Vegetarianism

MungBean

I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not trying to start a row here or anything but I was wonder what reasons people have for not eating meat.

I dont want to hear this "Its murder" business I want the reasoning behind it. It seems like an intelligent decision to decide only to eat vegetables so as not to needlessly kill animals. But each time I think on it I come to the same conclusion. That human beings have evolved to eat meat, just as we have evolved to eat vegetables. Neither animal or vegetable are conscious, they are both just biological lifeforms. Whats the difference ? What is it that makes taking the life of one worse than taking the life of the other. Would growing meat in a test tube eliminate the problem ? If not why not ?

I'm genuinely wanting to get some clarity on this as it seems like the logical intelligent way for humans to progress but I cant seem to understand why.

wild heather

I've been a vegetarian for over 1/2 of my life and doing well. On saying that I know of a lot of former vegetarians back to eating meat because of health reasons so there must be a need for it. I think this might be more important for some more than others. Stopped eating meat for the usual reasons but never really liked meat or fish that much as a child. I suppose now I just don't like seeing the results of human violence or destruction on my plate. Vegetarianism isn't easy but has got easier to buy basics to cook at home or order a meal in restaurant; I used to get a meat dish minus the meat and still charged the same!
Animals have feelings and are intelligent in their own way they are not the same as vegetables, there is much more strict regs governing slaughtering of animals but I can't deal with the violence.

MungBean

wild heather wrote: »

I've been a vegetarian for over 1/2 of my life and doing well. On saying that I know of a lot of former vegetarians back to eating meat because of health reasons so there must be a need for it. I think this might be more important for some more than others. Stopped eating meat for the usual reasons but never really liked meat or fish that much as a child. I suppose now I just don't like seeing the results of human violence or destruction on my plate. Vegetarianism isn't easy but has got easier to buy basics to cook at home or order a meal in restaurant; I used to get a meat dish minus the meat and still charged the same!
Animals have feelings and are intelligent in their own way they are not the same as vegetables, there is much more strict regs governing slaughtering of animals but I can't deal with the violence.

By feelings you mean they feel pain ? So if the killing was pain free it would be ok ? Not trying to put words in your mouth just trying to understand the point. And can they really be considered intelligent as such ? A cow exists, it has needs and it reacts to those needs the same as a plant or vegetable. I understand that they may be more dynamic life forms but I'm not sure it that makes them intelligent as such.

I understand some people dont like violence and see the killing of animals for food as violent. But is it any different than protecting yourself with violence ? Sometime violence is necessary, whether its pleasant or not. And then if the animal is killed quickly without pain is it violent or is the act just shocking ?

The fact that some people have had to return to meat eating due to health reasons is interesting. Is there not supplements that can be taken to make up for the lack of meat in your diet ?

It wasn't me!

You're going to have an impact one way or another. Either animals are killed directly to feed you because they're being bred for your consumption and natural habitat is removed and directed towards animal husbandry or they're being killed because their habitat is removed to provide room for arable farm land. The illusion that a vegetarian diet doesn't have an appreciable detrimental impact on animal life is just that. If you're going to have an impact anyway, may as well get a steak out of it.

bronte

I just don't like meat. That's why I don't eat it.

Bootsy.

Skunkle wrote: »

Neither animal or vegetable are conscious, they are both just biological lifeforms. Whats the difference ?

I don't think you understand animals.

To say that animals and vegetables are basically the same is very wrong.

Animals are sentient beings, they feel pain, and pleasure, they suffer.

Pigs are very intelligent and have out-performed young children in various tests, leading some people to conclude that pigs are more intelligent than the average 3 year old.

Altough they might not look it, chickens are very intelligent. Woodpeckers and octopus can use tools. Crows and the like are very intelligent too.

Elephants mourn the loss of loved ones and cows can hold grudges.

Our human digestive system is much more suited to a vegetarian diet and not very suitable for eating meat.
There is loads of info on this if you do a search.
Here's one article: http://blog.atmajyoti.org/2008/04/humans-are-we-carnivores-or-vegetarians-by-nature/

And to hear the terrified screaming and horrific howls of agony from half-butchered, still alive pigs and cows being dragged though a slaughterhouse would make you think differently.

I recommend you watch this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/earthlings/

MungBean

Bootsy. wrote: »

I don't think you understand animals.

To say that animals and vegetables are basically the same is very wrong.

Animals are sentient beings, they feel pain, and pleasure, they suffer.

Pigs are very intelligent and have out-performed young children in various tests, leading some people to conclude that pigs are more intelligent than the average 3 year old.

Altough they might not look it, chickens are very intelligent. Woodpeckers and octopus can use tools. Crows and the like are very intelligent too.

Elephants mourn the loss of loved ones and cows can hold grudges.

I didnt mean that they were the same level of intelligence as vegetables I was only wondering what the difference in the act of killing them for consumption was. As to the intelligence you allow them though it is a valid argument. But as certain animals would not be classed as intelligent as another one does that mean that its more acceptable to kill those not considered intelligent or who have shown no ability or characteristics of an intelligent animal.

Its interesting that you describe them as sentient. I wouldnt have used that to describe them myself. Is it the ability to suffer ? Or what people perceive as suffering that grants them that title ? Can they actually have subjective experiences ? If intelligence was the reason you think it wrong to kill something for food would you advocate killing and eating a non intelligent species or member of that species ? If they were shown to lack the characteristics of intelligence ?

Our human digestive system is much more suited to a vegetarian diet and not very suitable for eating meat.
There is loads of info on this if you do a search.
Here's one article: http://blog.atmajyoti.org/2008/04/humans-are-we-carnivores-or-vegetarians-by-nature/

I know very little on this topic but that blog you linked seems rather simplistic and to be honest almost farcical.

• Meat-eaters: have claws
  Herbivores: no claws
  Humans: no claws

• Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
  Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
  Humans: perspire through skin pores

• Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
  Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
  Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

I dont see how anyone can see this type of thing as proof or even a reasonable position of why humans are not natural carnivores.

And to hear the terrified screaming and horrific howls of agony from half-butchered, still alive pigs and cows being dragged though a slaughterhouse would make you think differently.

I recommend you watch this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/earthlings/

I dont think anyone on either side of the debate advocates cruelty. I'm not looking to be shocked into changing my views based on how cruel some humans can be. I'm just trying to look at this reasonably and if at the end I believe there is no reason and no justification to eat meat then I will change accordingly.

MungBean

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You're going to have an impact one way or another. Either animals are killed directly to feed you because they're being bred for your consumption and natural habitat is removed and directed towards animal husbandry or they're being killed because their habitat is removed to provide room for arable farm land. The illusion that a vegetarian diet doesn't have an appreciable detrimental impact on animal life is just that. If you're going to have an impact anyway, may as well get a steak out of it.

I dont think restricting the growth of a population of animals is quite the same as breading them for slaughter though. Which is what I'm getting at, I'm trying to determine is it right to kill and eat an animal.

I understand your point that some people might be naive in thinking they are saving animals or species by changing to a diet where by creating a demand for a certain food and affecting the species in a detrimental way anyway.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Skunkle wrote: »

I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not trying to start a row here or anything but I was wonder what reasons people have for not eating meat.

I dont want to hear this "Its murder" business I want the reasoning behind it. It seems like an intelligent decision to decide only to eat vegetables so as not to needlessly kill animals. But each time I think on it I come to the same conclusion. That human beings have evolved to eat meat, just as we have evolved to eat vegetables. Neither animal or vegetable are conscious, they are both just biological lifeforms. Whats the difference ? What is it that makes taking the life of one worse than taking the life of the other. Would growing meat in a test tube eliminate the problem ? If not why not ?

I'm genuinely wanting to get some clarity on this as it seems like the logical intelligent way for humans to progress but I cant seem to understand why.

I really don't see why this is brought up so often. The human body is constructed in such a way that we can eat meat and plants, yes. It has also evolved with a brain capable of empathy and making moral and ethical decisions, and which has enabled many of us to live in societies where it simply isn't necessary to eat meat.

I've been vegetarian for my whole life, and for whoever said above that they knew some people who went back to eating meat for health reasons, they were doing it wrong.

As for why I don't eat meat...not to be too simplistic about it but basically I like animals but I find their dead flesh pretty disgusting. There is no reason to eat it, so I don't. And yes I know it's tasty, I've been told that many many times, that's not enough of a reason for me. I hear heroin is pretty enjoyable but I'm not running off to try that either. Come to think of it, I'd imagine human flesh is pretty tasty too, mere tastiness really isn't an argument.

MungBean

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

I really don't see why this is brought up so often. The human body is constructed in such a way that we can eat meat and plants, yes. It has also evolved with a brain capable of empathy and making moral and ethical decisions, and which has enabled many of us to live in societies where it simply isn't necessary to eat meat.

I think its brought up so often because its a very credible point. We are the result of the evolutionary process. I know consciousness makes us the master of our own actions now but I dont understand why all of a sudden its wrong to eat meat. If your main point is theres no need to eat meet as we have other options then thats a different point altogether. One which may encourage more people to switch their diets. But if you chose to eat meat as opposed to other things why is that an immoral act ?

I've been vegetarian for my whole life, and for whoever said above that they knew some people who went back to eating meat for health reasons, they were doing it wrong.

I dont know anything about the health issues involved. I'm assuming with a vegetarian diet you have all the necessary vitamins and proteins and whatever isnt available in the food can be easily gotten via supplements. Correct ?

As for why I don't eat meat...not to be too simplistic about it but basically I like animals but I find their dead flesh pretty disgusting. There is no reason to eat it, so I don't. And yes I know it's tasty, I've been told that many many times, that's not enough of a reason for me. I hear heroin is pretty enjoyable but I'm not running off to try that either. Come to think of it, I'd imagine human flesh is pretty tasty too, mere tastiness really isn't an argument.

I'm looking for the reasoning behind it. Nobody here has mentioned anything about it being tasty as a reason to change, theres no point in arguing points that nobody has mentioned. Please dont use this thread as an excuse to attack meat eaters with that kinda stuff.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Skunkle wrote: »

I think its brought up so often because its a very credible point. We are the result of the evolutionary process. I know consciousness makes us the master of our own actions now but I dont understand why all of a sudden its wrong to eat meat. If your main point is theres no need to eat meet as we have other options then thats a different point altogether. One which may encourage more people to switch their diets. But if you chose to eat meat as opposed to other things why is that an immoral act ?

I don't see why it is a credible point though. People bring it up a lot as if the fact that our bodies "are designed" to be able digest meat = we should all eat meat, and I don't see how that follows, as far as I'm concerned our brain is the most interesting and important part of the way we've evolved, not our digestive tract. I'm not really comfortable saying that eating meat is immoral because I think it's a very personal choice and essentially comes down to emotional decisions or what an individual decides is enough of an issue to make them change their behaviours. Even within the group of meat-eaters some people decided that certain things are moral issues for them while others aren't, for example many people only eat free range meat. In my experience you can reason this out til the cows come home but people will react in completely different ways to the exact same information. But like I said, for me, the main issue is that there is no reason to eat meat, I don't really see it as a case of "why be a vegetarian" so much as "why not be a vegetarian".

I dont know anything about the health issues involved. I'm assuming with a vegetarian diet you have all the necessary vitamins and proteins and whatever isnt available in the food can be easily gotten via supplements. Correct ?

No need for supplements at all in a vegetarian diet, for vegans B12 is the only thing that isn't available from plant sources.

I'm looking for the reasoning behind it. Nobody here has mentioned anything about it being tasty as a reason to change, theres no point in arguing points that nobody has mentioned. Please dont use this thread as an excuse to attack meat eaters with that kinda stuff.

It was more of a preemptive strike, in each and every discussion I've had about this in the past that has been brought up, so I was just trying to cut it off before it began, much as you didn't want to hear the "it's murder" line, I didn't want to hear the "but it tastes so goooood" line


Also, if vegetarianism is something you're considering, I'm not sure if you realise but there's a vegan and vegetarian forum in the food and drink section, might be worth a look round for you.

MungBean

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

I don't see why it is a credible point though. People bring it up a lot as if the fact that our bodies "are designed" to be able digest meat = we should all eat meat, and I don't see how that follows. I'm not really comfortable saying that eating meat is immoral because I think it's a very personal choice and essentially comes down to emotional decisions or what an individual decides is enough of an issue to make them change their behaviours. Even within the group of meat-eaters some people decided that certain things are moral issues for them while others aren't, for example many people only eat free range meat. In my experience you can reason this out til the cows come home but people will react in completely different ways to the exact same information.

I think its credible because of what you said though. We are designed to eat meat. Where your argument falls down is when you say "=we should all eat meat". I'm not saying you should eat meat I'm saying whats wrong with eating meat. And if your of the view its a personal decision the the fact that our bodies have evolved to eat meat (over millions of years) is a hugely influential fact when it comes to people making that decision.

The issues of morals is clear enough I think. You either think it right or wrong to kill and eat an animal. If you do then that doesnt change the fact that cruelty is still wrong. So when people only eat free range they think its ok to eat meat as long as the animal doesnt suffer and its life relatively normal.

It was more of a preemptive strike, in each and every discussion I've had about this in the past that has been brought up, so I was just trying to cut it off before it began

Ok, just as long as it doesnt create an argument rather than prevent one

Also, if vegetarianism is something you're considering, I'm not sure if you realise but there's a vegan and vegetarian forum in the food and drink section, might be worth a look round for you.

I'll have a look round that thanks.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Skunkle wrote: »

I think its credible because of what you said though. We are designed to eat meat. Where your argument falls down is when you say "=we should all eat meat". I'm not saying you should eat meat I'm saying whats wrong with eating meat. And if your of the view its a personal decision the the fact that our bodies have evolved to eat meat (over millions of years) is a hugely influential fact when it comes to people making that decision.

Hmm, instead of saying "we should all eat meat" perhaps I should have said "Is a good enough reason to eat meat". And when you say our bodies have evolved to eat meat, it might be more accurate to say have evolved to be able to eat meat. As long as you do your homework, it's possible and very easy to live healthily and happily eating no meat, and in fact may even be some health benefits. Although, vegetarians tend to be from a more educated and higher socio-economic background, to smoke less and to have lower body masses, so that has to be taken into account. But, you're not going to do your body any harm by not eating meat, so I don't see that it has to be as influential a factor in the decision as you say.

The issues of morals is clear enough I think. You either think it right or wrong to kill and eat an animal. If you do then that doesnt change the fact that cruelty is still wrong. So when people only eat free range they think its ok to eat meat as long as the animal doesnt suffer and its life relatively normal.

Yes, but I think it's pretty cruel to needlessly kill an animal to eat it when it's in no way necessary for your survival or health, regardless of whether or not it was allowed to frolic merrily in a field while it was alive. At every step there's decisions to be made, people find the balance where they're comfortable and people will disagree on every point about whether the issue is important or worth changing their behaviour for.

MungBean

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

Hmm, instead of saying "we should all eat meat" perhaps I should have said "Is a good enough reason to eat meat". And when you say our bodies have evolved to eat meat, it might be more accurate to say have evolved to be able to eat meat. As long as you do your homework, it's possible and very easy to live healthily and happily eating no meat, and in fact may even be some health benefits. Although, vegetarians tend to be from a more educated and higher socio-economic background, to smoke less and to have lower body masses, so that has to be taken into account. But, you're not going to do your body any harm by not eating meat, so I don't see that it has to be as influential a factor in the decision as you say.

Evolved to eat/able to eat is the same thing. The fact that it takes extra effort and requires knowledge not available to everyone to live a health life as a vegetarian shows that even as a conscious human being with choice some people depend on meat to live a healthy life. I'm sure you wouldnt see a person living off the land as immoral because they kill rabbits for food.

In fact you said the following.

I'm not really comfortable saying that eating meat is immoral because I think it's a very personal choice and essentially comes down to emotional decisions or what an individual decides is enough of an issue to make them change their behaviours.

So if you take the fact that the morals of the situation are left to the individual what do they base their morals on ? What just pops into their head ? Or the history of the human being in relation to eating meat ? I think a lot of people see the fact that we have eaten meat for millions of years and the fact that our bodies have evolved to eat/be able to eat meat as a basis for where to set their morals on this subject. Its fine to say I think its wrong, but you have to have a reason. And just as your reason is we could just as easily eat other things instead so too can someone say I think its right because the human being has done it for millions of years and our bodies as they now are are designed to eat meat.

Yes, but I think it's pretty cruel to needlessly kill an animal to eat it when it's in no way necessary for your survival or health, regardless of whether or not it was allowed to frolic merrily in a field while it was alive. At every step there's decisions to be made, people find the balance where they're comfortable and people will disagree on every point about whether the issue is important or worth changing their behaviour for.

Cruel in what way ? People will disagree about most things but there has to be a fundamental point where its logical and reasonable to make a certain decision. Thats what I'm trying to find. I dont think its a matter of doing whatever you feel comfortable with because one mans comfort can be another mans misery.

Probably sounds like I'm arguing for eating meat but I'm not really, I'm just trying to hit the point where what I think about the situation falls down and when I reassess I might decide its wrong.

Neuro

The reasons for not eating meat are multiple. But, often times, the reasons provided are, in a broad philosophical sense, incoherent. (Note: This criticism can just as readily be levelled against meat eaters).

The reason I don't eat meat is because I am a utilitatian (specifically, a hedonistic worldview utilitarian), and hold that suffering, experienced by any sentient entity, is fundamentally bad, and that pleasure, is fundamentally good. That is, pleasure ought to be maximised, suffering minimised.

In general, by consuming meat, I indirectly increase the amount of net suffering in the world. This is becuse the suffering inflicted on an animal by modern factory farming methods is far in excess of the pleasure I gain by eating the animal once it is slaughtered. In other words, meat consumption is a negative sum game.

Now, for some caveats. I do not believe that there is a one-to-one correspondence between human and animal sentience. Therefore, in thought experiments where a hypothetical human is stuck on a desert island devoid of vegetation and all other food, but, for some reason, there is a chicken(!), I would condone the eating of the chicken by the human if this was her only means of survival (in other words, I don't have much time for Kant).

Nor do I oppose animal experimentation in the pursuit of drug development, as long as there is a reasonable expectation that:
i. The benefits to humans/other animals exceeds the suffering inflicted on the test animals.
ii. There is no alternative research approach that can avoid the use of animals.

To argue that we have evolved a perpensity for some particular behaviour does not give any moral credibility to that very same behaviour (cf. Hume's Is-Ought problem).

MungBean

Neuro wrote: »

The reasons for not eating meat are multiple. But, often times, the reasons provided are, in a broad philosophical sense, incoherent. (Note: This criticism can just as readily be levelled against meat eaters).

The reason I don't eat meat is because I am a utilitatian (specifically, a hedonistic worldview utilitarian), and hold that suffering, experienced by any sentient entity, is fundamentally bad, and that pleasure, is fundamentally good. That is, pleasure ought to be maximised, suffering minimised.

In general, by consuming meat, I indirectly increase the amount of net suffering in the world. This is becuse the suffering inflicted on an animal by modern factory farming methods is far in excess of the pleasure I gain by eating the animal once it is slaughtered. In other words, meat consumption is a negative sum game.

So as long as your pleasure outweighs the animals suffering its morally just ? How do you measure suffering or pleasure ?

Now, for some caveats. I do not believe that there is a one-to-one correspondence between human and animal sentience. Therefore, in thought experiments where a hypothetical human is stuck on a desert island devoid of vegetation and all other food, but, for some reason, there is a chicken(!), I would condone the eating of the chicken by the human if this was her only means of survival (in other words, I don't have much time for Kant).

But you would also condone it if the animal doesnt suffer. For me to go out and shoot a rabbit. Rabbit didnt see it coming, it was a clean kill, wasnt cruel and the animal didnt suffer. I gain pleasure from eating it therefore theres nothing wrong with it (according to yourself). To go one step further by your logic it would be acceptable to kill the animal for sport. Would I be correct in assuming you condone hunting for sport ?

Nor do I oppose animal experimentation in the pursuit of drug development, as long as there is a reasonable expectation that:
i. The benefits to humans/other animals exceeds the suffering inflicted on the test animals.
ii. There is no alternative research approach that can avoid the use of animals.

But its impossible to know the benefits (if any) of any given experiment. How do you measure something before it happens ? Your not offsetting the suffering of animals against the benefit to human your offsetting it against the possibility of a benefit to humans.

To argue that we have evolved a perpensity for some particular behaviour does not give any moral credibility to that very same behaviour (cf. Hume's Is-Ought problem).

I'm not arguing that it gives moral credibility I'm arguing that its a credible point and one which is of influence to many people when finding out where they stand on the matter.

Brittany Damp Neck

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

As long as you do your homework, it's possible and very easy to live healthily and happily eating no meat, and in fact may even be some health benefits. Although, vegetarians tend to be from a more educated and higher socio-economic background, to smoke less and to have lower body masses, so that has to be taken into account. But, you're not going to do your body any harm by not eating meat, so I don't see that it has to be as influential a factor in the decision as you say.

They tend to be from that background for a number of reasons, but the primary one being that the number of meat-eaters far outweigh those of Vegetarians so a comparison based on numbers (tend to) is silly...

The second part of the problem is when considering what Vegetarianism actually means to people. You talk as if all vegetarians agree as to what is part of the diet and what is not... but thats not the case. There are many different types of vegetarians all with different opinions of what is actually allowed... and what is not. I find it interesting the way some vegetarians will harp on about the poor animals but think eating fish is perfectly ok.. (But then these are also the vegetarians that will sneak off when nobody is looking for the occasional beef burger)

I'm not suggesting that you fall into that category of vegetarianism, but you have to admit that there are a lot of part-time vegetarianists who are looking to make a fashion statement rather than any real dedication or belief in what they're doing.

Personally, I like meat and vegetables. And I'm not going to lose any sleep over eating either.

Yes, but I think it's pretty cruel to needlessly kill an animal to eat it when it's in no way necessary for your survival or health, regardless of whether or not it was allowed to frolic merrily in a field while it was alive. At every step there's decisions to be made, people find the balance where they're comfortable and people will disagree on every point about whether the issue is important or worth changing their behaviour for.

Bingo... people will find their own threshold for what is allowable based on their own individual perspective. I know people who refuse to use vehicles that run on any kind of fossil fuels because it harms the world around them. They view such transport as being unnecessary because they can afford to pay for other forms of transport... but they'll think its perfectly ok to sit down in fancy restaraunt and eat Shark fin. Awesome.

Scanlas The 2nd

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

But, you're not going to do your body any harm by not eating meat, so I don't see that it has to be as influential a factor in the decision as you say.

.

By not eating meat and fish you do significant damage to your body. You will be much healthier with meat and fish in your diet so long as you eat vegetables as well. Google Paleo diet for proof.

seamus

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

By not eating meat and fish you do significant damage to your body. You will be much healthier with meat and fish in your diet so long as you eat vegetables as well. Google Paleo diet for proof.

12 years later and I'm still waiting for this "significant damage".

The paleo diet is fad nonsense. It's a no-carb diet, dressed up as some scientific examination of the tiny amount of evidence we had about the diets consumed by a previous evolutionary state of humans. In essence, you may as well say that we're better off eating bananas cos that's what our ancestors ate.
I'm pretty sick of the paleo evangelists passing it off as the new super-diet when there's little or no independent evidence to elevate it beyond any other.

My reason for vegetarianism is pretty much the same as Neuro's, though I wouldn't go to say that I'm utilitarian, as I haven't examined it that scientifically; "suffering, experienced by any sentient entity, is fundamentally bad, and that pleasure, is fundamentally good. That is, pleasure ought to be maximised, suffering minimised."

They way I usually describe it is that I won't eat anything that I wouldn't be prepared to kill and cook myself. I don't think it's OK to consume something just because the unpleasant bit has been conveniently done by someone else who's prepared to do it.

I have separate feelings in regards to animal rights and so forth which are separate from the above, but not altogther unconnected.

bronte

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

By not eating meat and fish you do significant damage to your body. You will be much healthier with meat and fish in your diet so long as you eat vegetables as well. Google Paleo diet for proof.

I'm 18 years without it and healthier than my meat eating sibling/friends etc.

nozzferrahhtoo

Skunkle wrote: »

I'm not a vegetarian ... I want the reasoning behind it.

I think peter Singer is considered to have written one of the more coherent books on the arguments for being vegetarian. I have not read it, so I am not yet converted myself. But if you are genuinely interested he might be the guy for you to read.

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

The second part of the problem is when considering what Vegetarianism actually means to people. You talk as if all vegetarians agree as to what is part of the diet and what is not... but thats not the case. There are many different types of vegetarians all with different opinions of what is actually allowed... and what is not. I find it interesting the way some vegetarians will harp on about the poor animals but think eating fish is perfectly ok.. (But then these are also the vegetarians that will sneak off when nobody is looking for the occasional beef burger)

Well, the first group are actually pescatarians, not vegetarians (although a lot of people are ignorant to this definition) while the second group are just idiots and not vegetarian at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that you fall into that category of vegetarianism, but you have to admit that there are a lot of part-time vegetarianists who are looking to make a fashion statement rather than any real dedication or belief in what they're doing.

You cant be part time veggie, you either are or you aren't. And since when do morons doing something for the statement of doing it reflect, negatively or positively, on the thing itself?

Deleted User wrote: »

Bingo... people will find their own threshold for what is allowable based on their own individual perspective. I know people who refuse to use vehicles that run on any kind of fossil fuels because it harms the world around them. They view such transport as being unnecessary because they can afford to pay for other forms of transport... but they'll think its perfectly ok to sit down in fancy restaurant and eat Shark fin. Awesome.

So they are hypocrites, so what? Any different from people who will eat cows, but are repulsed by just the thought of horse meat? What a lot of people seem to be ignoring when pointing this sort of thing out, is that these people probably recognise that they still are having an impact, but are still trying to minimize it as much as is possible. I know that I cant live without impacting on animals. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't minimize it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Skunkle wrote: »

Evolved to eat/able to eat is the same thing.

"Evolved to eat" to me implies that it is necessary to eat it, which isn't the case, that's the only issue I have with it.

The fact that it takes extra effort and requires knowledge not available to everyone to live a health life as a vegetarian shows that even as a conscious human being with choice some people depend on meat to live a healthy life.

In this society, the way most people are raised (depending on meat for the bulk of nearly every meal and for almost all protein in the diet) yes it does require effort and extra knowledge. If you were raised as I was, with no meat, it doesn't require any extra knowledge, if you were raised in certain parts of India it doesn't require extra knowledge. The knowledge required to live healthily as a vegetarian is available to anybody with an internet connection or access to a library, and really is very simple. I think people have such a reliance on meat that they think it's going to be a bigger deal than it is.

So if you take the fact that the morals of the situation are left to the individual what do they base their morals on ? What just pops into their head ? Or the history of the human being in relation to eating meat ? I think a lot of people see the fact that we have eaten meat for millions of years and the fact that our bodies have evolved to eat/be able to eat meat as a basis for where to set their morals on this subject. Its fine to say I think its wrong, but you have to have a reason. And just as your reason is we could just as easily eat other things instead so too can someone say I think its right because the human being has done it for millions of years and our bodies as they now are are designed to eat meat.

Look, I'm really not accepting this body argument, because as I've said it just is not necessary to eat meat. We also died at around age 30 for most of our history, so maybe that's when our bodies are "designed" to die but I don't see that as any kind of basis for an argument against modern medicine. As for what people base their morals on, I like neuro's post above. There's a vast amount of space between "popped into my head" and "cavemen did it".

Cruel in what way ? People will disagree about most things but there has to be a fundamental point where its logical and reasonable to make a certain decision. Thats what I'm trying to find. I dont think its a matter of doing whatever you feel comfortable with because one mans comfort can be another mans misery.

Cruel in that you are needlessly killing an animal for your own pleasure. It's not the manner of the animals death that makes it cruel to my eyes (though some are of course more cruel to others), it's the needlessness. But that doesn't seem cruel to a lot of people, and I don't think it's any failure of logic on either side really, just an irreconcilable difference in the temperaments of the individuals. You often hear people say that they hated eating meat before they even realised vegetarianism existed and that the day they found out about it they were delighted. And people who hunt are often some of the most loving and conscientious pet owners...that's why I'm very hesitant to say that eating meat is wrong or immoral, because I don't think that people who eat meat are doing anything that they see as wrong, and that's not (necessarily) dependent on them not having all the facts available to them or not having thought it through. Who was it that said that no person knowingly does wrong?

Probably sounds like I'm arguing for eating meat but I'm not really, I'm just trying to hit the point where what I think about the situation falls down and when I reassess I might decide its wrong.

Na I get you, I'm sorry I'm being so little help really.

Deleted User wrote: »

They tend to be from that background for a number of reasons, but the primary one being that the number of meat-eaters far outweigh those of Vegetarians so a comparison based on numbers (tend to) is silly...

If I'd left that out people might have inferred that I was saying that vegetarianism was responsible for any higher levels of general health vegetarians have, and would have been quite right to call me up on it.

The second part of the problem is when considering what Vegetarianism actually means to people. You talk as if all vegetarians agree as to what is part of the diet and what is not... but thats not the case. There are many different types of vegetarians all with different opinions of what is actually allowed... and what is not.I find it interesting the way some vegetarians will harp on about the poor animals but think eating fish is perfectly ok.. (But then these are also the vegetarians that will sneak off when nobody is looking for the occasional beef burger)

None of these people are vegetarian. And I'm sorry if it seems to you as if I'm talking on behalf of all vegetarians or as if we all think the same things, in this thread I am only offering my own opinion, which is different from that of plenty vegetarians. People who eat fish or burgers aren't vegetarians but I imagine their opinion is different from mine too.

I'm not suggesting that you fall into that category of vegetarianism, but you have to admit that there are a lot of part-time vegetarianists who are looking to make a fashion statement rather than any real dedication or belief in what they're doing.

No I don't fall into "that category of vegetarianism" as I am in fact an actual vegetarian. I freely admit that vegetarianism might be seen as a fashionable thing particularly among younger people, and you have to admit that that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

Personally, I like meat and vegetables. And I'm not going to lose any sleep over eating either.

That's grand I'm not recruiting, I'm not trying to guilt-trip, I'm fully aware that many (even most) people are happy to eat animals, it's a personal decision and anyways in my experience preaching does nothing positive, PETA would nearly make me want to eat a burger myself.

Bingo... people will find their own threshold for what is allowable based on their own individual perspective. I know people who refuse to use vehicles that run on any kind of fossil fuels because it harms the world around them. They view such transport as being unnecessary because they can afford to pay for other forms of transport... but they'll think its perfectly ok to sit down in fancy restaraunt and eat Shark fin. Awesome.

More strange and slightly irritating than awesome really :pac:

Scanlas The 2nd

bronte wrote: »

I'm 18 years without it and healthier than my meat eating sibling/friends etc.

Wouldn't be hard considering most people have crap diets. Try eating a paleo diet for one month and see how you feel. I'd almost guarantee you would feel much better and have more energy. I've done it for 7 weeks now and I've never felt better.

Scanlas The 2nd

seamus wrote: »

12 years later and I'm still waiting for this "significant damage".

The paleo diet is fad nonsense. It's a no-carb diet, dressed up as some scientific examination of the tiny amount of evidence we had about the diets consumed by a previous evolutionary state of humans. In essence, you may as well say that we're better off eating bananas cos that's what our ancestors ate.
I'm pretty sick of the paleo evangelists passing it off as the new super-diet when there's little or no independent evidence to elevate it beyond any other.

My reason for vegetarianism is pretty much the same as Neuro's, though I wouldn't go to say that I'm utilitarian, as I haven't examined it that scientifically; "suffering, experienced by any sentient entity, is fundamentally bad, and that pleasure, is fundamentally good. That is, pleasure ought to be maximised, suffering minimised."

They way I usually describe it is that I won't eat anything that I wouldn't be prepared to kill and cook myself. I don't think it's OK to consume something just because the unpleasant bit has been conveniently done by someone else who's prepared to do it.

I have separate feelings in regards to animal rights and so forth which are separate from the above, but not altogther unconnected.

I'm sure there are people eating diets full of fast food and still haven't seen significant damage. Much of problems we attribute to "aging" are caused by the modern diets containing grains, vegetable oil and sugar. If you were to eat a paleo diet you would feel, perform and look better now than otherwise. You just have to look at hunter gather fossils compared to farmers from the same time to see the massive damage agriculture has caused our bodies. The proof is there.

yawha

seamus wrote: »

They way I usually describe it is that I won't eat anything that I wouldn't be prepared to kill and cook myself. I don't think it's OK to consume something just because the unpleasant bit has been conveniently done by someone else who's prepared to do it.

On the other hand, I think it's potentially viewed as more unpleasant than it would be in a more "natural" situation of first hand exposure to it.

I also don't think that an animal being killed for food necessarily equates to it having had to suffer in any way throughout its life.

I'd be opposed to animal suffering, but not to ending the life of an animal prematurely or the consumption of animal flesh.

I don't think you can apply much logic to this question really though. All you can do is reason from an initial axiom based on empathy.

seamus

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I've done it for 7 weeks now and I've never felt better.

7 weeks? Come back when you've been sticking to it for five years. There will be a psychosomatic euphoric effect of such a dramatic change in diet, not least because you've probably lost weight, but also because you are consciously watching what you eat and avoiding foods which are likely to cause bloating or indigestion.

In exactly the same way that a veggie not eating fast food feels better than their peers, you likely feel better because you have improved your diet.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the paleo diet is specifically good, rather that any situation where you manage what you eat will result in an overall good feeling. That's a given.

Like most diets, the paleo diet advocates a reduction (or elimination) in the major foods which will lead to issues with one's disgestive system and overall sense of well-being; Coffee, alcohol, processed sugars & grains and high-fat foods.
Virtually every diet shares this common idea, and any human being will feel better for having done so without doing anything else.

yawha wrote: »

I also don't think that an animal being killed for food necessarily equates to it having had to suffer in any way throughout its life.

No, absolutely not, which is why my thoughts on animal rights don't specifically drive or impact on my rationale for vegetarianism. Though after seeing how Halal foods are prepared, it's fair to say that many animals do suffer in the name of food.

Mine is based along the same idea that if a judge can sentence someone to death, then the judge should be the one who presses the button which carries out the sentence. Likewise, the jury who recommends it should be legally compelled to sit and watch it carried out.
I have no problem with work being farmed out to someone else because you just don't fancy doing it, but it's a different ball game when you pay someone to do something which you find physically or morally abhorrent.

I couldn't stand in front of any animal and kill it because I want some dinner. So I can't justify having paid someone else to do it for me.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Wouldn't be hard considering most people have crap diets. Try eating a paleo diet for one month and see how you feel. I'd almost guarantee you would feel much better and have more energy. I've done it for 7 weeks now and I've never felt better.

Hm, well, you seem to have backtracked or been sidetracked a little from you initial statement of:

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

By not eating meat and fish you do significant damage to your body. You will be much healthier with meat and fish in your diet so long as you eat vegetables as well. Google Paleo diet for proof.

and to now be saying "by not following the paleo diet you do significant damage to your body".

Would you see vegetarians as more at risk of this "significant damage" than the general population? If yes then I have a question for you. I did actually google the paleo diet, what I found was a man trying to sell me a book so I'll ask you: as a 22 year old life-long vegetarian, what health problems should I be manifesting at this stage or looking out for in the future? I'll be sure to ask my doctor about them the next time I'm in. I'm not sure when that'll be because as it happens I'm quite rarely sick, and I will have to remember to bring it up, because he always seems to be concerned about my smoking rather than my vegetarianism. But I'm interested in your opinion.

Eliot Rosewater

As regards the argument that animals, as sentient beings, should not be killed for human pleasure (as opposed to human need): what do vegetarians say about farm-bred animals that would not be alive were they not destined for the slaughterhouse? Surely in this case the pleasure-pain calculation has to balance the pain of the animal's death with the pleasure of the life it led for that death?

Schopenhauer quote on one of the Great Ideas books: "A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the feelings of an animal engaged in eating another with those of the animal being eaten."

seamus

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As regards the argument that animals, as sentient beings, should not be killed for human pleasure (as opposed to human need): what do vegetarians say about farm-bred animals that would not be alive were they not destined for the slaughterhouse? Surely in this case the pleasure-pain calculation has to balance the pain of the animal's death with the pleasure of the life it led for that death?

This is a fairly common argument, but IMO the "balance" would be in not breeding that animal in the first place. The means don't justify the end and so forth
I would rather that pig didn't live at all than was bred to be eaten.

Schopenhauer quote on one of the Great Ideas books: "A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the feelings of an animal engaged in eating another with those of the animal being eaten."

I don't subscribe to any kind of "whole world" view on it, because that precludes that there's some kind of ethereal "karma balance" in the universe. In reality the universe is just one big pot of pain, you get born, you get fncked over and then you die.
We are loosely speaking the only animals capable of exercising choice over the matter, so we should strive to lessen that pain wherever we can. That's the way I look at it.

MungBean

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As regards the argument that animals, as sentient beings, should not be killed for human pleasure (as opposed to human need): what do vegetarians say about farm-bred animals that would not be alive were they not destined for the slaughterhouse? Surely in this case the pleasure-pain calculation has to balance the pain of the animal's death with the pleasure of the life it led for that death?

Schopenhauer quote on one of the Great Ideas books: "A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the feelings of an animal engaged in eating another with those of the animal being eaten."

Thats an interesting point actually. I'm a little confused as to how this pleasure/pain outlook works. On the one side people want to have a increase pleasure and lessen pain but at the same time see humans the only ones that have choice making their pleasure the most valued. If you can attain pleasure without causing suffering then its morally just. Leaving open all manner of exploitation to be justified.

I would rather that pig didn't live at all than was bred to be eaten.

You would but would the pig ? We all exist to benefit someone or something else to some degree. Pigs have been breeding, living getting eaten for millions of years by all manner of animals. There is a balance in nature as well as in the minds of men. Life will strive to exist wherever it can and adapt to whatever environment it finds itself in. We exist and we will die, whether we are eaten or not doesnt matter. We will die. Its no different for a pig bred for slaughter I dont think. They live they breed and the die. Same as the rest of animals.

Maximising pleasure and minimising suffering is fine but I dont see how it applies to eating meat only the standard of life for the animals.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As regards the argument that animals, as sentient beings, should not be killed for human pleasure (as opposed to human need): what do vegetarians say about farm-bred animals that would not be alive were they not destined for the slaughterhouse? Surely in this case the pleasure-pain calculation has to balance the pain of the animal's death with the pleasure of the life it led for that death?

Schopenhauer quote on one of the Great Ideas books: "A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the feelings of an animal engaged in eating another with those of the animal being eaten."

Well I'm not entirely sure about this pleasure/pain thing myself but I'll take a shot. Before the animal is born all its pleasure and pain is hypothetical, doesn't exist yet. After the animal is born, you have the choice to cause it pain (by eating it) or to not cause it pain (by not eating it). If enough people choose to not eat the animals less of them will be born and that choice isn't there. I think what I'm getting at is that for me it's more about the prevention of needless suffering than the creation of pleasure. By choosing to not eat meat vegetarians may be denying hypothetical pigs all the pleasures of a hypothetical wee piggy life, but they are also in some small way choosing not to cause the suffering of real pigs, and to prevent the suffering of other hypothetical pigs by reducing the demand for meat over-all.

MungBean

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

Well I'm not entirely sure about this pleasure/pain thing myself but I'll take a shot. Before the animal is born all its pleasure and pain is hypothetical, doesn't exist yet. After the animal is born, you have the choice to cause it pain (by eating it) or to not cause it pain (by not eating it).If enough people choose to not eat the animals less of them will be born and that choice isn't there. I think what I'm getting at is that for me it's more about the prevention of needless suffering than the creation of pleasure. By choosing to not eat meat vegetarians may be denying hypothetical pigs all the pleasures of a hypothetical wee piggy life, but they are also in some small way choosing not to cause the suffering of real pigs, and to prevent the suffering of other hypothetical pigs by reducing the demand for meat over-all.

Sorry for keeping picking at this but I wanna understand it.

The animal will die anyway at some stage. A human execution would actually be less painful than letting it die suffering of natural causes. So you deny them life on the grounds of not wanting them to suffer when there would/could be no suffering at the hands of man. Certainly no more than they would naturally experience.

You wouldnt try to diminish their population in the wild to try and avoid suffering so why in captivity ? Is a captive pig really an unnecessary being as opposed to a wild pig ? Or are they both the same type of life form living in different environments ?

seamus

MungBean wrote: »

So you deny them life on the grounds of not wanting them to suffer when there would/could be no suffering at the hands of man.

I think when you say it that glibly it probably illustrates that you don't really know what goes on with animals which are farmed for food. Without going near peta, maybe even looking up Halal on youtube will give you some idea.

You wouldnt try to diminish their population in the wild to try and avoid suffering so why in captivity ? Is a captive pig really an unnecessary being as opposed to a wild pig ? Or are they both the same type of life form living in different environments ?

You're effectively asking the active -v- inactive agent morality question.

The point I think you're missing is that most people aren't talking about affecting the whole planet and striving to be some kind of uber-buddhist spreading karma over the whole world. If two animals on the Serengeti are killing eachother, that's not really my concern because I am not an active agent in that. It's amoral.
Likewise if a pig lives in the wild, then it lives in the wild and it's outside my sphere of influence. If it's being farmed for the purpose of feeding me, then I become an active agent in that where I have the ability to make moral choice about whether or not I am happy with the arrangement.

To put another spin on your argument; Although I obviously have a specific affinity to humans as they are my own species, I do recognise that humans aren't particularly "special". We're just another species among billions. We don't have any right to any additional "respect" above other animals. The idea that man is "in charge" of the planet is an archaic religion-based idea with no foundation in reality. That's my point of view.

So to take your argument, would it be OK to raise a segregated community of humans who are executed humanely and who know nothing else but the farm environment, for the purposes of doing something with their remains? Or would they be better off having never been born at all?

When you understand why you say that this isn't OK, then you can at least empathise with why I think it's not OK to do the same with animals.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

MungBean wrote: »

Sorry for keeping picking at this but I wanna understand it.

The animal will die anyway at some stage. A human execution would actually be less painful than letting it die suffering of natural causes. So you deny them life on the grounds of not wanting them to suffer when there would/could be no suffering at the hands of man. Certainly no more than they would naturally experience.

I think the difference here is that you're thinking of suffering as pain, but I (and I think it's fair to say most vegetarians) include death, or at least the unnecessary death that is the lot of domestic pigs and all other animals bred for human consumption. The animal will die at some stage only if it's born, they wouldn't be born if people didn't eat them. If each person eats thirty pigs in their lifetime, and ten people are vegetarian, that's three hundred pigs that aren't born and don't suffer that death. If the whole world woke up tomorrow vegetarian then we would have millions of problematic animals on our hands but that's not going to happen, the more vegetarians there are the less demand for meat, the less animals bred for consumption.

You wouldnt try to diminish their population in the wild to try and avoid suffering so why in captivity ? Is a captive pig really an unnecessary being as opposed to a wild pig ? Or are they both the same type of life form living in different environments ?

Short answer yes. In the case of pigs those animals really are unnecessary, they only exist because they're killed and eaten. A domestic pig is a different animal to a wild one, I don't know that they'd even survive in the wild (somebody might be able to inform me here?). I wouldn't diminish their population in the wild to try and avoid suffering but I wouldn't be causing any of their suffering because those are wild animals, not ones specifically bred for me to eat. I wouldn't be causing or diminishing their suffering by not eating them, the same isn't true for the domesticated varieties.

MungBean

seamus wrote: »

I think when you say it that glibly it probably illustrates that you don't really know what goes on with animals which are farmed for food. Without going near peta, maybe even looking up Halal on youtube will give you some idea.
You're effectively asking the active -v- inactive agent morality question.

The point I think you're missing is that most people aren't talking about affecting the whole planet and striving to be some kind of uber-buddhist spreading karma over the whole world. If two animals on the Serengeti are killing eachother, that's not really my concern because I am not an active agent in that. It's amoral.
Likewise if a pig lives in the wild, then it lives in the wild and it's outside my sphere of influence. If it's being farmed for the purpose of feeding me, then I become an active agent in that where I have the ability to make moral choice about whether or not I am happy with the arrangement.

To put another spin on your argument; Although I obviously have a specific affinity to humans as they are my own species, I do recognise that humans aren't particularly "special". We're just another species among billions. We don't have any right to any additional "respect" above other animals. The idea that man is "in charge" of the planet is an archaic religion-based idea with no foundation in reality. That's my point of view.

So to take your argument, would it be OK to raise a segregated community of humans who are executed humanely and who know nothing else but the farm environment, for the purposes of doing something with their remains? Or would they be better off having never been born at all?

When you understand why you say that this isn't OK, then you can at least empathise with why I think it's not OK to do the same with animals.

I understand a bit better now I think. And I agree with what your saying. I wasnt trying to ignore any issues in farming at the moment though, just trying to see that if there was no suffering of the animal would it still be wrong. I know the conditions in certain areas are far from humane.

MungBean

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

I think the difference here is that you're thinking of suffering as pain, but I (and I think it's fair to say most vegetarians) include death, or at least the unnecessary death that is the lot of domestic pigs and all other animals bred for human consumption. The animal will die at some stage only if it's born, they wouldn't be born if people didn't eat them. If each person eats thirty pigs in their lifetime, and ten people are vegetarian, that's three hundred pigs that aren't born and don't suffer that death. If the whole world woke up tomorrow vegetarian then we would have millions of problematic animals on our hands but that's not going to happen, the more vegetarians there are the less demand for meat, the less animals bred for consumption.



Short answer yes. In the case of pigs those animals really are unnecessary, they only exist because they're killed and eaten. A domestic pig is a different animal to a wild one, I don't know that they'd even survive in the wild (somebody might be able to inform me here?). I wouldn't diminish their population in the wild to try and avoid suffering but I wouldn't be causing any of their suffering because those are wild animals, not ones specifically bred for me to eat. I wouldn't be causing or diminishing their suffering by not eating them, the same isn't true for the domesticated varieties.

Yeah I get what your saying. Same as Séamus, its all down to whether you are an active agent in the event that affect the animal.

Some good points to mull over.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

MungBean wrote: »

Yeah I get what your saying. Same as Séamus, its all down to whether you are an active agent in the event that affect the animal.

Some good points to mull over.

You're doing Seamus' vastly superior post a grave injustice there but wahey!

yawha

seamus wrote: »

To put another spin on your argument; Although I obviously have a specific affinity to humans as they are my own species, I do recognise that humans aren't particularly "special". We're just another species among billions. We don't have any right to any additional "respect" above other animals. The idea that man is "in charge" of the planet is an archaic religion-based idea with no foundation in reality. That's my point of view.

And yet, we have the responsibility not to behave unlike other carnivorous animals?

It works both ways. Presumably, you don't consider it to be wrong when another carnivorous animal kills another animal?

I don't think the argument that we are or aren't "special" or "in charge" is very compelling for either side of the vegetarian debate. If we're special then we have the responsibility to not eat animals/cause animal suffering vs we are above animals and can do what we please with them. If we're not special then we're just part of the natural circle of life, which eating other animals is a part of vs we're the same as animals and thus must treat them as our fellow humans and not kill them for food.

seamus wrote: »

So to take your argument, would it be OK to raise a segregated community of humans who are executed humanely and who know nothing else but the farm environment, for the purposes of doing something with their remains? Or would they be better off having never been born at all?

That's a bit of a strawman. I could similarly liken animals to vegetables. I think the lack of sentience is as big a dividing line between animals and vegetables as our intellectual capacity is between animals and humans.

seamus

yawha wrote: »

And yet, we have the responsibility not to behave unlike other carnivorous animals?

It works both ways. Presumably, you don't consider it to be wrong when another carnivorous animal kills another animal?

We have morality. But we can only apply morality to ourselves because as far as we can tell, we are the only ones who can understand it.

That's probably not correct (many animals probably can understand morality to some degree), but for all intents and purposes we have to treat animals as being amoral, which means that there's a difference between an animal attacking a human and a human attacking an animal.

The same reason why we don't try children for murder and we have laws about statutory rape; because all brains do not understand morality to the same degree.

That's a bit of a strawman. I could similarly liken animals to vegetables. I think the lack of sentience is as big a dividing line between animals and vegetables as our intellectual capacity is between animals and humans.

I think that's the strawman. I don't believe that human intellectual capacity is particularly enormous. We have a tendency as humans to inflate it. We are the benefactors of a few minor tweaks to physiology, not a massive departure from the animal kingdom.

Scanlas The 2nd

Brittany Damp Neck wrote: »

Hm, well, you seem to have backtracked or been sidetracked a little from you initial statement of:



and to now be saying "by not following the paleo diet you do significant damage to your body".

Would you see vegetarians as more at risk of this "significant damage" than the general population? If yes then I have a question for you. I did actually google the paleo diet, what I found was a man trying to sell me a book so I'll ask you: as a 22 year old life-long vegetarian, what health problems should I be manifesting at this stage or looking out for in the future? I'll be sure to ask my doctor about them the next time I'm in. I'm not sure when that'll be because as it happens I'm quite rarely sick, and I will have to remember to bring it up, because he always seems to be concerned about my smoking rather than my vegetarianism. But I'm interested in your opinion.

Well assuming you are eating grains you are at a much greater risk of cancer and autoimmune diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinson's. Grains cause inflammation which causes havoc with your body.

Answer me this, why were hunter gatherers who lived side by side with farmers 5000 years far healthier than farmers. Hunter gathers lived longer 60-70 years old, were taller and had much better teeth. This is consistent all over the world including today's hunter gatherers.

Edit: I can't say whether or not vegetarians are more or at less risk than the general population. I don't know, depends which populations we are talking about.

Mark Hamill

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well assuming you are eating grains you are at a much greater risk of cancer and autoimmune diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinson's. Grains cause inflammation which causes havoc with your body.

Answer me this, why were hunter gatherers who lived side by side with farmers 5000 years far healthier than farmers. Hunter gathers lived longer 60-70 years old, were taller and had much better teeth. This is consistent all over the world including today's hunter gatherers.

Edit: I can't say whether or not vegetarians are more or at less risk than the general population. I don't know, depends which populations we are talking about.

Evidence? (preferable studies and not just blog posts)

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Edit: I can't say whether or not vegetarians are more or at less risk than the general population. I don't know, depends which populations we are talking about.

Kind of strange to be posting in this thread about it then surely? I appreciate that it was me who brought up the health issue but still like. Is it the eating grains that you think is putting me at risk of these things or (as was suggested in your first post) not eating meat?