Are you all veggie because of principle or just don't like taste of meat?

Misty Moon

Just curious if you are all vegetarian based on principle? Or are there any here that just don't like the taste of meat and so don't bother eating it, but aren't too stressed about using products with animal products in them (non-veggie cheese etc.). Or perhaps that don't eat meat because it just doesn't agree with them, gives them indigestion and so on.

I know people who fit into all these camps so was just curious as to all of you.

I'm not vegetarian although I don't eat a huge amount of meat, maybe about half my main meals in a week would contain some meat. It's probably more accurate to say though that I don't cook a lot of meat - if I'm in a restaurant or someone else is cooking I don't often choose vegetarian.

bounty

i love meat, and will never stop eating it

seamus

Strike one bounty, I will ban you next time. By all means debate it, but don't post pictures that people here could find upsetting.

If you've nothing to contribute, piss off.

leftofcentre

There are a million reasons, depends on the people. Personally i just don't like eating dead things, I think its completly minging.

Peanut

Misty Moon wrote:

...Or are there any here that just don't like the taste of meat and so don't bother eating it, but aren't too stressed about using products with animal products in them (non-veggie cheese etc.).

I just find it repulsive, on a physical level. It's the same feeling as others would have about eating dirt, or worse. It just seems dirty.

However I think that means I'm more obsessed about being strict about it, so I do try to avoid non-veggie cheese etc..

This was the initial reason, but I do also believe humans are a variety of animal, and it's not good (on a number of levels) to eat your close relatives.

I would argue that anything that has a brain (and perhaps some things that don't) has some type of conciousness, and while it's impossible to avoid violence in the world, we can at least try to maybe not use it when it's overbearing and unnecessary. I think it's astonishing that there are still people today that will say things along the lines of "animals don't feel pain" etc.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with people eating whatever they want, if that's what they decide, it just gets frustrating when your own choices become limited as a result, but that's the same with any minority.

rose of jericho

I am a veggie and I met this girl once who was also a veggie and asked her a similar question her answer was 'I hate animals, they are all disgusting, lowest form of life, filthy, smelly creatures. Now why would I want to put something so disgusting inside my mouth let alone the rest of my body'. I couldn't stopy laughing I was expecting a very different answer never heard anyone not eating meat because they were so repulsed by animals.

Doctor Benway

I'm vegetarian on principle, not because I don't like the taste of meat or even because I think it's disgusting. I actually love meat and still get cravings for it (especially if I pop into McDonald's on Grafton Street to use the toilets).

The only reason I don't eat meat is because I don't it's possible to justify the suffering that kind of diet causes animals. If it was possible to grow a cow or a chicken without a brain or any kind of awareness or ability to suffer, I'd be quite happy to eat it.

kestrel

i'm vegetarian as a sort of protest against the meat industry and people in general. i believe it is completely natural to eat meat, because we are animals and part of a food chain, but

1)i hate the way animals are viewed as much less important than us. i think we should respect them and show them due respect, if for nothing else than they give us life and are feeling, living things.
2)an animal should be raised in comfort and have a happy life before being killed quickly and humanely. none of this factory farming, unnatural lives and cruelty.

technically, i should just go for organic/local meat, but im pessimistic and don't trust people to do the right thing.

Tar.Aldarion

morals along with various other reasons...i adore meat to a ridiculous extent...it was practically all i ate in my youth.i detest nearly every food there is,sucks

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=289639

Peanut

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

morals along with various other reasons...i adore meat to a ridiculous extent...it was practically all i ate in my youth.i detest nearly every food there is,sucks

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=289639

Too much of a good thing? lol...
Well at least nowadays there's a lot more choice of meat and non-meat food so you might find some new obsession.

Attol

I find I feel a bit bloated when I eat meat. I try to eat more tofu, quorn etc. instead. I do eat a bit of chicken. Unfortunately I live at home and don't have too much say in some of the foods that are brought into this house but I do encourage getting organic freerange meat and eggs when we go to the supermarket. I think that it's unfair how animals are treated, the thought of eating animals pumped full of antibiotics repulses me etc. all put me off eating it. I'm also trying to lose weight so sticking to lower fat alternatives. I have this weird habit of whenever anyone leaves some meat uneaten I think that the poor animal died for no reason. It really makes me feel personally responsible somehow and makes me want to just eat veg. alternatives.

Tar.Aldarion

Peanut wrote:

Too much of a good thing? lol...
Well at least nowadays there's a lot more choice of meat and non-meat food so you might find some new obsession.

don't worry mate i still have coke and chef brown sauce....armed with these i can tackle most foods

bounty

seamus wrote:

Strike one bounty, I will ban you next time. By all means debate it, but don't post pictures that people here could find upsetting.

If you've nothing to contribute, piss off.

the lack of protein makes veggies very touchy

miss serena

Doctor Benway wrote:

If it was possible to grow a cow or a chicken without a brain or any kind of awareness or ability to suffer, I'd be quite happy to eat it.

Huh? That's wierd, and opening a whole other can of worms!

I don't like eating something that used to be alive. What's the difference in cow meat, dog meat or human meat. Nothing in my eyes. All the same. Icky!

ANarcho-Munk

Doctor Benway wrote:

If it was possible to grow a cow or a chicken without a brain or any kind of awareness or ability to suffer, I'd be quite happy to eat it.

That'd be just completly wrong and sick and playing god.

The Sweeper

I'm not vegetarian and don't believe I ever will be, but I do buy freerange organic meat. I don't support intensive farming and believe the amount of waste in this day and age is frightening. I can usually get three meals for two people out of one large organic chicken. Day one, roast chicken. Day two, cold chicken salad. Day three, chicken soup (stock from the bones, with the last scraps of chicken with a pile of vegetables). I think that if you are going to eat meat, you need to have respect for the fact that something died to feed you. Therefore you should be using every pick of it.

I've had a lot of 'my own business' ideas over the years, and one of the things I'd love to do is open a back-to-basics grocer/butcher, which would be all about local produce, small suppliers, organic produce and seasonal production. I don't think my life, personally, is remotely improved by the alleged 'convenience' of fast food and year-round produce that fits in with my allegedly 'hectic high-stress lifestyle'. Because I've chosen to eat meat, I've made sure I'm acutely aware of the less-publicised aspects of the meat industry.

This includes the waste byproduct of the dairy industry in the form of male calves. To be brutal, I couldn't believe the day I discovered male calves are simply incinerated or disposed of. I'd rather see them in the pet food industry.

Washout

Ive always been the beliver that the human body was not designed to eat meat.

The first obvious sign to me is the make up of our teeth and our hands.
suppose the following. If we as humans didnt have the intelligence we do and had the same intelligence as animals would be able to catch and pierce through the hide of animals and then to eat it. without the use of things such as fire to cook and implements to eat with I dont believe that we would be able to.
Thats my own basis on it. I know meat eaters will also say that we do have the intelligence and we are the top of the food chain.

Then there is the whole protein arguement. as a vegitarian i get plenty enough protein in nuts as well as things such as pulses and beans.

Some ppl do say that our teeth do compare to that of carnivorous animals but you show me which animals. a lions? a tigers?

when i saw this thread i did a quick google and came up witrh the following link.
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

I could get into my own personal moralistic and spiritual beliefs of being a vegitarian but from a scientific point of view alon i just odnt believe the human body is designed to eat meat.
Even when you look at things like food pyramids from a health point of view, they state that you should consume plent of fruit and vegtibles and small amounts of meat and the meat for the sake of protein but when protien is available in other food sources then why eat meat altogether?

ill prolly get abused from meat eaters but this is just my own point of view.

Tar.Aldarion

from biology books i have read humans have the same chemistry and biology as herbivores,from hands,feet,teeth to intestinal tract.our closest animal relatives,apes,have nearly 100% vegetarian diet eating small animals that they see moving around now and again.some like the silverback with it's damn frightening teeth are completely vegetarian.protein arguement is pretty weak as people from various places in the world have been vegan for over 5,000 years and things like prunes have more protein than lamb etc.A lot of people eat more meat in a day than is recommended for them to eat in a week or two and it's not even a great deal of meat.

Peanut

ANarcho-Munk wrote:

That'd be just completly wrong and sick and playing god.

I dunno I think it would be pretty amusing :rolleyes: *evil laugh*
Besides, it's not as if we're not playing god as it is.

It's a great question though about where to draw the line as to what is acceptable to eat - the unconcious consensus at the moment seems like "stuff that isn't cute", which seems a bit lame to put it mildly.

Doctor Benway

ANarcho-Munk wrote:

That'd be just completly wrong and sick and playing god.

Oh dear. I suppose I better cancel the experiments then.

Seriously, though, the reason I used that example wasn't because I thought it was particularly likely or even, necessarily, desirable. It was to explain that I didn't think there was anything inherently wrong in eating flesh or something that used to be alive (or even 'cute'). It was the suffering that goes hand in hand with meat-eating that I don't believe can be justified when there are alternative sources of nutrition available. The (extreme, admittedly) suggestion that I made was an easy way of showing how, IMO, it might be possible to eat meat that would be acceptable as it wouldn't cause suffering.

Also, I don't think the 'playing God' argument stands up to close scrutiny, but that's very off-topic.

taibhse

,apes,have nearly 100% vegetarian diet eating small animals that they see moving around now and again.some like the silverback with it's damn frightening teeth are completely vegetarian

There is actually recent evidence to show that chimps who they thought were completely vegetarian will attack monkeys and eat them for food. Some have even been seen to be cannibalistic.

I am a veggie though because imo it's wrong to eat animals. If you couldn't kill it yourself, why pay someone else to do it for you? The meat industry is so horrific, so wasteful and self-righteous. I hate the idea that people simply have a "right" to eat meat and that animals are simply "below" them.

Tar.Aldarion

taibhse wrote:

There is actually recent evidence to show that chimps who they thought were completely vegetarian will attack monkeys and eat them for food. Some have even been seen to be cannibalistic.

what's that from,link?,i didn't think it was in their nature to be like something out of 'congo' unless it was a territory or family protection thing.

kestrel

i actually saw that too. it was on David Attenboroughs 'Life of mammals' i think- i found it really disturbing to see a group of chimps hunting some small monkeys. the chimps went out on hunting parties and chased down the prey. it think they used tools to kill it (i'm not sure) it was way too human, and it really made me ill to watch...evolution is progressing at an alarming rate.

The Sweeper

They didn't use tools to kill it, they just tore it apart. Apparently sometimes chimps take a hankering to monkey-meat and will hunt - I'm sure it's a colobus monkey in that footage.

I believe human beings are successful because we're designed to be opportunists. That should mean we will hunt, gather, scavenge and farm. It should also mean that both flora and fauna are on our list of digestibles.

Doctor Benway

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

I believe human beings are successful because we're designed to be opportunists. That should mean we will hunt, gather, scavenge and farm. It should also mean that both flora and fauna are on our list of digestibles.

You're jumping from an 'is' to an 'ought' there (don't you know your Hume? ).

Just because we can eat meat, it doesn't mean we should eat meat, especially if there are other alternatives available.

Tar.Aldarion

we can digest cardboard too,do we eat that?

bounty

hmmmmmm giant carrots

Doctor Benway

bounty, have you ever thought about doing stand-up comedy? You reallly should, you know. You're a genuinely very funny person. You're far funnier than anyone on television at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if you became successful incredibly quickly. If you start now, you could well be a Perrier contender next year.

Really, you're wasted on here.

Thordon

I dont eat meat because I dont think animals are here to serve us, we're supposedly intellgent beings, we know we cause the animals to suffer, but we just dont seem to care.

Some excuses like 'I believe its natural to eat meat', natural doesnt mean right.

We know better, stop making excuses.

Peanut

Thordon wrote:

...
Some excuses like 'I believe its natural to eat meat', natural doesnt mean right.

'Natural' doesn't mean anything in fact...

bounty

Doctor Benway wrote:

bounty, have you ever thought about doing stand-up comedy? You reallly should, you know. You're a genuinely very funny person. You're far funnier than anyone on television at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if you became successful incredibly quickly. If you start now, you could well be a Perrier contender next year.

Really, you're wasted on here.

JC 2K3

I eat meat and I've thought about why I do, it seems that there is no solid concrete reason not to, there's just a load of beliefs, I mean no one can say we're not designed to eat meat, sure they can draw up all sorts of theorys but they can't prove anything. Is it wrong to kill animals? Well it's wrong to kill humans because if humans killed each other the human race wouldn't survive, but why not just kill some humans and let the rest live? Because you couldn't distinguish between who to kill and who not to kill, but then why kill animals? They're living creatures along with us. But what can we eat if we don't have meat? Plants? But they're living organisms along with us..

What I'm trying to say is no one can for sure say where the limit to all this thinking is, I mean, animals killed for meat suffer, but they also suffer to some extent to provide us with eggs, milk etc. So is there any point in being just a vegetarian as opposed to a vegan? You're still eating products that animals had to suffer(to some extent) for you to have. But is being a vegan enough? Plant life is being destroyed so you can eat it, why should that be any different to animal life? A brain? But even though plants aren't as intelligent as animals they still have some form of intelligence, such as being able to adapt to their surroundings etc. Where do you draw the line between intelligent life and unintelligent life?

So IMO there's not really a solid logical reason not to eat meat, basically right now it's acceptable in society, it's healthy(despite how much "meat is unhealthy" propoganda vegetarian societies come up with) and the only reason not to eat it is because you've somehow convinced yourself it's wrong(fair enough, your opinion, i'm not going to bash anyone for doing it), you've taken on vegetarianism as you would a new age religion(ie. vegetarian societies preaching against eating meat) or to be cool(ugh, it's your life, don't just copy others or do it because some cool celebraty does it).

Of course this is all my opinion, feel free to avoid meat if you want and live a happy life, that's the most important thing.

Doctor Benway

JC 2K3 wrote:

What I'm trying to say is no one can for sure say where the limit to all this thinking is, I mean, animals killed for meat suffer, but they also suffer to some extent to provide us with eggs, milk etc. So is there any point in being just a vegetarian as opposed to a vegan? You're still eating products that animals had to suffer(to some extent) for you to have.

Not necessarily. Yes, certainly factory farming causes suffering, which is a good reason to, for example, only buy organic free range eggs if you do choose to eat eggs. Similarly, it's also possible to be more careful about what dairy products you purchase and seek out those which have resulted in less suffering than others. For example, EU animal welfare standards are far higher than those in the US and the level of suffering involved in Irish dairy farming would, in general, be of a lesser degree than in other states where dairy farms are far larger and more mechanised.

You appear to be taking an all-or-nothing approach to the argument, which is convenient if one wants to continue to eat meat. However, it's also possible to reduce the level of suffering animals endure even if you don't eliminate altogether. Veganism may be a laudable goal to aspire to, but the fact that some vegetarians may eat eggs or cheese doesn't somehow negate their vegetarianism.

But is being a vegan enough? Plant life is being destroyed so you can eat it, why should that be any different to animal life? A brain? But even though plants aren't as intelligent as animals they still have some form of intelligence, such as being able to adapt to their surroundings etc. Where do you draw the line between intelligent life and unintelligent life?

Well I would say that capacity for suffering, as well as some level of awareness, would come into play. Again, you seem to be taking a very black-and-white view, rather than recognising that there can be degrees of intelligence (although I wouldn't agree that plants have any form of intelligence, any more than my skin would have intelligence because it turns brown in the sun).

Animals are able to suffer; plants aren't. The greater the capacity an animal has for suffering the greater the consideration that should be given to their preferences to avoid suffering (of whatever nature). However, if you're just talking about physical pain, the pain of a cat is no different from the pain of an ape or a human, and each should be given equal consideration. The same principle can then be applied to like preferences. Which is what, basically, forms the basis for my vegetarianism (but it's not a belief that all vegetarians would necessarily share).

JC 2K3

So whether you are a vegetarian or not(for moral reasons) depends on how empathetic you are?

Doctor Benway

JC 2K3 wrote:

So whether you are a vegetarian or not(for moral reasons) depends on how empathetic you are?

What, me or people in general?

Anyway, no I don't think so. You can hold the position that you should give equal consideration to all beings who are capable of suffering without necessarily being particularly empathetic. It's a moral judgement based on a broadly utilitarian rationality, rather than some kind of emotional, subjective one.

Peanut

JC 2K3 wrote:

...
Plant life is being destroyed so you can eat it, why should that be any different to animal life? A brain? But even though plants aren't as intelligent as animals they still have some form of intelligence, such as being able to adapt to their surroundings etc. Where do you draw the line between intelligent life and unintelligent life?

So IMO there's not really a solid logical reason not to eat meat, basically right now it's acceptable in society, it's healthy(despite how much "meat is

Would you eat your pet dog?
An ape?
A neandearthal if they were still around?
If it could exist, a human/primate chimera?

I assume that since you don't know where to draw the line, all the above would be OK.

Like dr.benway says, I think you are trying to force this into a black and white question when it won't really fit into it.

You ask where do you draw the line - and it's an excellent question because I don't believe anyone knows the answer.

However just because we don't know where to draw imaginary lines (and I don't think there is a line as such in any case), doesn't mean that we can't make reasonable assumptions, like acknowledging that it's likely that most animals can experience suffering that is more similar to our own, than that of more distantly related forms of life.

In relation to logical reasons though, there is a blatant lack of logic in our disgust at certain asian countries having dog on the menu ("snack russell" ), and our nonchalance at the same when it involves cows or pigs. I'm not condemning meat-eaters, however the contradiction is there for anyone to see.

The Sweeper

Hooves and wings good. Paws and opposible thumbs bad. ...works for me.

Peanut

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Hooves and wings good. Paws and opposible thumbs bad. ...works for me.

Where does that leave the flying dogs?

Dave!

Peanut wrote:

This was the initial reason, but I do also believe humans are a variety of animal, and it's not good (on a number of levels) to eat your close relatives.

But animals eat other animals all the time... And some eat plants, too.. Lions eat bison, bison eat grass, snails eat leaves, etc.. It's the food chain, it's a natural occurance, and it's been that way since the dawn of life.

kestrel wrote:

1)i hate the way animals are viewed as much less important than us. i think we should respect them and show them due respect, if for nothing else than they give us life and are feeling, living things.

I agree that they should be shown respect, I think the Native Americans had the right idea -- respect the animals and the earth, and if you kill one, use it fully (ie. eat the meat, wear the skin, use the bones).

kestrel wrote:

2)an animal should be raised in comfort and have a happy life before being killed quickly and humanely. none of this factory farming, unnatural lives and cruelty.

What about hunting? Do you find that acceptable or is it the same story? I think that hunting something yourself, killing it, and eating it, is a good system.

And compared to the wild, or, the "olden days", animals are killed very quickly and humanely. Sure, lots of inhumane stuff goes on in certain plants, factories, etc., but for the most part they're stunned, knocked unconscious, and their artery cut. Now, compare that to the wild, when a lion would chase a gazelle or whatever around, and then jump on it, tear into it, and eat it. Lions aren't as meticulous or as smart as humans, and they don't have animal rights groups breathing down their manes either!

I'm not saying that it's nice how cows are killed, but we've come a long way, shall we say...

taibhse wrote:

I am a veggie though because imo it's wrong to eat animals. If you couldn't kill it yourself, why pay someone else to do it for you? The meat industry is so horrific, so wasteful and self-righteous. I hate the idea that people simply have a "right" to eat meat and that animals are simply "below" them.

I think your beef (pardon the pun, lol ) should be with the food chain, since that's what all animals do!

And I'll pose this question to you as well: is it ok to eat something that you've caught with your bare hands (or rather, with a weapon, since we have brains instead of brawn)

kestrel wrote:

i actually saw that too. it was on David Attenboroughs 'Life of mammals' i think- i found it really disturbing to see a group of chimps hunting some small monkeys. the chimps went out on hunting parties and chased down the prey. it think they used tools to kill it (i'm not sure) it was way too human, and it really made me ill to watch...evolution is progressing at an alarming rate.

Yeah I saw it too, actually. I thought it was a Ray Mears show, though, but you're probably right.

Washout wrote:

when i saw this thread i did a quick google and came up witrh the following link.
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

The human body was not designed to catch or eat animals

You have no claws.
Your teeth do not rend flesh.

We do not need them

Your mouth can not seriously wound nor is it made to really get a good bite into an struggling victim like true carnivores can.

You are not fit to run fast to catch prey.

We're omnivores... But we don't need to run fast to catch our prey, we have highly evolved brains, so we can design a weapon to cater for this.

Meat-eaters have fast enough reflexes to ambush or overtake a victim.
You do not.

Like I said, we have highly intelligent, naturally evolved, brains, which make it possible for us to devise plans to catch our prey. Plus, we hunt in groups, much like chimps -- another result of our brain.

Try catching a pig or a chicken with your bare hands; see what happens.

Well, humans have been hunting animals for thousands of years, so I don't see what the point here is... I guess it's cos we don't use our hands; again, we have a complex brain which enables us to catch prey without having to chase after it.

Peanut wrote:

Where does that leave the flying dogs?

The circus, lol

JC 2K3

Peanut wrote:

Would you eat your pet dog?
An ape?
A neandearthal if they were still around?
If it could exist, a human/primate chimera?

Pet dog: dog yes(If it was socially acceptable abnd readily available), pet dog no, but that goes back to my earlier statement, how much of a vegetarian you are depends on how empathetic you are...
Ape: sure, if it was socially acceptable and readily available
Neandearthol: Same as ape but silly question since they're not around
Human/Primate Chimera: wtf?

Peanut wrote:

In relation to logical reasons though, there is a blatant lack of logic in our disgust at certain asian countries having dog on the menu ("snack russell" ), and our nonchalance at the same when it involves cows or pigs. I'm not condemning meat-eaters, however the contradiction is there for anyone to see.

I'm with you on this one, except you take the "I'm not going to eat any meat" approach and I take the "I don't care what types of animals I eat" approach...

Peanut

DaveMcG wrote:

But animals eat other animals all the time... And some eat plants, too.. Lions eat bison, bison eat grass, snails eat leaves, etc.. It's the food chain, it's a natural occurance, and it's been that way since the dawn of life.

Sure they do - doesn't mean that we have to follow. 'Natural' is what we make it. Although I agree with you in a sense in that I think some people are better off eating meat, and others are not.

However from a purely infectious disease point of view, the more similar a living thing is to us the more likely it is that we can become cross-infected with whatever diseases it may have by eating the animal or having other contact with it, e.g. BSE, bird flu & others. I think even some things like the BSE proteins weren't affected that much by cooking.

On the flipside, meat is an abundant source of necessary proteins etc., so it's pretty good if you are living somewhere with sparse food available, but the advantages fade in Western countries (and tend to turn to disadvantages due to over-consumption and excessive processing of low quality products).

JC 2K3 wrote:

Ape: sure, if it was socially acceptable and readily available
Neandearthol: Same as ape but silly question since they're not around
Human/Primate Chimera: wtf?

re: neandeathal, well ok thery're not around now but just suppose you were living back when they were. For a more up to date example, let's replace it with the indonesian hobbit remains that were found.

My point is that we have this black and white view of "human" and "non-human", whereas really there is no definition of what to be human is.
And even if something isn't quite human according to our own current social standards, does that make it alright to kill it for food, when there are other food sources abundant?

I wouldn't rely on what's socially acceptable to make that decision, do you know that chimps can be trained to communicate with humans in (basic) sign language? Would this affect your opinion?

The point about the human/primate chimera, is that it will more than likely be possible in the future, indeed if it isn't already, to genetically modify primates to give them human genes etc. Now I know there are certain biological problems that make this very difficult, however it seems reasonable to assume that some sort of hybrid could be created.

I'm not interested in any moral questions about the validity of doing this, what I am proposing is that even if this is possible in theory, it must make people stop and think for at least a minute whether they would be happy treating the resulting entity as potential hamburger.

Dave!

I didn't actually post that second quote, mate

Peanut wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, I'll never misquote you again

No problem

Peanut

DaveMcG (afaik) wrote:

I didn't actually post that second quote, mate
....

oops.. right you are! duly amended...

JC 2K3

Peanut wrote:

re: neandeathal, well ok thery're not around now but just suppose you were living back when they were. For a more up to date example, let's replace it with the indonesian hobbit remains that were found.

My point is that we have this black and white view of "human" and "non-human", whereas really there is no definition of what to be human is.
And even if something isn't quite human according to our own current social standards, does that make it alright to kill it for food, when there are other food sources abundant?

I wouldn't rely on what's socially acceptable to make that decision, do you know that chimps can be trained to communicate with humans in (basic) sign language? Would this affect your opinion?

Not really, define intelligence. A plant being able to adapt to it's surroundings could be considered intelligent as could chimps being able to use basic sign language, what actually justifies killing an animal over a plant? A life is still ended, we can just be more empathetic with something that is more similar to us.

Tar.Aldarion

JC 2K3 wrote:

Not really, define intelligence. A plant being able to adapt to it's surroundings could be considered intelligent as could chimps being able to use basic sign language, what actually justifies killing an animal over a plant? A life is still ended, we can just be more empathetic with something that is more similar to us.

There is a difference between a reaction and a conscious decision.Yes a plant responds to light but so does a rock(expansion)
A plant is not sentient,it can't decide 'oh wait i will turn away from the sun!'
It is just a reaction to the sun that it has whereas something like a monkey,parrot etc etc can consciously decide what to do.What more it feels they feel things.Yes empathy,that decides a lot of things for people and that is why a lot of people would find it hard to kill a dog more so than a spider,it's wrong.
A parrot is as intelligent as a five year old child,where do you draw the line?how 'smart' does something have to be?how similar to us?what is a human?people are quite different from each other,they have races and whatnot.To say to you that a black person is not equal to us may sound silly but until recently people believed that and some people still do.If it comes down to fine detail people could even argue they are not the same race as us.How different or similar does a lifeform have to be until it loses it's right to be equal to us?Tbh If people think things that are not as smart as them are not equal then I would have every right to kill them if they have a lower IQ than mine?
Now off topic kinda(:
I have asked this hypothetical question to a lot to people,there are only two types of people in this scenario,white and black. A disease is discovered, it somehow affects white people only(what makes somebody coloured is somehow an immunity).It cannot be cured it is found out when all our methods have been exhausted. Most if not all white people will die unless experimentation is carried out(ie black people would have to be killed as happens with animal testing).There is a majority of white people.Do you start killing black people to save the majority.In this scenario they are effectively a different race, it is believed, due to this new found immunity.How much does the majority have to be for you to consider it?how different do the other race have to be?in this case the only notable difference is a shade of skin and a tiny difference in the genes.Ie they may possibly be the last evolutionary step from ape to human that there is.If you wouldn't kill them,how different do the people in the scenario have to be for you to think,'oh yes,it's ok'.Maybe a race that is not quite as smart as you but nearly?You can keep going back as far as something with the intelligence of a dog?how do you determine when something is suddenly not equal?you can't,imo all life is equally precious and nobody has the right to affect something elses life for their own gain.People can live a healthy life without killing animals.Infact people have been doing that for 5,000 years.You are right,what justifies killing a plant over an animal.
Even if the plant is not similar to us and is not sentient..it may still be wrong,who am I to say.The thing is the lesser of two evils clause.The plant isn't consciously aware it exists-an animal is.It can fell and think.Simple biology can tell you the same is not true for a plant.If an animal can feel and a plant cannot which would you prefer to eat?
You may ask what have I been drinking after that post.It has been a very bad morning,the answer is bulmers (:

JC 2K3

lol, lesser of two evils clause, it all still comes down to empathy

But meh, who am I to say you can't be empathetic?

Anto and Moe

I became a Vegetarian for moral reasons, but now, after about six years of vegetarianism, I wouldn't be able to be eat meat because I now find it so disgusting. Anyone who says they still get cravings for meat, or miss it or whatever, if you go to www.peta.com (you either love em or ya hate em) and check out any of the videos like 'Meet your Meat' you gradualy start finding meat far more unfortunate, you won't be able to associate it with food anymore, just with thoughts of death and displeasure n such. There not much fun to watch, but it really is a killer cure for the cravings. You may think it's harmless to want it but not eat it (and to an extent it is) but you could well find that after years of vegetarianism (I know people this has happened to) you just get drunk or whatever and start gobbeling the stuff, n ya don't last long after that.
Peace n Love
Anto.

Peanut

Anto and Moe wrote:

....You may think it's harmless to want it but not eat it (and to an extent it is) but you could well find that after years of vegetarianism (I know people this has happened to) you just get drunk or whatever and start gobbeling the stuff, n ya don't last long after that.

Sounds like me & coffee. Apart from the drunk bit that is, lol ...

EvilPixieOne

I just don't like the idea of eating it now, I've been veggie too long, I think I'd get sick or something

direbadger

I'm vegan because of principle, but the health benefits are a nice a bonus. I never get sick at all. Now I've probably jinxed myself and I'll get a cold tomorrow!