act of kindness, that can be so easily offered, is dismissed as irksome, we are unlikely to find ourselves moved to remove greater acts of suffering that demand greater effort.

Moloth talks about "animals that have been created for the sole purpose of foodstuff"

Is any animal's sole purpose to be food stuff? Is this not a denial of what it is to to be a human animal? a moral being? We are able to see the world seperate from our own needs and desires, we can recognise 'another' as being other then us, with their own needs and purposes.

If we see any animal merely as 'foodstuff', are we not denying the very conscious awareness that we claim to value so much - and is used by some to justify animals 'sole purpose as foodstuff'. Do we not become less conscious, and more ruled merely by our appetites, what 'specists', may call our animal passions?

If we see animals merely as foodstuuf, is this not to deny them of any being, of any relation with us in the evolutionary web of life. That they too have nerves and brains; blood and bone. That they too seek safety; food; shelter; etc. They are living beings - no matter how small their capacity for happiness may be surely it is not something to be taken lightly, not soemthing to be withdrawn wantonly or caprisciously.

When kindness to animals costs us so little, are we more or less of a person when we withhold it?

nogods

Just Arrived Joined: Oct 26, 2005 Posts: 8

nogods wrote:

You know nothing about me, Richard, and I suspect the vast majority of vegans in the USA or UK.

I'm pretty sure you meant to direct this comment to Scott, not me. Confused

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:01 am

SkepDick wrote:

nogods wrote:

You know nothing about me, Richard, and I suspect the vast majority of vegans in the USA or UK.

I'm pretty sure you meant to direct this comment to Scott, not me. Confused

Hi Richard,

Sorry, I meant it to be inclusive, ie, Scott knows nothing about me, Richard and I suspect the vast majority of vegans in the USA or UK.

Hope that makes it clear.

Thanks for the show, I thought you did a good job of explaining the vegan position.

nogods

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:26 am

Richard did an excellent job of explaining his position, i think.

Quote:

Is any animal's sole purpose to be food stuff?

please define us the other purposes for krill. Life is about reproduction. To reproduce, one must consume matter and energy. the best place to gain matter and energy is from other living organisms... be they plant or animal.

Quote:

If we see animals merely as foodstuuf, is this not to deny them of any being, of any relation with us in the evolutionary web of life. That they too have nerves and brains; blood and bone. That they too seek safety; food; shelter; etc. They are living beings - no matter how small their capacity for happiness may be surely it is not something to be taken lightly, not soemthing to be withdrawn wantonly or caprisciously.

When kindness to animals costs us so little, are we more or less of a person when we withhold it?

we are not denying their place in the web of life... we are affirming it. tell me.. the strands that make up the web.. what do they signify? what do the arrows MEAN?

Just Arrived Joined: Oct 26, 2005 Posts: 8

Ahhh, I get it now. I guess it could be taken either way.

Thanks for the compliment on the show. There are a few things I wish had been better. For example, the 1 to 100 ratio I mixed up (and repeated three times Embarassed

).

Also, when I said using animals as tools doesn't sit well with me, it came just before we took a call. It could have easily sounded like an appeal to emotion since I didn't justifify the point at that time.

I also said that roaches are gross and shrimp eat shit. I was just joking around a little to keep the conversation light, but as I listened through the debate I realized that I made those comments when I could have been pushing an argument.

I know that Moloth came to the debate with less time to prepare than I had, but I still wasn't quite prepared. I had planned to debate Ross who would have argued primarily from a nutritional standpoint. When he cancelled I thought the show would be cancelled. But when Moloth volunteered at the last minute I had to pull together my arguments. I only spent about two hours preparing right before the show and most of that was spent writing my introduction.

In other words, if given the opportunity to debate the issue again, I feel that I would do better.

Richard


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