Is being a vegetarian being a hypocrite??

[VoteClark]

OK, if someone is a vegetarian because of health reasons they are not a hypocrite. But what about those that do it to save animals??

Let's think about it for just a moment.

If you don't eat the animal, then you eat more of the animal's food. Which means they reproduce less or starve.

Second, if you eat more fruit and plant life, you are eating all the microscopic critters on the food. Or is it the size of the animal that counts?

Third, the animals that you don't eat live on and eat other animals. If killing animals is viewed as murder, are they not allowing other animals to murder?

Finally, plants are life too. Why should they be condemned to die in greater numbers than other living creatures?

Ultimately, it is impossible not to kill other life and still exist yourself.

So is a vegetarian a hypocrite for saying that they don't eat animals because it is wrong to kill and eat animals?

A penny for your thoughts.

J4Clark

[DrWeird]

1. Either that OR...

they've just made the personal decision that they don't want an animal to suffer just to stuff their gob.

Jeez, are you afraid a big bad vegetarian is going to come and steal your meat from you?

[eileen from OH]

4. Okay. . .but try this on for size. . .

How can you be a super animal rights activist/humanitarian vegetarian and still be pro-choice? I mean, even if a fetus isn't a person, it's at least on a level with an animal/organism, right?

I'm truly not trying to start something. (Well, okay, mebbe I am, hahahahaha.) I am pro-choice, but uncomfortably so. (That is, I want NO, ZERO, ZIP legislation that restricts a woman's right to choose. But I also have great trepidation about our disposable society that throws away that which is inconvenient, whether it is animals, or fetuses.)

And the "disconnect" between those who are fiercely protective of animal rights and those who wish to protect the unborn, seems somewhat illogical to me.

So, have at it.

eileen

[DrWeird]

5. Well, the would be mothers

aren't exactly skinning the fetuses and wearing them as the latest fashion.

As bad as the worst PETA nuts are, I haven't ever heard that I shouldn't be allowed to eat meat. I just shouldn't have them beaten and tortured before I kill them.

[maine_raptor]

8. Hmmmmmmmmmm Question Dr W, if you please

"I just shouldn't have them beaten and tortured before I kill them."

Does your list of "shouldn't have"s include being shot with a high-powered peice of lead and copper?

Not looking for a flame, just inquiring as to your level of "shouldn't".

[eileen from OH]

15. Um. . . I don't know 'zactly what your point is. . .

are you saying that because would-be mothers aren't skinning and wearing fetuses that somehow the fetuses are less or more valuable than animals? Both wind up dead. One for fashion, one for a myriad of reasons. Do the reasons, or the method of the death, or what happens afterward, change things? (I'm just asking, really. This has bothered me.)

I'm not disputing that what is done to animals, in the name of fashion, is sometimes horrible. But there are also cases where abortions are performed for reasons that we might find less-than-admirable - i.e, the wrong sex. And with abortion-on-demand, there need be no reason at all given. Do the REASONS change the morality of the act? Does the METHOD?

I'm just wondering how anyone can be a member of PETA and not also be anti-abortion, that's all.

eileen

[maine_raptor]

17. Well since

we are talking about human food sources other than cannibalism, I fail to see any connection between that subject and abortion.

And since I am most assuredly NOT a member of PETA, my views on the pro-choice/anti-choice issue are not needed

[geomon]

136. we don't like your kind in these here parts...

better watch out because we all that all Democrats MUST be pro-choice (the right to choose to have an abortion) and those with a differing opinion need not apply (to the democratic party)

just kidding ...or am I ????!?!?!

:)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

70. Haven't you?

There was a post on DU only a couple of days ago that had the subject line:

'Meat is murder'

And that is a very common slogan for animal rights activists, you say you have never heard that you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat? What do you think that slogan means then? Meat is murder, but murder is ok?

[Aaron]

29. A few thoughts

There are three ways the justify the veg. pro-choice position you describe AFAIK. There may well be more but these are off the top of my head. The second was written elsewhere a while ago for other purposes so it may read differently than the other two. All of these are probably fairly rough.

1) The pain/suffering argument:

Animals feel pain, are self-aware, and may have family/social groups that suffer in their loss when they are killed. The unborn child - at least prior to some point in its development does not feel pain, is not self-aware, and with the exception of the mother and perhaps father - who believe the loss to be for the better as evidenced by their desire to choose abortion - has no family/social groups that suffer in their loss. Because there is no pain/suffering the abortion is acceptable as opposed to the killing of the animal where there is pain/suffering.

Alternately the pain/suffering argument may be made in the form of Positives of abortion > Pain/suffering it causes

2) The right to privacy argument:

Is abortion killing an innocent being? Yes. However, the sovereignty of a mother over her body trumps that killing. The government should not be involved in the health care decisions of individuals. As such it is up to the individual to determine the proper course of treatment or prevention in issues related to their health. If a woman believes child birth will bring the death of the child and likely herself as well then that woman is well within her inalienable rights surrounding her personal sovereignty to abort the child. Further, because there exists no right of the state to make decisions regarding her medical situation interference in her choice to abort cannot be justifiable. It is not that abortion in 99% of cases isn't possibly homicide, only that the government cannot be the one to determine which cases that is because they have no right to knowledge of her medical condition nor to influence her choice of treatment.

As an animal is a seperate being external to the human, the person cannot hold sovereignty over them. Thus they have no right to take their life unless they pose direct threat. This might leave room for the consumption of animals that die of natural causes.

3) Making effective law against abortion is not possible argument:

An effective law against abortion would have to investigate each fetal death. This would include autopsy or examination of miscarriages to determine if cause of miscarriage was intentional. From http://www.healthpages.org/ADAM/mnthone.htm - "In the third week of pregnancy, your fetus will be one week old. At this point, the embryo is only a small group of cells the size of the head of a pin." So a woman is to locate this human being the size of the head of a pin and take it to the hospital or police station.

Vegetarianism is a personal choice. Don't eat meat. It requires no enforcment of laws.

[Clete]

2. I became a vegetarian to protest how food animals

are treated. However, as an old broad, I have reaped the benefits of low blood pressure and cholesteral when all my peers are taking pills for those problems. Also, I dont' spend as much on groceries.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. Do you have a cat or dog?

If so, what do you feed them?

[Booberdawg]

7. My guess would be dog food and cat food

:7

[alaine]

9. I posted a thread on recommendations for vegetarian

dog food and practically got cyber-lynched by one meat eater. Cats can't survive on a vegetarian diet, but dogs can thrive on it as long as they have good sources of protein. I'm just throwing this one out since it seems to really upset meat-eaters and get them all worked up. Why would anyone do such a thing (purposely incite controversy)?

[binaryline]

14. good sources of (non-meat-related) protein for dogs?

i'm curious.. but i think my dog would wreck me if he didn't get his daily dose of vitamin meat ;-)

[Aaron]

40. See post #21

http://www.vegepet.com/

http://vegancats.com/

[Devils Advocate NZ]

73. So you admit that some animals can not survive on a vegitarian diet..

So answer this question: Do you suggest that all pet cats be exterminated to stop the killing of cattle and other animals in order to feed them? If not, what do you suggest we do? Let them starve to death?

If neither of the above, can you admit that your position is hypocritical, because you are saying that it is alright to kill cattle and other animals in order to feed cats, but not in order to feed humans?

[Aaron]

110. From what I've read cats and dogs can survive on a veg. diet

there's two links to veg. cat foods and dog foods in this thread.

[maha]

117. Oh, please

Cats absolutely cannot survive on a vegetarian diet. Anyone who says otherwise is blowin' smoke.

I've heard it argued that dogs can survive on a vegetarian diet if they get lots of supplements, as they are more omniverous than cats, but I can't imagine it's ideal. And, frankly it's unnatural.

[Aaron]

133. You must have missed the links I provided to veg. cat and dog foods

Read up on them here: http://vegancats.com/faq.html

[Clete]

10. I have a cat and he eats Friskies.

It is the by-product of farm food animal production that humans don't eat (unless they are poor and elderly), which no doubt would be made into fertilizer or thrown into the garbage otherwise. When the cruelty of farm animal production is made humanitarian, no doubt kitty will still eat Friskies and I will still be a veggie because I really am not into eating corpses anymore.

[Aaron]

21. Links for vegan/vegetarian cat and dog food

I haven't tried them out for the strays we've adopted yet, but I'm planning on it at some point.

http://www.vegepet.com/forcats.html

http://vegancats.com/catfood.php

The second one looks more promising to me than the first. I think they put the taurine and other nutrients that have to be synthesized for the cats health into the food itself, rather than having you buy it seperately and mix it in.

Both links have dog foods as well.

[Blue-Jay]

68. If my vegan cat

kills and eats a mouse or a bug, should I scold him?

"Get the bug, Steve! Get the bug!" Yes, my cat's name is Steve.

[Aaron]

100. Nah, I wouldn't think that was wrong

I think there's a difference between a cat eating a mouse it finds or a bug and a cat eating food from an anti-worker/anti-union meat factory.

[MiltonLeBerle]

122. why would anyone force a vegetarian diet on a cat?

People who would are cruel, sadistic and too self-centered to have a pet. Cats require meat. It's an entirely natural thing.
My cats loooove broasted chicken, and I love giving it to them.

[Aaron]

134. Because they care about PEOPLE more than PETS

Workers in meat factories are abused. Treated absolutely without dignity. They lose limbs, die, get paid almost nothing and get awful benefits if any. There are also environmental concerns regarding the harm the pollution from those plants on the people of the surrounding areas. Regarding the rest of your post read this: http://vegancats.com/faq.html You'll see the things cats and dogs need from meat can be provided from non-meat sources through synthesis and various processes that can be performed free of cruelty, with concern for worker and environment.

[MiltonLeBerle]

143. If the plight of the cat-food workers trouble you-

then don't get a cat.

:eyes:
:eyes:
:eyes:

[Aaron]

145. They're not 'cat-food' workers - They're slaughterhouse workers

The cat food comes from byproducts of the factory meat that's provided to fast food joints etc. The workers in those slaughterhouses are treated like crap. Read FastFoodNation if you haven't already - it details some of the abuses those people have to put up with.

Here's one review of the book with some excerpts about the slaughterhouses: http://blueprint.bluecrossmn.com/topic/brfastfood

If people want to eat meat, they can get it from sources that don't support the antiworker/antienvironment practices of the big slaughterhouses. A few posts in this thread have talked about potential sources, local famers being the most popular IIRC.

[MiltonLeBerle]

151. In any case-

Even if your dedication to your cause is that strong, you shouldn't take it out on a pet that would never choose to be a vegetarian.

As for myself- It's more a matter of convienece and economics-
I buy my meat & fish at the grocery store, and usually the cat-food too. I don't have the time, desire, or money to seek out more expensive alternatives.
We all have our personal lines drawn-
Some people shop at Walmart, and still consider themselves to be good liberals-
I shop at the grocery store, and still consider myself to be a good liberal.
I and many others drive gasoline-powered automobiles, and still consider ourselves to be good liberals.

[Aaron]

155. dupe

dupe

[Aaron]

156. Who is taking something out on their pet?

The strays we find eat the food we give them. If they don't like it we find another food. As far as your not having time or money for other products well... that could be understood. But no desire to buy products that have lower social cost than the one's you buy now is certainly not liberal. If you shop at WalMart because it's your only option that's understandable. If you seek out WalMart, continuing to plunge money into antiworker/anticommunity coffers even though other options exist that you can afford and accomodate in your schedule - then you're not a liberal. Same goes for the rest of those things. If you do them because you need to that's understandable, if you do them out of laziness or apathy sufficient that you can't be bothered to consider your fellow human beings then that isn't liberal. That's ugly. Maybe your liberalism is based on something else, or defined differently than the liberalism I've come to know, but if you can't be bothered to give a damn about others then I don't know how you can be a liberal at all. The base of liberalism is concern for others, concern for their rights, concern for their wellbeing. If you don't give have the desire to make the choices you can to help others then you're like no other liberal I know. Maybe I've read you wrong here, maybe you do desire to help others and weigh social cost in the decisions about which products to buy when you are able to do so. I hope that's the case.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

71. So in other words...

You don't mind how cattle are treated and killed in order to feed your cat, but you do mind how they are treated and killed to feed yourself or other humans?

[Clete]

75. Yes, I do mind. And if you read the whole post

before jumping in with an accusation you would know that. But I'll say it again, meat products in pet food are the by-products of animals killed for human consumption, so they are not killed for pet food. Also, pet food has road kill in it as well. I don't think motorists are running down deer to make cat and dog food.

I really don't object to meat consumption by others. What I object to is the way farm animals are kept and grown for food. We have chickens and we eat the eggs. If we didn't we would be wall to wall in chickens. We have to put them down once they live the full years of their lives and Benny, my cat, enjoys the remains.

Our chickens have happy lives living as mother nature intended them to. Yes, and occasionally we lose one to the coyotes. We try very hard to keep them protected, but it happens. I can tell you the cruelty the corporate egg industry inflicts on these poor birds to get the eggs that come in your supermarket is a true inhumanitarian disgrace and abomination.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

121. So, you do mind, but do it anyway?

That seems like a pretty hypocritical position to me. You encourage people not to eat meat as it supports the cruel treatment of cattle (although no-one has yet shown me how cattle are treated cruelly, but I digress), but you buy catfood that contains products from the same cruel treatment, therefore supporting it in the same way you tell others not to.

Yep, definately hypocritical.

By the a way, I did read the whole post, learned exactly where you stood, and used my previous post to force you to admit that you do exactly what you tell others not to, thereby proving the point made in the original post.

[Clete]

126. You are a sanctimonious flaming A.

You like to eat meat and don't want to allow anyone else to do what they think is right for them. I bet you go to church on Sunday and talk to God too and look down your nose at everyone who doesn't. I guess my cat should starve or eat salad according to you.

If you don't understand what I said on my post then I apparently can't make you, because you have one big closed mind.

Oh, just to be clear on what is being an activist vegetarian. We don't shove our agenda up your ass. What we want are laws that outlaw cruel practices in the barnyard and the slaughter house. Until then our protest is not to eat those products, but forcing an innocent animal to do the same when it is against their phisiology would be, well cruel.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

130. And you are resorting to personal attacks because you have argued yourself

into a corner.

You like to eat meat and don't want to allow anyone else to do what they think is right for them.

Point out where I have posted that anyone should be forced or even encouraged to eat meat. I bet you can't. Yet that is what you claim I am doing, while at the same time trying to paint meat eaters as murderers and supporters of cruel treatment of animals, even though, as you admitted, you also financially support the cruel treatment of animals by buying products derived from that treatment.

I bet you go to church on Sunday and talk to God too and look down your nose at everyone who doesn't.

Actually, no, I am an atheist who doesn't go to church on Sunday and doesn't talk to 'God' and doesn't look down my nose at everyone who doesn't. But thanks for your concern.

Oh, just to be clear on what is being an activist vegetarian. We don't shove our agenda up your ass.

Is that right? then explain what all the "meat is murder" and the "I don't eat corpses" and all the other inflammatory crap that vegetarians say to try and disgust or ridicule or shame those who eat meat are for?

In fact, why are you even posting on this thread, if not to try and force your opinions down other peoples throats? Just look at the invective you have thrown at me ("sanctimonious flaming A" comes to mind) for merely stating that a vegetarian who feeds their pet cat meat, while criticisng me for eating meat, is hypocritical.

What we want are laws that outlaw cruel practices in the barnyard and the slaughter house. Until then our protest is not to eat those products

Fair enough, but then don't you think it would be a better plan to encourage meat eaters to join your push for more humane practices, rather than accusing them of the "crimes" you wish to stop? Don't you think it would be more productive NOT to alienate the very people who hold economic power over the companies that are treating animals this way? Of course, that would be reasonable, and so far you haven't shown that you can be reasonable on this subject.

[Mairead]

149. That's surprisingly dishonest of you

You know perfectly well that slaughterhouses don't exist to create cat food. Cat and dog food is a byproduct of the slaughtering industry, just as leather is. Absent a demand for steaks and mince, the offal that goes into cat and dog food would no longer be available.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

150. No, it is entirely honest.

Cat and dog food helps to make slaughterhouses more profitable, thereby ensuring their continued existance. Having said that, let me just point out that many animals, such as horses, are slaughtered and rendered into animal feed purely for the pet food industry. Animals such as these are NOT killed to supply meat for human consuption, and in many cases such meat is banned by law from being sold for human consumption.

So there IS an industry dedicated to killing animals purely so cats and dogs can eat.

There is nothing dishonest in what I said. However, there is some dishonesty in proclaiming that the sale of by-products of an industry does not support that industry. That argument is clearly false, as any trade that increases the profit of an industry by definition must be supporting that industry.

[Mairead]

152. You and I must have different meanings for the word 'honest', then

Another tuppence on the dollar does make slaughterhouses 'more profitable', but it's not significant. Just as getting legless 6 nights a week is 'healthier' than doing it all 7, but it's not significant. Ditto a penny a week net rise in your pay packet--you're 'being paid more', but it's not significant.

Significance is ...well, significant.

[MiltonLeBerle]

123. Mmmmmm...corpses...

nt

[Dob Bole]

97. I try to be a vegetarian....

sometimes I fail, because I don't refuse any food if I am a guest at someone's home. 90% of the time, I'm at my home, though.

I do it for both environmental and health reasons. Factory farming is one of the largest pollutants around. Soy could feed every person on earth; however, most soy products are fed to cows, which are then sold to people who can afford meat. It's a gross waste of resources.

Finally, it's just the whole discipline thing. I'm a very disciplined person.

[EFF BrandyWine]

146. 90 percent of our diet is based on soy.

Due to a sudden allergic reaction to meat, dairy and fowl, I was forced to be vegan for six weeks while testing was conducted and it was really difficult for me. When the tests were analyzed I was told to remain vegetarian. Gradually my husband joined me and for the last two years we have very much enjoyed this life style. As an added bonus we both lost weight. There is such a wide variety of great meatless food to be had that we do not miss meat. We do eat a great deal of fish. I recommend trying vegetarian for a month or so...if for no other reason than to see if it suits you. For me it was a necessity that turned into a blessing.

[Philosophy]

6. Why don't plants have rights too?

I agree, vegetarianism is hypocritical.

[Clete]

11. Plants do.

I could give you a list of plants that are way poisonous and that grow in your garden. That is a ridiculous statement.

[NewJerseyDem]

159. Plants don't have brains!!!!!

Animals have some level of emotions, feelings, etc. Plants don't. That is very important. It is just stupid to try to say that plants and animals are the same.

[liberalmuse]

12. Probably...

But the thought of 500,000 animals being tortured and slaughtered every hour is much more disturbing than the thought of a farmer harvesting vegatables and grains from their stalks. Fruits and vegetables are basically storage compartments for the plant itself. They are a form of life, but I wouldn't consider them sentient beings, as I do animals. It's disgusting what we do to them, in order to mass consume meat as if it were a snack food.

At least Fruits and vegatables get fresh air, water and sunshine. Animals get body parts hacked off, or are hung from hooks, still alive. At the very least, they are stuffed in cramped cages, immobile. They aren't stunned because the industry thinks a penny to keep one animal from suffering in the process of being slaughtered is too costly.

Vegatables don't have highly developed nervous systems like animals do, and as far as I know, you can't really torture them. They do release certain chemicals when picked to indicate that they are stressed, but don't scream in pain when you chop them up. You can communicate in some form with animals. Though some indigenous cultures claim communication with plants, I've never had any direct communication with a plant like I've had with animals.

I'm a vegetarian, but it's a personal thing. I don't preach (except for the rant above that has been pent up inside of me for a couple of weeks now). This is a planet where creatures must feed off of other creatures in order to survive. I know people who've tried to become vegetarians, but they get sick, much like I did when I tried to go vegan. I'm not against meat eaters. I'm against the fast food monster burgers and the mass consumption well above and beyond what's necessary for survival.

On edit: Sorry. My grammar blows.

[Exultant Democracy]

19. Yeah,

You take the words out of my, not having eaten meat for 22 years, mouth.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

22. I don't support mass killing of animals

Being Vegan I reap major benefits health wise but my main reason for this is:

1)compassion for animal suffering and

2) to not support the multi billion dollar industrialized farming industry that is totally destroying our planet.

The rainforest destruction does affect all of us--yeah-
-even all you "tough guys" out there.

We all need to breathe air and we all suffer when such a mass amount of species are driven to extinction to make room for grazing land.

The Rainforest area cannot recover what is lost due to this destruction and this destruction is all for one thing -Hamburgers--

I THINK before I eat.
Other people can eat mindlessly --I do not care--they can chew on anything they wish as far as I'm concerned--
I don't just go along with something because "everyone else " is doing it
Burger King, McDonalds--KFC--Multi billion dollar Republikkin money mongers.

Fact
The United Sates composes 6 percent of the world's population--
The United States consumes SIXTY PERCENT of the world's Beef.

WTF

[Clete]

13. Time out!!

Treating sentient animals with the cruelty we do, with the corporate farm practices of today in this world, is what it is about. Not only that, humans historically do not eat meat on a daily basis. It is really bad for you.

If anyone thinks plants are really worried about being eaten, then starve. You deserve to for being stupid.

[VoteClark]

27. You are wrong, sorry

Animals and plants both try to avoid being eaten. They have poisen and thorns. They also try to live in areas where their predators don't.

You first argument is silly. We stomp on coach roaches and mice, and spray houses to kill termits. Why not protest this too?


J4Clark

[Aaron]

31. Because those animals have made aggressive acts

towards your home or person. A cow, in a field, there by your own choosing, has not.

Are you aware of any plants that feel pain or emotional loss?

[VoteClark]

43. Aware?

I would imagine that since they have thorns and poisen in them, yes. Maybe they don't shout OUCH! or HELP! in the same way we do, but maybe they would if they could. They do release chemicals. They do produce natural defenses. I find it odd that you can relate to the idea that animals have to be like us only to be protected. Plants do suffer the consquences of attacks against their well being. They do it differenly. But they still do it the way they can.


J4Clark

[SOS]

79. This

"plants feel pain" nonsense is tiresome.
1) Plants do NOT experience pain. They have no nervous sytem. No nerves, no brain = no pain. Simple. The fact that a rose bush has thorns does not mean it feels pain. Was your last haircut painful?

[bitchkitty]

131. I wonder if you realize

how idiotic your argument is. Actually, I think you do realize it and you're bored, so you're trying for people's reactions. In any case, whether or not you're having fun, you're making a fool of yourself. If I were you I'd stop right away.

[Clete]

67. Your argument is because we eat plants, it's also okay to

eat food animals. My argument is that the food animals are treated like commodities without any concern for their suffering. This is done by big farming corporations. These corporations are also the ones that are putting fish genes in your tomatoes and making farm workers sick with pesticides. If everyone refused to eat their products, this would end it.

I do not stomp on anything. I catch the occasional field mice that come into my home and release them a few miles away in a wilderness area. The hawks and other predators keep the rodent population down. There are all kinds of deterrents to use for other pests before they come into your house. I don't even kill the poisonous Black Widow spiders in my yard because they eat the bugs that would ravage my plants if there were no spiders. Incidentally spiders love roaches for lunch.

I have learned to live with nature and mother nature has her own checks and balances in place. All you have to do is help her do her job.

[JustJoe]

16. Kucinich is a vegan...

maybe everybody knew this already...
http://www.hillnews.com/living/072303_kucinich.aspx

[JackDragna]

18. You use some interesting logic.

Firstly, vegetarians don't exactly eat the food of animals typically used for food. Your words conjure up a hilarious image of someone fighting with a cow in field for a patch of grass. I'd very much enjoying seeing you write a thesis on the population dynamics of farm animals as they face the mighty human in the struggle for existence. You could probably get a paper into Nature on that once.

Secondly, people value things that can feel pain and have emotions over entities that undergo binary fission. Is it a judgement call? Of course. Veggies don't get broken up over the loss of bacteria when an infection is done away with and the assertion that they should is utterly hilarious. If you would like the qualitative differences between single-celled organisms and the sorts of animals humans use for food, please let me know.

Thirdly, because a behavior exists in nature does not mean that humans have any reason to consider it ethical for themselves. Male lions, for example, are nomadic wanderers that look for a group of females to join. They fight and kick the other males from the pride if they're strong enough. If the newcomers win, one of the first things they do is kill all of the cubs sired by the former males.

Based on your argument that all that occurs in nature is moral, men that marry women with children from a previous marriage should kill those children. After all, lions do the same thing. It's not a bad strategy from a genetic standpoint, as one wastes time and energy raising a child that has none of one's genes. I therefore assert that for you to be consistent, you must be in favor of perpetual barbarism.

As to killing plants, see the above post about the "feelings" of microorganisms. I would further add that one could possibly be vegetarian and never have to kill anything, as there's a wide variety of fruits and vegetables that can be harvested without killing the plant.

Thank you, drive through.

[VoteClark]

28. Your arguments are quickly broken down

"Firstly, vegetarians don't exactly eat the food of animals typically used for food. Your words conjure up a hilarious image of someone fighting with a cow in field for a patch of grass. I'd very much enjoying seeing you write a thesis on the population dynamics of farm animals as they face the mighty human in the struggle for existence. You could probably get a paper into Nature on that once."

Incorrect. No, but they compete for the land, space, and minerals that they take up. Surely if a farmer could not make a profit off cows they would stop breeding them or still kill them. You can't release a cow into the wild yonder. LOL. They species would go extinct. It is only the farmer raising the cow that allows it to exist.

"Secondly, people value things that can feel pain and have emotions over entities that undergo binary fission. Is it a judgement call? Of course. Veggies don't get broken up over the loss of bacteria when an infection is done away with and the assertion that they should is utterly hilarious. If you would like the qualitative differences between single-celled organisms and the sorts of animals humans use for food, please let me know."

Yes I would like to know. All animals feel pain. It is a survial instinct. Animals feel pain to know that it is not good for it.

"Thirdly, because a behavior exists in nature does not mean that humans have any reason to consider it ethical for themselves. Male lions, for example, are nomadic wanderers that look for a group of females to join. They fight and kick the other males from the pride if they're strong enough. If the newcomers win, one of the first things they do is kill all of the cubs sired by the former males."

Yes, so let us eat them. :) It still causes the animals pain if they feel it and you allow them to exisit in greater numbers.

"Based on your argument that all that occurs in nature is moral, men that marry women with children from a previous marriage should kill those children. After all, lions do the same thing. It's not a bad strategy from a genetic standpoint, as one wastes time and energy raising a child that has none of one's genes. I therefore assert that for you to be consistent, you must be in favor of perpetual barbarism."

Humans are better for not killing their own. That stradigy has proven to be a better on considering that we exist in greater numbers and are nearly extinct. It might be a good idea for your own off-spring, but it is horrible for the species as a whole.

"As to killing plants, see the above post about the "feelings" of microorganisms. I would further add that one could possibly be vegetarian and never have to kill anything, as there's a wide variety of fruits and vegetables that can be harvested without killing the plant."

Yes true, but you might kill the bird that needed the seeds, or the worm that needed the decomposing remains of the orange you picked, or the ape that would have eaten the fruit. Not to mention you forgot the microorganizisms that are on the fruit. Or even in the water you used to wash the fruit off. :)

You can't go through life without killing anything. It is impossible.

J4Clark

[Aaron]

33. Direct killing is different than indirect killing

If you kill a person, or pay to have them killed, you're a murderer.
If you eat a loaf of bread, and a child starves, you are not.

A few other thoughts. Prove microorganisms feel pain or emotional loss. Prove they die when they are washed off the fruit. Fruit may not be washed. Using land for ranching may be less efficient than using it for food. You have not, afaik, addressed quantity of harm - the meat eater potentially kills more than the vegetarian.

Edited to add: Nevermind, the person you were responding to did a better job than I of crafting a reply. Respond to his/hers unless you feel compelled to respond to mind.

[JackDragna]

35. Rebuttal

Domesticated animals only "compete" for food resources because we bring them into being. If we didn't raise the farm animals, then there would be no need to expend grain or grazing land on their existence.

As to what the difference is between food animals and bacteria are, well, technically, bacteria aren't animals. They fall into a completely different biological domain. Plants share the same domain, but like bacteria, they lack emotion and pain reflexes. Those are the critical differences.

You did not respond to my criticism of the methodology you use as regards your "nature" argument. Saying that humans are better off for not killing their own does not answer why animal behavior should be used as a yardstick for ethical behavior. I also strongly disagree that killing offspring is necessarily bad for a population as a whole - there might actually be a sizable benefit for men to kill the offspring of other men, as humans are a highly competitive species and might benefit from a thinning of the ranks. That's neither here nor there, however.

I would also point out that I have little concern, as do most vegetarians, with organisms like worms or pest insects that are killed as part of the process of raising plants. I know of almost no vegetarian that thinks human existence has zero impact on other organisms. The purpose of a vegetarian lifestyle is to reduce the footprint humanity leaves on the earth. The few birds that might not get seeds are more than balanced by the many, many different kinds of organisms that are killed when human society destroys habitats for the purpose of raising farm animals and the food to feed them.

[sweetheart]

20. no, but chatting about it online is.

The internet would not exist for huge military expenditure used to murder thousands of people in various reaches of the "empire" from chile to south korea... and every word we type here is written on the bodies of a few million dead... oh! At least we din't EAT them...

Good point, someone else killed them, and really the link is tedious as the biology of those murders was not directly supported by the internet... oh yea? Don't you think the miliary orders for these executions did not go out on the military command version of this DU chatroom?

For that matter, the entire legal framework in which you question eating meat was built on the mass genocide of slaves and indians, but then again, we din't EAT them.

Yes, it is hipocritical. Eat vegi for your own health, but spare the world the moral argument. Eat vegi cuz raising veg could sustainably feed the ENTIRE world whilst meat cannot... or any of those smart foward looking reasons... but if the objective is to feel better cuz vegies don't kill, well isn't it just a little deviant from truth?

[JackDragna]

25. Uh, not quite.

The excesses and wealth of organized society are beyond the control of the consumer. Vegetarians, however, can willfully engage in shopping practices that agree with a moral value that they have. There are some moral things about which I can do nothing..the murder of Native Americans, for example, has given me a place to live. To equate such unalterable circumstances with a conscious moral choice is a false analogy if I ever saw one.

[sweetheart]

65. helpless little people

It is the american excuse. Nobody has any authority, only big bad daddy... so we're all innocent footsoldiers in the big bad ant colony... and at least some little people eat better.

I agree, and was poking in ironic thrust, yet that we are helpless and morally not corrupted by the actions of our organized society... i think ye are wrong there... but that opens a whole can of worms... what if americans individually were put on trial for every innocent death abroad by government... that was nuremburg's standard of justice, but our cultural morals only are mono-directional... everyone but us.

[GoneOffShore]

128. Meat eaters too

'Vegetarians, however, can willfully engage in shopping practices that agree with a moral value that they have.'

I am an unapolgetic carnivore. But, I do NOT buy meat from supermarkets, mainly because it comes from chicken, sheep, pigs, or cows that are factory farm raised. I'm voting with my wallet by buying meat from local farmers who humanely raise their animals. I am also paying over the odds for that meat.
And guess what ?
There are economic and political consequences to my doing so. I'm supporting sustainable agriculture, I'm keeping one more farm from being bought by a developer and turned into McMansions, I'm letting the big supermarket know that they can't sell me their rubbish.
Granted, one person can make little difference, but I like to feel that I'm doing my part.
I'm right up there with Jacques Bove - everytime a McPukoids is built, an artisanal cheese dies.
Food is definitely a way to make a political statement.
Try checking out the Farm to City program which helps with Community Supported Agriculture and while you're at it look at the Slow Food movement.
Buy Fresh, Buy Local

Mc Pukoid's :puke:
Perdue :puke:
Oscar Mayer :puke:

[ott]

23. Your premise is flawed

It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to "process" one pound of meat. So, by not eating meat you're actually consuming less plant life.

Most of the animals humans consume are herbivores.

Plants are not sentient and feel no pain. You can't honestly tell me that you don't see a difference between weeding a garden and beating a dog.

Now try this on for size:

Is a fire fighter a hypocrite for saving as many lives as he/she can from a burning building when it's impossible to save them all?

Would you break a kitten's neck if that made a spice come out of its ass that made your food taste better? How is that any different from condoning the torture and murder of factory farmed animals for dietary preference/pleasure?

[VoteClark]

34. Your not considering all the factors

"It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to "process" one pound of meat. So, by not eating meat you're actually consuming less plant life."

Yes, but the animals you keep alive would eat even more.

"Most of the animals humans consume are herbivores."

Exactly, eating more plants that you wish to eat.

"Plants are not sentient and feel no pain. You can't honestly tell me that you don't see a difference between weeding a garden and beating a dog."

How do you know plants don't feel pain? Because you can't hear it? Yes there is a difference between weeding a garden and beating a dog. One serves a purpose and the other doesn't.

"Now try this on for size:
Is a fire fighter a hypocrite for saving as many lives as he/she can from a burning building when it's impossible to save them all?"

No, but if he just picketed out the white guys and left the black ones to burn he would be. Which is what you are doing when you choose one form of life to save and another to kill using your mind to make the decision.

"Would you break a kitten's neck if that made a spice come out of its ass that made your food taste better? How is that any different from condoning the torture and murder of factory farmed animals for dietary preference/pleasure?"

I didn't know that was possible! If it was you would have a point. How are farm animals being torutured? I understand their needing to be killed, so we can eat them, but the torure part. I don't think to many farmers take pleasure in kicking their cows for the fun of it.

J4Clark

[JackDragna]

36. Not quite.

If people didn't eat meat, we'd have no need to maintain a huge domestic livestock population. There would, ergo, be no animals to be "kept alive."

We know plants don't feel pain because they don't have a central nervous system. If you can prove plants feel pain in some other way, I imagine there's a Nobel in it for you. You are also fallaciously shifting the burden of proof on me, as I am under no obligation to prove a negative: that plants might feel pain is a part of your argument, not mine.

Your metaphor comparing animals and plants to white and black fire victims is logically fallacious. Animals and plants have many dissimilar characters whereas black and white humans are nearly genetically identical. Your argument fails because of this flawed premise.

If you don't think animals are tortured, you've never been in a slaughterhouse.

[VoteClark]

45. Not for the sole perpose of torture

You keep contridicting yourself my friend.

"If people didn't eat meat, we'd have no need to maintain a huge domestic livestock population. There would, ergo, be no animals to be "kept alive.'"

So you think they should all just be killed and die off?

"We know plants don't feel pain because they don't have a central nervous system. If you can prove plants feel pain in some other way, I imagine there's a Nobel in it for you. You are also fallaciously shifting the burden of proof on me, as I am under no obligation to prove a negative: that plants might feel pain is a part of your argument, not mine."

Humm, so if they don't have a cenral nervous system it is OK to kill them, that is your argument. Humm, I find that interesting. What if the animals was given a pain killer, could we play kickball with them then?

"Your metaphor comparing animals and plants to white and black fire victims is logically fallacious. Animals and plants have many dissimilar characters whereas black and white humans are nearly genetically identical. Your argument fails because of this flawed premise."

Not really. There is still a genetic difference between Blacks and Whites, also culture, and language, and relationship, and well as country, in many cases.

"If you don't think animals are tortured, you've never been in a slaughterhouse."

I have seen it. I know what happens. But they are animals. They are not torutured "Just for the fun of it". They are killed in a manner that prevents them from being harmful to humans when consumed. In your case, you would be better off ending human ownership of cats and dogs that get tortured by children in the neighborhood.

J4Clark

[JackDragna]

102. Your arguments are patently ludicrous.

Where do I state that the animals should be "killed?" We have the high numbers of livestock we do because we actively breed them. If we didn't need to actively breed them, there'd be no need to "kill" them: they simply would never exist. Population control doesn't require letting something reproduce, then killing its offspring.

As to giving animals painkillers, bringing up hypotheticals is a fallacious style of argumentation. What if animals grew two heads and could fly? If you give the animal a sedative, it still has a CNS.

I don't care if the animals are tortured for the fun of it, for the acquisition of meat or because it'll help the New York Mets witn a ball game. Torturing animals is an unacceptable societal practice.

[Mairead]

48. "Yes, but the animals you keep alive would eat even more."

Actually, they wouldn't, left to their own devices. We tend to force-feed the animals we're going to kill and eat--it gives faster profits.

[Booberdawg]

24. Not if you understand vegitarianism

As already pointed out, your arguments are flawed.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

26. meat eating is hypocritical

a poem-
ode to tasty snakkkz:

eat a pig but don't eat a dog.
eat a cow but don't eat a horse.
eat a chicken but don't eat your parakeet.
eat a fish but don't eat a dolphin.

fly a flag while they're killing A-rabs in Eye Rack
snivel and sob when you remember 911


will the true blue "NON Hypocrite " please stand up

and pat your cat and dog when you fire up that BBQ !

[VoteClark]

41. I would eat them all if it meant my survival

[RebelOne]

46. A question

Why do you call some animals pets and others dinner?

[VoteClark]

47. I don't

I don't. I have no reason to cage animals. I bought a pet bird when I was kid. I moved out of the house and left him to my parents. I would have let him free if I could, but he would not survive. I was a kid and didn't think caging and owning an animal was wrong.

I would eat any animal if it meant my survival. I think most people would even eat their fellow humans if in a pinich.

I think it odd to OWN an animal or treat it as a member of the family. They are not. The only exceptable reason would be if it meant your survival or the animals survival.

J4Clark

[expatriot]

30. Is it still against the rules to accuse someone of being a freeper?

I am just asking for future reference.

[Aaron]

37. I was wondering that a bit too

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

106. Are you one?

are you a freeper?

[expatriot]

32. Is someone who is against murdering people a hypocrite?

Let's think about it for just a moment.

If you don't kill people, then more people are around to fight precious things like food and other necessities, Which means they just die because the world can't suppport all that life.

Second, if you don't kill people... who knows they may kill someone later on or have a kid that kills someone....

Ultimately, it is impossible not to kill other life and still exist yourself.

So is someone who is against murder a hypocrite for saying that they don't kill people and think it is wrong to kill people?

A penny for your thoughts.

/sarcasm

[VoteClark]

38. No Comparsion my friend

Your argument is weak.

It is a known fact that animals will kill other animals and other plants. Which is what you are trying to avoid.

It is not a presumed instance that another human would kill another human as you try to relate the two.

If you knew that a person was going to kill another person, yes you would be justified in stopping them.

In this case your reasoning would be comparable.

J4Clark

[Paschall]

39. I'm not so sure

Ultimately, it is impossible not to kill other life and still exist yourself.

I think it might be possible to exist on a diet of milk and honey. And you could do what the Masai do and bleed your livestock for fresh blood. Eating fruit also doesn't always destroy life, in fact you can eat a fruit and still carry out its biological "purpose" by planting the seed(s)--not forgetting that some seeds remain viable even after passing through the digestive system. And are nuts "life" or simply potential life?

By the way, is this thread directed at Kucinich supporters? Whatever the case, your suppositions are pretty infantile. (Non-human animals commit murder?? I'm sure that's news to every judge and police officer in the country. And why do you assume that if people choose not to eat meat they eat the animal's food instead? Do you know many vegetarians who eat hay and clover?)

[VoteClark]

44. Gee, Really, I thought Clovers and Hay

came from the ground using minerals from the soil that the plants humans eats. I also thought that pigs and others did eat the same plants. But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps Clover and Hay are in endless supply and don't require minerals, land, water, and other natural resources. I think you must think in really tiny terms that allow you to see only what you want to see. Must be nice to think that way.

J4Clark

[Paschall]

50. You just indicated one reason for being a vegetarian

I don't have the precise figures on hand, but it requires about 10 times as many resources to produce one pound of beef as it does one pound of soybeans. And the accumulated toxins in the meat are concentrated at similar levels.

I don't know anyone who's every tried or advocated eliminating the use of all resources from our diets. Do you? I mean thinking in big terms... Maybe you want to make a case for starvation.

[VoteClark]

52. You have to go full circle

Yes, it takes about 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. But the animal would have eaten more than that.

You are correct, you can't eliminate the use of all sources from our diet, and since it is a circle, you always effect other life no matter what. So it is kinda futile to try.


J4Clark

[Paschall]

53. Futile? Or "hypocritical"?

And why bother about the futile or hypocritical things others do--like decide to become vegetarians--if they don't have any effect on you?

You never answered my question: Is this thread directed at Kucinich supporters?

[VoteClark]

58. No, it isn't. I like Kucinich

Veggies do effect me. They make me feel bad about swatting a fly or killing a spider or cockroach. They feel pain too ya know.

J4Clark

[Paschall]

66. Nobody...

.. can make you feel bad without your permission. - Eleanor Roosevelt (paraphrase)

[MrPrax]

42. Anti-Veg Talk Points

most vegetarians have long debated these points and they are satified with the debate...
if you are thinking of vegetarianism I think you should study more about food chemistry and 'fall down that slippery slope' where you start to ask more interesting questions about the 'four food groups' and why do people starve and why does food have to be fast and all those other questions that Veggies ask themselves and society...
We live in a free society and veggies are NOT obliged to argue 'moral' points about 'survival of the fittest'
Ride a Bike and eat healthy foods!!!!

;-)

[retread]

49. Merely surrounding hyberbolic flame bait by the words think and thought

doesn't make it at all thoughtful!

[Mairead]

51. is a vegetarian a hypocrite for saying ... it is wrong to kill/eat animals

I think you're still being facetious and pointlessly contentious, but I'll respond: no, a vegetarian who chooses not to kill and eat animals is not a hypocrite.

We are responsible for the actions over which we have control, not for any other actions. So someone who tries to reduce their personal impact on suffering and death, and does so in a principled way at some cost to themselves...that person is doing the best they can, and that's not hypocritical.

Most vegetarians recognise a hierarchy of neural organisation. Mammals have the highest-order organisation, archaic single-cell organisms the least. When we try to decide where to draw the line, we discover we cannot draw the line below plants, if only because without a microscope we can't even perceive individuals that are less organised than plants.

If we really study most plants, then we can see that they do react to us and other stimuli. But our goal in being ethical vegetarians is not to reduce all reaction, but to reduce the kind of reaction that we call 'terror', 'fear', 'suffering', 'pain', and similar names. As far as we know, those properties require a mammalian level of organisation. We're less sure about birds, reptiles, and fish.

Of course, we don't know for sure exactly how many other groups of living creatures experience some analog of those negative sensations. What we do know is that we're much more aware of life's unity than the great experimentalist Edward Thorndike was a hundred years ago, when he, like all Behaviorists, tried hard to see living creatures as mere 'meat machines'. (Interestingly, he was resolutely ignoring the intelligence of cats at about the same time Capitalism was struggling to maintain its control over working people, White people were struggling to maintain control over Black and other non-White people, etc. Coincidence? And in another nice parallel, just as socialism was starting to make the wealthy elites sweat, Wolfgang Köhler on the island of Tenerife off the African coast was watching chimpanzees display genuinely insightful behavior as they struggled to solve problems he set them. Both threads would come together in the late '50s and '60s)

So most veggies acknowledge that as our understanding becomes more complete, we might find that mammals are definitely not the only creatures that suffer. At which point we'll all have to deal with that. But for the moment, it's ethically enough to account for what we do know (though many account for what we're unsure of, too). If anyone's in ethical trouble, it's the people who refuse to account for what we already know, not those who are doing what they can.

[VoteClark]

55. You have had the most intelligent response so far but

I think to say that we are ethically responsible for the suffering of animals is not fair or reasonable, unless we do it for the sole purpose of pleasure, which is sick and disgusting and leads to the eventual torture and insensitivity of torturing humans and people smaller than us.

Dogs, Cats, birds, pigs, snakes, worms, cockroaches, snails, and even plants all feel and react to their environment. To say we are accountable to Dogs and Pigs but not birds and worms seems rather awkward and highly judgemental.

What gives someone the right to say, I am responsible for the killing of Cows and Pigs, but not Cockroaches and worms?

Is the life of a cow not just as worthy and important to the cow as the life of the cockroach is to the cockroach? I would bet the cow would not care if you killed the cockroach nor the coachroach the life of the cow. But poke a cow and poke a cockroach and see if they don't react to save their own lives, they do.

To say that plants don't care about their own survival seems rather narrow minded as well. Plants try to live no matter what. They grow thorns and develop poisens. They reproduce and grow. These are contridictory to something that wishes not to survive.

To argue that they don't run away when you poke them with a stick seems rather silly. Plants do their best to stay alive based on their make up and design. A design that has worked and allowed all the little piglets and cows you like so much to stay alive.

I think that animals killing other animals and plants is a part of nature and a part of the life cycle. Trying to take yourself out of eat because you don't like it doesn't change the fact that you are a part of it and you can't get out of it.

Placing animals on the same level as humans is very dangeous and can lead to problems that are not meant to be. Dogs are not the same as humans, and either are plants. To think otherwise messes up the intent of nature. Imagine if a bear said, I shouldn't eat fish because they feel pain, or a tiger said I shouldn't eat deer they feel pain. Nature would go crazy.

I guess some people can choose to eat no animals, but I don't think it helps anymore then it hurts.

J4Clark

[Mairead]

62. Sorry, I didn't realise that you were having this dialog with yourself

Obviously, if you're going to do this all in your own head, you can come to any self-justifying conclusions you like. But I think you ought, in fairness, to have said that you weren't interested in outside views.

[jonnyblitz]

54. rule of thumb is that I don't eat anything with a face. n/t

[VoteClark]

56. That is funny! How about eyes or ears?

[jonnyblitz]

60. that was good!!!

:)

[bicentennial_baby]

57. Silly silly silly

It's obvious that you either know nothing about vegetarianism or you (pardon the pun) have beef with vegetarians in general...Regardless, your arguments are fallacious at best, and since my fellow DUers have debunked them above, I won't waste my time or energy.

[VoteClark]

59. Come'on BiC

This is a fun argument. Pointless, but not anymore than the others on here! I don't think they debuncked anything. Killing a fly, should I feel guilty? Why? Why not? It feels pain too.


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[rman]

61. you mean GD is a pointless forum?

".. fun argument. Pointless, but not anymore than the others.."

Maybe you don't see the significance of the other topics?

[VoteClark]

111. Not really to be honest

Everyone here is a Democrat. Who are we convincing to not to vote for Bush? Maybe on the off chance maybe a freeper comes in here and changes their mind, but I don't think anyone in here is a Republican, it is called the Democratic Underground. It might be good to get information out, but what creditability do we have amoungst the general population? If someone knows you dislike the Republicans, they are not going to listen to you about the Republicans, we are a baised source. You don't ask a Republican about Democrats, and you don't ask Democrats about Republicans and expect a well balanced opinion.

J4Clark

[KG]

63. no, it's not. and why do some people feel compelled to give vegans

vegitarians grief for their dietary/lifestyle choice?

it's definately easier on the environment, easier on the digestive system and for some, it's easier on their conscience.

[Northwind]

64. Good grief...

I have a radical idea!

How about if the vegetarians continue eating their vegetables, in peace, and stop trying to push their diet as a moral high ground and the stupid comments about the choice of eating meat?

How about if meat eaters keep eating their meat, in peace, and stop with the insecure ranting against vegetarians and stupid comments about the vegetarian lifestyle choice?

Why in the holy fuck would people get so mad at each other over a personal choice like this?

Note: I eat meat.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

107. wait a minute-a meat head started this thread

this is a meathead attack on vegetarianism.
not a vegetarian attacking anyone !

Meat heads are giving "grief" to vegetarians who aren't pushing their beliefs on anyone !

VoteClark is a total meat head.

You've stated you are a meat head.

So you are free to chew on a dismembered body part you want.

It's ok to put whatever you want
into any hole in your body
really--I am ok with that---
Suck on a cigarette too while your at it.
--seriously--
Anyone who hates vegans for eating a conscious diet has a BIG problem.

This "HATE" and "ANGER" stems from fear-
-the fear is that "maybe" just maybe, somewhere in the back of their minds they realize this killing is wrong-
This is GREAT!!
This is the begining stage of "awareness".
The first stage is 'denial"
Let the evolution begin !!!

[Leftist78]

132. Meatheads?

Who has the self-righteous attitude now? It seems to me the problem is people who eat meat (like me) get riled up when you veggie people climb up on your moral high horse and talk about how your diet is soooo much more environmentally friendly.

I helped take care of my family’s hogs (rural southern term), chickens, and cows for most of my life, and I understand what it means to do farm work. I grew up with farm animals, which we had slaughtered for our own use, and today I buy most of my meat and veggies from local family farmers. I believe in being responsible for what you eat, and I think we’d be much better served if people would support their local family farmers. The destruction of the family farm is the real culprit for the factory farm menace that exists today. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble here, but buying veggies from your local supermarket is just as bad environmentally as buying the meat from that same supermarket. The money flows into the same pockets.

I’ve been doing my part to stop the cruel practices taking place in these corporate farming torture shops, but you will get nowhere by looking down your nose at people eating "dismembered body parts". You should be glad your evolutionary ancestors did chew on that meat, otherwise they never would have never gotten that extra protein to develop the brain you're using for your moral superiority rant now, and we'd all still be swinging from the trees right now.

I've got no problem with people making a choice to be vegetarian, but don't give me some rant about how the hamburger I'm eating is destroying the environment. In my experience, most of you veggie types have never been within 20 miles of a farm. A lot of you’ve got all this compassion for animals you’ve never even been around. Until you've spent a little time out in the field, keep your opinions off my dinner plate.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

137. feel free to put meat in any hole you have

feel free to eat what you will-
-Your participation in activities is your business.
Just don't attack vegans and vegetarians.
Seriously do place any item you want in any hole you have
and see if I give a cow's ass.
Is that self rightous?
a meat head is one who likes meat--ever heard of a metal head--a gear head-radio head??
You're a meat head if you like meat-
You can suck on a cigarette too. It's YOUR body--
That's what free choice--pro choice is all about-
Do whatever the hell you want !
Can you really claim to be a dem if you support the big industries that are the largest contributors to the pukes you oppose? supporting the industrialized meat industry is plain bad for all free thinkers.

I won't give you a "rant " about it destroying the environment.
If you don't believe it that's your 'ignor'- ance--You're free to ignore it--That destruction happens whether I mention it to youor not.
Grazing land is a big deal when the rainforest is obliterated daily--just look at the Hard Rock Cafe "acres of rainforest lost" led light board--(if you are near a city)
It clicks fast bro-

Americans compose 6 percent of the world's population
Americans consume 60 percent of the world's Beef
WTF x 100 !!!

read this
link regardng cruelty:
"They die piece by piece"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1358

[Leftist78]

158. You obviously didn't read my post

The meat I buy doesn't do a damn thing to any rain forrest. it's local. I buy most of it directly from people that I've known my entire life, and they've had a hell of a time staying afloat because of that "indstrialized meat industry" you seem to know so much about.

You see, to you this is all just a bunch of philosophical banter, to many of the people in my community, it's their livlihood. Sorry to break it too you, but I'm not supporting any deforestation with my meat consumption.

The best thing you can do is get off that meat-hating high horse and realize that the real enemy here is corporate agribusiness. Can you buy veggies from large agribusinesses that support conservatives and claim to be a Dem? The meat has nothing to do with it. As I said in my previous post, it's the factory farms that are the problem, and they do a hell of a lot more than raise cattle "bro".

[arissa]

69. Howard Lyman once said...

"To consider yourself an environmentalist and still eat meat is like saying you're a philanthropist who doesn't give to charity."

Eating meat is generally a hypocritical position when it comes to progressive causes, not being a vegetarian. For example, you can't really call yourself an environmentalist who eats meat, given that the meat and dairy industry are some of the top polluters in the country.

You can't really call yourself pro-Labor and eat meat, given that the meat industry has the highest turnover rate in the country, is ranked the most dangerous job in the country (yes, more dangerous than policeman or whatever), and the corporations that run the industry generally abuse immigrant labor.

There's a dozen more examples. But by your logic, since no one can live on this earth without making even the tiniest impact on the planet, we should all just give up and cause the MOST destruction possible. Since we kill microorganisms, we might as well slaughter and torture feeling, thinking, sentient animals! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Now why do I feel like I've heard this logic before? Oh, yeah... it's the same logic the earth rapers and conservative morons use to justify their regressive ideas. I'm just ashamed to see it used on DU.

[Northwind]

72. Mind closed

Mouth open

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

108. Great Post Arrisa !

love that Howard Lyman quote !

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. If You Become A Vegan Will You End Up Looking Like Dennis Kucinich

If the answer is yes I will remain an omnivore.

[Clete]

76. What a mean thing to say.

I can assure you that as you age, the animal fat you are eating will make you fat, lumpy and clog your arteries. You won't look so hot either. Bon Apetit

[charlie]

78. Whatta kneeslapper

Got any Ugly Eleanor Roosevelt jokes?

[Piperay]

114. Kucinich looks fine...

there is NOTHING wrong with his looks! :mad:

[9215]

77. Vegetarians murder plants!!

:bounce: :bounce:

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

109. and Republikkkinz murder the planet

who do you support?

[9215]

120. I no likes Republikkkinzees

nor Hobbittzes, but I likes fisheez

[Clete]

80. One thing this thread has done,

is change my mind about some DU'ers, whom I thought were progressive. :-(

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Is Being An Omnivore

and being a progressive mutually exclusive?

[Clete]

83. No.

But saying stupid, uninformed and mean things is more in line with being a freeper than a progressive.

[FlaGranny]

85. Clete,

Question for you. I have tried vegetarianism to an extent, because I believe in eating as little animal protein as possible, but found that I could never "stomach" a vegetarian diet. I've tried for weeks at a time. It makes my stomach feel like it has an ulcer and makes me always hungry and the more raw food I eat, the worse it becomes. So cooking everything helps, but still have a nasty-feeling stomach. Any suggestions?

[Clete]

88. Your stomach is rebelling from the roughage.

It's a common thing with beginning vegetarians. Ease yourself into it by using milk and egg products with your meals at first. You can have veggie pizza, macaroni and cheese, things that are familiar to you. I also found out ethnic food is helpful. If you take the meat out of Mexican or Asian cusine, you don't miss the meat as much because most of these cusines were vegetarian anyway as the poor couldn't afford meat except on special occasions.

Also, eat bread and grains. Wheat isn't called the staff of life for nothing. You will find yourself dependent on bread, pasta and rice more than when you ate meat. I hope this helps. There are many good and informative cookbooks on the market. My favorites are the Moosewood cookbooks.

[FlaGranny]

92. Thanks for the suggestions.

I eat meat (either fish or chicken usually) only once a day as a rule so I guess I'm 2/3 of the way there. I just can't seem to get past that last 1/3. Have discovered that oatmeal and eggs are both very soothing foods for the stomach.

[Clete]

94. Yes, I start the day with oatmeal everyday.

It is a very healthy grain. I can see why the Scots were very fond of it, especially when they were being starved by the English. They could survive with a bowl of oatmeal a day. Try using soymilk on it instead of cows milk. Even though it looks a little different, it tastes good.

[FlaGranny]

96. I've been using soy milk

for a couple of years. It tastes better than cow's milk to me. Doesn't have that garlicky taste that cow's milk sometimes gets. I use Silk creamer for my coffee to.

[Mairead]

105. Try including doufu (tofu) as the 'meat'

It's a very complete protein, and doesn't introduce an excess-carbs problem.

If you don't care for spicy foods, get a Japanese Zen-temple -- Shojin Ryori (simple cookery) -- cookbook. It's a very season-conformant and symbolic cookery, and you can make it as pure or relaxed as you like.

Another good choice might be a Krishnavist cookery book. Yamuna Devi (née Joan Campanella) wrote a beautiful, exhaustive one. I've owned mine for about 15 years and haven't yet cooked every receipe in it. I just wish it were a tradition that uses garlic...i'm partial to garlic.

If you do like spicy food (I do!!) a Chinese cookbook emphasising Sichuan (Szechuan) or Hunan cookery would be useful. There wouldn't be many veg receipes, but I've found it easy to substitute doufu for whatever non-veg meat the receipe has. It can look odd, unless you take pains to camouflage the tofu by careful cutting, frying, and marinading, but it tastes fine.

Other spicy traditions are Thai, Hindu (of course!), and (surprisingly!) Mexican, though with Mexican there's the carbs problem. Clear, hot-and-sour Thai soups are especially nice - I make one using extra-firm tofu cut into 1/2 inch cubes, water, red-curry paste, lemon grass, galanga root when I have it, lime juice, and mushrooms. Yum!

(If you already knew all this, I apologise!)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. If Making A Joke About Someone's Apearance Is Akin To Being A Freeper

I guess Al Franken is a Freeper. He called Rush a big, fat idiot.

Or can we only criticicize the appearance of those with whom we disagree

If I offended you by suggesting that Dennis Kucinich's somwhat odd physical appearance is a function of his diet let me say that was not a reflection of my truest self.

[Clete]

91. Yes, it is because you made the connection

with his diet as being the reason for his appearance, not the fact that he looks like he does because of genes. Making fun of someone's appearance that can't be helped genetically is mean whether you were aware of it or not. Now Al Franken was speaking the truth. Rush could do something about being fat and being an idiot. If Rush suffered from Downs syndrome or other diseases that caused him to have an unusual appearance, then Al would be thinking like a freeper.

[FlaGranny]

82. My 2 cents in this issue

The problem as I see it is a lack of respect for life because of distance from the issue. The Native American had the right attitude, they were the ones who revered all living things, animal and vegetable, and gave thanks to the plants and animals which supplied their meals. All living things are connected to all others and all living things eat other living things. I eat some meat. I also kill weeds, ants, and cockroaches that encroach on me, but any critter I see in the wild is safe from me. The lowliest worm or insect is safe in my presence as long as he is not in my house (with the possible exception of fire ants). I am probably like most other living beings, I think. I don't understand either extreme of this ongoing argument. The person who thought it somehow unnatural to have a pet, I think does not know the history of the symbiotic relationship that dogs/cats and people have developed over 10's of thousands of years, and which some scientists believe was initiated by the cats and the dogs and welcomed by the humans.

Edit: I MOST DEFINITELY do not condone bad treatment of animals (or people) in any way.

[EAMcClure]

84. Parasite versus refined parasite

1. "If you don't eat the animal, then you eat more of the animal's food. Which means they reproduce less or starve."

Tis better to eat the animals food than eat the animal... then the animal doesn't even have a choice whether to reproduce more or starve. They have to reproduce and they have to eat their slop. Second, a vegetarian diet saves ENERGY, which is a lot more important than a total food supply in the long run. 1 pd. of cow flesh is approximately equivalent to 100+ pds of vegetable matter.

2. "Second, if you eat more fruit and plant life, you are eating all the microscopic critters on the food. Or is it the size of the animal that counts?"

Here's where we get to the crux of your argument. Yes, deep down, all vegetarian/vegan/macrobiotic types kill living beings every second of every day, even when they breathe. That does not mean that vegetarianism is a straight up hypocritical practice. It is one thing to say that you avoid flesh because you don't want to contribute to the suffering of living creatures... and another to say you don't eat flesh because you don't want to kill ANYTHING AT ALL. Humans are parasites, yes, but parasites with free will. If someone wants to refine their parasitical behavior so as to be responsible for less of the world's pain and anguish, then more power to them. Plus, it is good for you healthwise.

3. "Third, the animals that you don't eat live on and eat other animals. If killing animals is viewed as murder, are they not allowing other animals to murder?"

Why bring animals without free will, who are participating in the natural scheme of life on earth, into an argument about human choice? I'm sorry, but this question has no relevance for the human sphere of action. Humans have a choice, and have largely chosen to make an agribusiness out of the flesh trade. This flesh trade greatly contributes to the slow and steady depletion of resources... entropy.

4. "Finally, plants are life too. Why should they be condemned to die in greater numbers than other living creatures?"

See point two. It is called refining and moderation... once may not be capable of living life without the death of other living things, but there exists the choice to minimize this as much as possible. This does not make vegetarians hypocrites, it makes them Epicurean.

There is much worse and more dangerous hypocrisy in the world. I wish you could focus your laser-like attention on that instead of sandbox games like this.

Eric

[KFC]

87. Only if they try to force their behavior on others

I could care less what someone else eats.

The hypocritical part is when people attach a sort of morality to vegetarianism.

[Clete]

93. So according to you

inflicting suffering on farm animals their whole lives and then ending it with gross butchering practices shouldn't enter into the equation of why people should think about what they eat?

So what are your moral standards? Even the bible has extensive dietary rules. It was the result of the early Jews attempt to have some humanitarian laws in regard to keeping and slaughtering animals. Even the act of sacrifice and giving a portion to God was to sanctify the act of slaughtering animals for food. Even the mandate to give an unblemished lamb to God inferred that the animal should be well-cared for and in good health.

[buddhamama]

89. my thoughts

we breed animals-they are not in control of their reproduction cycles. if there weren't enough food for them, then there wouldn't be as many, it's that simple.

we grow food just to feed animals yet people are starving.
and the poor can't afford the meat, but they are probably growing the food that feeds the animals. check the numbers on how much grain,etc, it takes to feed one cow from birth to slaughter, staggering!

yes, it is impossible not to kill another life for existence. however, the better question would be, do we exploit this or do we respect the life and do not kill without warrant. the amount of meat that the planet eats is not necessary for survival. that's exploitation.

not all vegetarians are vegetarians for the reason you have given.

i became a vegetarian then a vegen because of farming/slaughtering practices and because of the harmful enviromental effects.not just of the livestock farming but of the grains,etc, it takes to feed them.

not because as you have stated. i agree that it is impossible to not kill anything living to survive. i actually support hunters, who eat their kill-not trophy hunters though-because hunters for the most part have respect for the animal/s and do not abuse the life.

the veggie example is one that cracks me up.
yes, plants are living and we should all respect them too! one major flaw though, is that veggies- take for example tomatoes-were meant to be eaten and use the 'waste process' as a means of reproduction.

you eat it, dispose of the seeds and there is a chance that the plant will reproduce. a bit trickier now that we have bathrooms but, animals don't and that helps the reproduction cycle of plants.

you can't eat a cow and hope it will take root in the soil and get another cow from it.

[Clete]

95. Good practical reasoning.

Thanks for putting it this way.

[VoteClark]

148. I did Once, it was amazing!

"you can't eat a cow and hope it will take root in the soil and get another cow from it."

I did once :)

J4Clark

[JustJoe]

90. Body as graveyard

My own becoming a vegetarian was more visceral than moral.
I gave another hippie a ride in 1971 & I had a hamburger
in the car & the guy says, "Oh, you're still using your
body as a graveyard for cooked corpses." Thanks for that, Pal.
It kind of stuck & a week later I was resting in the aftermath of a big
meat dinner & this guy's words came back & I couldnt stop
thinking of this big moosh of meat sitting in my stomach &
I made myself puke it up & that was that. As far as the
hypocrisy goes, I just pretty much accept that there's
hypocrisy in about everything I do, along with most other
human beings.

[Blue_Chill]

98. Please tell me your post was a joke?! PLEASE!!!!

OK, if someone is a vegetarian because of health reasons they are not a hypocrite. But what about those that do it to save animals??

Save animals or is it because they object to animal torture? Perhaps you should look into that.

Let's think about it for just a moment.

k

If you don't eat the animal, then you eat more of the animal's food. Which means they reproduce less or starve.

Um no. NO NO NO. oh yeah and (ready for it) NO!

Buying a head of lettuce that the store does not mean some mean farmer goes and rips another away from a needy animal.


Third, the animals that you don't eat live on and eat other animals. If killing animals is viewed as murder, are they not allowing other animals to murder?

Animals eat out of need, they have no other options. We however torture our food before we eat it.


The rest of the thread was....well whatever. I am not a vegitarian but I see why they do what they do.

Have a good one

[VoteClark]

112. Yes, it is Joke!

Have fun with it please. :) :silly:

[Alenne]

99. Why do you care?

If someone wants to be a vegetarian for whatever reason why does that bother you?

[gulliver]

101. What is this bullsh*t thread?

Are you trying to tie "VoteClark" to an inane offensive attack on vegetarians? Are you really for Clark or just trying to cause trouble.

[salin]

103. I was thinking the same thing... whaaaa?????

Now we attack people based on their dietary habits and the philosophies - or dietary - reasons for that menu?

Pshaw! What a frickin' waste of time.

Being a vegetarian is now something to be attacked? Oh please.

Sorry VoteClark - if this is thread is indicative of what you believe to be important political discourse... get thee to the Latest Breaking News section - there are all sorts of alarming things happening in this country and in this world - and Bushco seems to relish in escalating these conditions.

geez.

[VoteClark]

113. Just having some fun clam down :)

But, Yes, I am for Clark, and I love Veggies.

:hippie:

[ForrestGump]

104. I don't know. Is being a f***wit who's already been tombstoned

at least twice - but who keeps coming back for more without altering style - stupid?

Just a general question that occurred to me.....




....for no particular reason.

[VoteClark]

115. Must someone write out in big letters at the bottom, "This is a JOKE!"

Man, people really are sensative these days. It is a joke, nothing serious. LOL, man, lighten up, get a beer. :toast:


Some people need the :dunce: award :)

[revcarol]

118. If this is a "JOKE," put it in the lounge.

Poster has been using divisive tactics all over this board. We don't need this **** on our "discussion" forums.

[VoteClark]

119. Dude, Relax and

have a beer, Please.
:beer:

This forum is designed to ask questions. Questions always divid people.

[Gore1FL]

116. I am on Atkins

I eat 1lb of bacon everyday and have lost about 35 lbs so far.

I have no remorse. The chemistry of body dictates the food that works best for me. I discover said resources through trial and error.

Eating either plant or animal is a survival mechanism. As such, I refuse to let anyone affix a moral pricetag to it.

That being said:

I find some of the practices of the meat industry (from farm to packaging) offensive. Sacrificing my dietary needs impacts those decisons and practices little, if at all, but impedes my ability to function.

If someone functions better on all vegetables, good for them. I am not going to pass judgement should they choose a vegan diet. I, similarly, do not need, nor will I ever benefit from, someone judging my diet.

Eat a healthy diet.

[MiltonLeBerle]

127. Cave-man diet.

I have a diet that excludes as much dietary starch as possible.
NO:breads, cereals, pasta, potatoes, etc...

I eat mostly meat(& poultry & fish), and fruit and raw vegetables. I've lost a bunch of weight, and feel much better.

It's the kind of diet our bodies are designed for.

[Aaron]

135. You can eat meat and not support antiworker/cruel/antienvironment groups

Post 128 above is by a meateater who doesn't contribute to the antiworker/antienvironment groups but instead to local farmers. I did the same as he/she for a few years before I became veg. Text of post 128:

GoneOffShore (46 posts) Sun Aug-03-03 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #25

128. Meat eaters too


'Vegetarians, however, can willfully engage in shopping practices that agree with a moral value that they have.'

I am an unapolgetic carnivore. But, I do NOT buy meat from supermarkets, mainly because it comes from chicken, sheep, pigs, or cows that are factory farm raised. I'm voting with my wallet by buying meat from local farmers who humanely raise their animals. I am also paying over the odds for that meat.
And guess what ?
There are economic and political consequences to my doing so. I'm supporting sustainable agriculture, I'm keeping one more farm from being bought by a developer and turned into McMansions, I'm letting the big supermarket know that they can't sell me their rubbish.
Granted, one person can make little difference, but I like to feel that I'm doing my part.
I'm right up there with Jacques Bove - everytime a McPukoids is built, an artisanal cheese dies.
Food is definitely a way to make a political statement.
Try checking out the Farm to City program which helps with Community Supported Agriculture and while you're at it look at the Slow Food movement.
Buy Fresh, Buy Local

Mc Pukoid's
Perdue
Oscar Mayer

[drdigi420]

124. I have nothing against vegetarians

That's all I eat.

[GoneOffShore]

129. Me too

but they're stringy and hard to catch.

:bounce:

[bitchkitty]

125. Gimmee my penny!

If you don't eat the animal, then you eat more of the animal's food. Which means they reproduce less or starve.

Yes, I can see where we should stop eating so much hay and grass. The cows should be killed to preserve this valuable human food resource.

Second, if you eat more fruit and plant life, you are eating all the microscopic critters on the food. Or is it the size of the animal that counts?

Yes, I can see where an amoeba and a cow are the same. An amoeba has friends that will miss it, and children that will starve for lack of the amoeba tit.

Third, the animals that you don't eat live on and eat other animals. If killing animals is viewed as murder, are they not allowing other animals to murder?

Think of it - if we let the cows live, they'll go to kill and eat all the sheep and goats. What a nightmare!

Finally, plants are life too. Why should they be condemned to die in greater numbers than other living creatures?

I'm speechless.

[VoteClark]

147. Your error in logic

VC
If you don't eat the animal, then you eat more of the animal's food. Which means they reproduce less or starve.

BK
"Yes, I can see where we should stop eating so much hay and grass. The cows should be killed to preserve this valuable human food resource."

VC
No, but hay and grass take up space, water and minerals.

VC:
Second, if you eat more fruit and plant life, you are eating all the microscopic critters on the food. Or is it the size of the animal that counts?

BK:
"Yes, I can see where an amoeba and a cow are the same. An amoeba has friends that will miss it, and children that will starve for lack of the amoeba tit."

Oh, I see so if it has friends then it is OK to slaughter it? I guess a mean Cow is ok to slaughter then?

Third, the animals that you don't eat live on and eat other animals. If killing animals is viewed as murder, are they not allowing other animals to murder?

BK:
"Think of it - if we let the cows live, they'll go to kill and eat all the sheep and goats. What a nightmare!"

VC
No, but if they eat all the grass they eat, what then?

J4Clark

[9215]

138. Bugslaughter!!

I just walked down the sidewalk and stepped on a little buggy and worried about killing another creature. Jeeez, I thought, when I brush my teeth I kill plaque and other microbiotic beasties, when I breath I put carbon dioxide into the air, or fart and do likewise with methane.

Then I saw a Venus fly trap plant and said, hey! They can kill and eat insects, why cantz I? Hell, lions munch on gazelles, so why can't I eat a chicken or two? Maybe we should kill all the predators.



How about eating an egg? Now the Christian Right would say you are killing an unborn creature if you follow the logic of their anti-abortion position. Or, would that be a fertilized egg?

Bottom line is you have to draw a line somewhere or become a Breatharian.

[Aaron]

140. Draw the line at supporting antiworker/antienvironment meat companies?

Get your meat from a local farmer/rancher that doesn't practice techniques that maim workers and fill the lives of the people near their farms with pollution - Seems like the progressive thing to do IMHO...

[Cassandra]

139. Hundreds of small animals die

when field are plowed for planting. Moles, voles, rats, mice; I guess they don't count for anything, even for vegetarians.

[Aaron]

141. Got a link for the numbers on that? (n/t)

[Cassandra]

153. It was in an editorial in the LA Times...

several months ago, written by a vegetable farmer. Sorry, I didn't keep the link for you. Perhaps there are some online farmers' associations who might have those sorts of numbers, or maybe it was just that farmer bothering to make a public comment on it. It is true that small mammals glean off the fields after harvest and that plows kill them when they come through.

[MisterP]

142. ditto for growing food for animals headed for the plate

and is this inevitable?

[9215]

144. I likes eatin' micees and molezeez, but

I likes eatin' fisheez best. But ratzees bites back, toooo risky!!

Gollum

[Terwilliger]

154. Does ignorance on this scale run through the Democratic party?

Something tells me that this poster's questions are more pointed at certain "left" thinking, more than vegetarians themselves.

[West Coast Democrat]

157. I just think eating meat is gross

it's that simple.