Meat-eating and the industry

[Eoghan]

Either use thought-through arguments and win your battle, or for all that I care, keep on saying stupid comments and end up being perceived as a national of cuckoo-land...

Your thoughts are so thought through. You haven't explained what is wrong with my analogies except to say "can NOT be compared." An egg doesn't seem extreme to you, but it does to me. They only "can NOT be compared" because you refuse to compare them, not because of anything inherently incomparable about them. Since you care so much about arguments, why don't you actually try to understand the argument in my analogy instead of pre-judging everything I say just because it's unpleasant to you? My arguments are not always well-thought through (I can point to some in this thread), but as I've just demonstrated, neither are yours. If you don't like my use of extremes, then ignore it or explain why instead of trying to make my argument look bad by attacking my character. I hope this response was "sane" enough for you, Mr. Sanity.

Sarabi, the reason why I react so strongly when you throw far-flung comments around, such as calling eg. Zorba a dictator, or compare others to concentration camps supporters is the fact that I see it as an insult towards everyone who suffered the hardships of concentration camps and the like. It has nothing to do with me not wanting to compare them, or them being incomparable, but they all make the rest of your arguments sound ridiculous as well, even though I somehow agree to many of them. In rhetorics, one would call this type of argumenting "guilty-by-assosiation" and "accuse-attack", and even though some people would fall for it, and stop arguing, others would just cringe at the accusations and stop listening to everything else you say. One little accusation can ruin your entire speech.

Plants can't feel anything because they lack the apparatus we have to feel something, and they never evolved to have this apparatus because they probably didn't need it. It would be evolutionarily excessive for them to have emotions if they can't run away from anything (fear/pain), attack anything (anger), nurture their young (love), roam about in tribal bands or herds with the need to take care of injured beings (compassion). And the same with self-awareness. I don't think that plants have self-awareness in the sense of being able to think about their actions. They just have built-in reactions that they perform in certain contexts with no choice. An emotion is also a built-in reaction, but it is an emotion because of what it forces us to do psychologically: to CHOOSE to run away, to CHOOSE to attack something, to CHOOSE to nurture our young, to CHOOSE to take care of each other

The fact is that you're actually wrong Sarabi; it is a scientific fact that plants have feelings, and that they can choose to attack or defend themselves. A fly-trap can choose wether or not it want to eat a fly, it won't just swallow every single fly that lands on it, and the famous accacia tree knows how to warn other trees of feeding giraffes. It sends out a sublime signal which tells the other trees it's about time they start producing a highly toxine juice which can kill giraffes, thus defending the accacias.

Scientists have recorded ultra-sound screams from uprooted plants, they respond to heat and cold, and turn towards the sun by choice, not by instinct, and so yes, plants do have some sort of emotions, although rather primitive ones... I really do wonder why draw the line at plants, to be honest, if one really doesn't want to harm anyone you should be a practicing fruitarian, only eating fallen fruit.

In order to show you why I see your comparisions as bad ones, I'll do a similar one;

- Eating soja equals supporting the genocide of the Yanomami, the Enawene Nawe and other tribal peoples of the Amazon. Hence all vegetarians and vegans support the genocide of tribal peoples worldwide. Ergo; Vegans are bad people. Eating soja is harming the rain forests and forces indigenous peoples to run away from their ancestral lands as they're forced to by Brazilian farmers who estroy their homes and deliberately kill indigenous peoples, because they've chosen to use their lands to grow crops and soja or to farm cattle on...

But somehow you've decided it's okay to draw the line at plants, and that's your own decision and I'm perfectly fine with it and don't go around calling you a dictator. Just as it is my decision that I've decided to eat meat and egg, even though I do everything I can to buy ecologically produced products, as well as products produced according to fair-trade standards.

[BezierCurve]

Eating soja is harming the rain forests and forces indigenous peoples to run away from their ancestral lands as they're forced to by Brazilian farmers who estroy their homes and deliberately kill indigenous peoples, because they've chosen to use their lands to grow crops and soja or to farm cattle on...

I didn't know about that.

Well, apparently world is a very complex place, with no distinctive border between Good and Bad, which I try to remember but keep forgetting

[nighean-neonach]

Eating soja is harming the rain forests and forces indigenous peoples to run away from their ancestral lands as they're forced to by Brazilian farmers who estroy their homes and deliberately kill indigenous peoples, because they've chosen to use their lands to grow crops and soja or to farm cattle on...

I didn't know about that.

Indeed I've noticed that lots of vegetarians seem to know a lot about where the meat-eaters' food comes from, but they don't (want to) know much about where their own meat-substitute products come from. (It's funny anyway how they want to have "soja sausages" and "soja steaks" and all sort of stuff which still pretends to be meat )

Personally, I find it very important to buy food that has been produced locally, instead of imported from the other end of the world. On a global scale, that's much more important for the environment than this whole vegetarian vs. meat-eaters discussion.

[Car]

Eating soja is harming the rain forests and forces indigenous peoples to run away from their ancestral lands as they're forced to by Brazilian farmers who estroy their homes and deliberately kill indigenous peoples, because they've chosen to use their lands to grow crops and soja or to farm cattle on...

I didn't know about that.

Well, apparently world is a very complex place, with no distinctive border between Good and Bad, which I try to remember but keep forgetting

Some months ago, I've seen a documentation on food, how it is produced, transported etc. Based on that, you shouldn't only stop eating meat, but almost everything else, too. Really, what they showed there was sick and the part about soy was only one part of it.
Some facts from the film/documentation ca be found here, there's also a trailer on the site. I can fully recommend it - just not shortly before or after a meal.

For a long time, biodiesel was praised a lot, until the public got to know that many people in e.g. Brazil can't afford their food any longer because it ends up as biodiesel in our cars, thus driving up the price.

Edit: Once again, nighean-neonach is right. One of the main problems is that a lot of our food, from meat to fruits, is carried around the world or at least Europe before we get to eat it. That has very negative effects and many experts point out that, not only from a health point of view, eating local products is the way to go.
I also dealt with the topic at uni and I think it's one we shouldn't ignore.

[linguaholic]

I agree that food is a complex topic and cannot be described by "vegan good, meat bad".

- Eating soja equals supporting the genocide of the Yanomami, the Enawene Nawe and other tribal peoples of the Amazon. Hence all vegetarians and vegans support the genocide of tribal peoples worldwide. Ergo; Vegans are bad people. Eating soja is harming the rain forests and forces indigenous peoples to run away from their ancestral lands as they're forced to by Brazilian farmers who estroy their homes and deliberately kill indigenous peoples, because they've chosen to use their lands to grow crops and soja or to farm cattle on...

Where do you think the soya that cattle is fed comes from? And what do you think, does it take more soya to raise a cow and then make a burger out of it or make a burger directly out of soya?
I don't think it's strange that veg*ans want to have a fake sausauge from time to time. After all, most are veg*an for ethical reasons not for taste. (I do think going vegan and keeping your diet, only substituting all animal stuff with soya is ridiculous though. I eat "fake meat" like I think one should eat "animal meat" as well, if at all - as an occasional treat.)

[Sarabi]

"But morally, why is it more 'right' to draw the line at plants? "
I just wrote a really long explanation. Well, here's a summary: Plants are not sentient, and I explained precisely why. Emotions = sentient BECAUSE occurring in the brain; plants have no brain; pain = an emotion ; plants have no pain. The issue of veg*anism is about pain and suffering, pure and simple. Just like Buddhism, which is the religion I follow. Morality is about pain and suffering, at least in my life. There's no good reason I can see to believe that humans suffer while animals do not. Anyway, as linguaholic pointed out, more plants die through meat consumption than through plant consumption because when we eat a cow or a chicken or a pig, we're eating animals who have consumed plants. So meat-eating is a lose-lose situation in that sense. Not that I care either way, really. Science (unbiased science) tells me that plants have a qualitatively different experience to humans. And please reread my last post if my explanation still went over your head.

As for you, do you not think the line should be drawn anywhere? If you are not vegetarian because of the health defects, I understand. I would never ask anyone to seriously risk their own health for anything, and that's the second line I would draw. But I don't think most people experience these defects and, therefore, are not like you. I have met one other person like that who told me he was so filled with compassion that he refused all animal products until his skin turned yellow and his hair became brittle. He said it's because some people cannot break down the proteins in vegetables as well as those from animals. It took him four years, he said, to admit that his body couldn't handle vegetarianism, and he's still looking out for a way. I really admire that guy, but obviously I don't expect you to try to do what he did. And I understand if you've given up looking for a way that may not exist. However, I don't see that as a reason to suggest that the line should always be drawn at the self, if that's what you're suggesting. Morality IS about being kind to yourself, but it's equally about respecting others.

We aren't 'insane', and we aren't Nazis.

Seriously, Steisi. Did you not read Eoghan's post? He is the one calling me insane. That's what my comment on insanity was about. I am not calling you insane. If you're going to get offended by me, at least get offended for something I did do instead of what my detractors did. Eoghan is trying to distract you by calling me insane for no reason, which is why I won't be replying to any more of his posts. And I've read first-hand sources of concentration camp experiences and still think that chicken cages are equivalent to concentration camps. I don't go so far as Phoenix to call meat-eaters equivalent to Nazis - the Nazis would be the ones actually slaughtering the animals - but I like how Phoenix says, "Ignorance has prevailed so long only because people refuse to search for the truth." Of course, there's more to it than that, but I don't think you're looking for the truth in this particular instance. It sounds to me like you're looking for a reason to get offended. I also hope you don't think you're morally superior to Nazis, considering how much you seem to think I'm morally out to get you. I don't feel morally superior to Nazis (I don't feel morally superior to anyone), and that's the only reason I can think that I would be offended by my being compared to the Nazis. I can disagree, but why should I be offended? Why are you offended? This really baffles me. And furthermore, as I already stated, I think you're one of the exceptions, so even I were calling meat-eaters Nazis, that wouldn't include you. You said the issue for you is ethical meat-eating, and I agree; I think for you that may be the only possible issue short of risking your health and your life.

If someone thinks I'm an 'insane Nazi' for picking plants, that's okay. They're probably a fruitarian and will either give up their diet soon and become an 'insane Nazi' themself or die of malnutrition. By contrast, I'm a vegan who will probably live for many years to come as vegan.

Anyway... I think that on a large-scale level, the most important thing is (obviously?) to effect systematic change. I've been thinking, it's not fair that 5% of the world, or even 10%, or even 20%, should bear the weight of the world on their shoulders for years and years. If that's the necessary route, then so be it. But I want to work to change the system so future generations won't have to worry about choosing between animal torture and animal rights. Personally, I find it very draining to live on the moral outskirts of society, going against the grain, but someone has to stand on the front lines.

[sa wulfs]

I just wrote a really long explanation. Well, here's a summary: Plants are not sentient, and I explained precisely why. Emotions = sentient BECAUSE occurring in the brain; plants have no brain; pain = an emotion ; plants have no pain. The issue of veg*anism is about pain and suffering, pure and simple.

Does that mean it's OK to eat meat if proper anesthesia is involved?

[Steisi]

. Science and millennia of human morality tell me that plants have a qualitatively different experience to humans. And please reread my last post if my explanation still went over your head.

It's not that it 'went over my head' - it's just I can't really see why you seem to think your argument is more valid than say, a fruitarian's who thinks their diet is ethically fairer than a vegans or vegetarians, or whatever.

As for you, do you not think the line should be drawn anywhere?

Sure. You even said it in your last post. More ethical methods of meat farming.

Seriously, Steisi. Did you not read Eoghan's post? He is the one calling me insane.

It's not about anything that Eoghan said; it's about stuff like this, that you said:

And I've read first-hand sources of concentration camp experiences and still think that chicken cages are equivalent to concentration camps.

And yes, I do feel morally superior to Nazis.

If someone thinks I'm an 'insane Nazi' for picking plants, that's okay. They're probably a fruitarian and will either give up their diet soon and become an 'insane Nazi' themself or die of malnutrition. By contrast, I'm a vegan who will probably live for many years to come as vegan.

It sounds like you look down on them. Why?

You didn't answer my question about whether or not you're ciuma, but I'm pretty sure you are. I was kind of surprised that you opened this thread, since a while ago on the chat you really admired the alternative vampire lifestyle. It was cool to see you're a buddhist vegan now

[Sarabi]

I just wrote a really long explanation. Well, here's a summary: Plants are not sentient, and I explained precisely why. Emotions = sentient BECAUSE occurring in the brain; plants have no brain; pain = an emotion ; plants have no pain. The issue of veg*anism is about pain and suffering, pure and simple.

Does that mean it's OK to eat meat if proper anesthesia is involved?

You can't anesthetize a cow for its entire life, so not necessarily. That would involve the question of whether or not its okay to dominate animals at all, which I can't answer here, but the problem I see with killing is all the risks that come with it, carelessly "missing" the right spot on a pig only being one of them. There seems to be something inherently problematic about disrespecting an animal's right to live through systematic slaughter, which may breed this kind of carelessness. Maybe in some small-scale world, a deep respect can come with slaughter which carries into practice, but I don't know how this would work on the large-scale. At least, it would take many centuries before such a society could evolve.

Anyway, I should make it clear that in my own life I do not think it would ever be okay to choose meat over another option unless the animal died naturally, but for those who do wish to eat meat ethically, I can only point out the facts. Of course, I prefer one would eat an animal who was killed painlessly than painfully, but the means of slaughter is not so much a question for me at this point as it is for meat-eaters.

And yes, I do feel morally superior to Nazis.

Well, I'm glad we're clear on something!

It sounds like you look down on them.

I don't look down on them. There must be something about my rhetorical style that makes people think I look down upon others when I don't. Oh, yeah... I remember when my roommate last year always assumed I was judging her, which caused me to act like I was just to meet her assumptions, even though she was my greatest role-model from the moment I met her and has never ceased to be. She sounded shocked when I finally told her THAT.

Yes, I'm Ciuma. And yes, I have always been more interested in gory, provocative truths than other people. I guess you're referring to Vlad the Impaler, but I wasn't really serious about that. I just got a kick out of pretending to be.

"it's just I can't really see why you seem to think your argument is more valid than say, a fruitarian's who thinks their diet is ethically fairer than a vegans or vegetarians, or whatever."
Well, if you believe that emotions can exist outside of the brain or that plants can think without a brain, then okay. Can't argue with you. I don't think my argument is necessarily more "valid" than a fruitarian's (except I suspect that fruitarians are causing themselves to suffer greatly in a mission to prevent suffering, which is kind of contradictory when it means that humans cannot exist without causing suffering), but I do think that whether or not plants can feel or not is not a valid argument for harming beings we *know* to be emotional.

[Trapy]

Question for Sarabi:

For overcrowded cages and egg production, what's the difference between:



and



?

[Steisi]

Well, if you believe that emotions can exist outside of the brain or that plants can think without a brain, then okay. Can't argue with you. I don't think my argument is necessarily more "valid" than a fruitarian's (except I suspect that fruitarians are causing themselves to suffer greatly in a mission to prevent suffering, which is kind of contradictory, esp. if they're not actually preventing suffering), but I do think that whether or not plants can feel or not is not a valid argument for harming beings we *know* to be emotional.

It's not really this that I'm getting at but.. If I simplify horrendously:

Vegetarians (who are veggies for ethical reasons) think that eating meat is unethical.
Vegans think that a vegan diet is more ethical than a vegetarian diet.
Fruitarians think that the most ethical diet is a fruitarian one (or alternating between fruitarian and vegan diets).

I personally don't consider plants and animals to be on the same level, as I don't consider humans and animals to be either, so it's not about what I think, but I just wonder why (from what you've written) you are strongly pro-vegan but didn't seem to support the ethical ideals behind fruitarianism.

I always felt like asking my vegetarian friend (who regularly called me a murderer for eating a ham sandwich and said it made her feel sick) why she wasn't a vegan, if she felt so strongly... But she really liked cheese sandwiches

[linguaholic]

@Trapy: There is no difference. The chicken are there voluntarily and will not be killed. Of course.

[Eoghan]

Seriously, Steisi. Did you not read Eoghan's post? He is the one calling me insane. That's what my comment on insanity was about. I am not calling you insane. If you're going to get offended by me, at least get offended for something I did do instead of what my detractors did. Eoghan is trying to distract you by calling me insane for no reason, which is why I won't be replying to any more of his posts.

Never once Sarabi did I write the word "insane", never once did I call you stupid because you've decided to be a practicing vegan; I merely stated that your rhetoring worked against you when you write some of your posts.

I feel offended by the very fact that you deem it correct to ignore my questions, and my opinions on the matter, whereas you suppose the rest of us to listen to your opinions and buy into them. I asked you what your opinions regarding indigenous peoples and hunting were, I told you that plants indeed do have feelings, but instead of answering my questions or responding to my opinions you decided I wasn't "worthy enough" talking to.

I will quote your religion's founder;

"Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary."

Compare our posts, I ask you to abstrain from calling people Nazi supporters, or dictators, as this won't help you winning your debate - at the same time I clearly state that I agree to most of your arguments but that the type of aggressive, maliciously far-flung arguments you're using tend to make us forget the serious points in your posts.

You respond by calling me one of your "detractors" which is not only a lie but also offends me, ergo is a word used maliciously against my very being.

I felt as if I had to get this off my chest, but of course, you won't reply, so I guess it was really stupid of me to write this post, but then again, I always believed this was meant to be a debate and not a one-way communicative "I know everything and nothing you ever say will change my mind" type of lecture...

[Zorba]

Maybe in some small-scale world, a deep respect can come with slaughter which carries into practice,

Why do you make the hypothesis that a small-scale world is better than a large-scale world? Were the ancient Greeks kinder to animals because they lived in a small-scale world, when they staged live torturing sacrifices of goats in public? In the sixteenth-century, before capitalism or urbanization or mass communications, a popular form of public entertainment in France was cat-burning: lowering a cat tied up onto burning coals below. Or what about the Mexica, the Native Americans who sawed through the ribs of live human victims (randomly chosen for sacrifice) to gore out the victim's heart while it was still pumping?

It seems to me that our society has developed more technologically efficient ways of killing, and more ways of disguising the fact that we do it, but we haven't grown any more or less cruel.

At least, it would take many centuries before such a society could evolve.

Such a society could never "evolve" - you are using Darwin's term - because evolution has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with efficiency.

[linguaholic]

And I've read first-hand sources of concentration camp experiences and still think that chicken cages are equivalent to concentration camps.

I strongly disagree. Yes, conditions in industrial farming are comparable to concentration camps, technically. Morally, they're not. What happened in concentration camps was killing for the purpose of killing, with the aim of extinguishing whole peoples. We can argue if eating meat is a good (enough) reason for killing sentient beings. However, stating that cows are slaughtered because of some mad belief that cows are bad and need to be extinguished is just nonsense.

@Steisi: Personally, I draw the line between plants and animals because 1) I am convinced that it is not possible to live healthily on a fruitarian diet and 2) I don't think plants can feel emotion/pain. I am a vegan out of compassion and I don't feel compassion while boiling a potato. (However, I do think it would be better if plants were still grown on small farms - for ecological reasons. I guess it wouldn't work economically.)

[DelBoy]

Plants are not sentient, and I explained precisely why. Emotions = sentient BECAUSE occurring in the brain; plants have no brain; pain = an emotion ; plants have no pain [...] Science (unbiased science) tells me that plants have a qualitatively different experience to humans. And please reread my last post if my explanation still went over your head.

Ay ay ay........ the abuse that science is getting here is making me suffer....

Emotion does not equal sentience. Sentience does not equal anything that happens in the brain. Pain is not an emotion, it's a sensory experience (saying pain is an emotion is like saying seeing colour is an emotion). Science isn't really necessary to tell us that plants have a qualitatively different experience to humans, it's kind of common sense (and I'd be surprised if there has been any scientific investigation into this).
Science can tell us that animals have a different experience to humans, and good animal welfare should keep this in mind - we should try to give cows the best life possible as a cow, not as a human. We shouldn't apply terms that, as far as we can tell, only relate to human experience to that of animals. This is unfair to the animals.
(by the way, when I say 'humans' and 'animals', I'm not saying that humans are not animals - we are. By 'animals' I mean non-human animals.)

[Trapy]

@Trapy: There is no difference. The chicken are there voluntarily and will not be killed. Of course.

My point was space is a luxury. People are just as crowded in many parts of the world and have no problem with it. Why should Chickens?

[Javier]

The issue of veg*anism is about pain and suffering, pure and simple. Just like Buddhism, which is the religion I follow. Morality is about pain and suffering, at least in my life.

Interesting, can you tell us a bit more about your religion? Since when did you practice it?

My point was space is a luxury. People are just as crowded in many parts of the world and have no problem with it. Why should Chickens?

In that picture people goes inside there voluntarily, but indeed there are people who have no choice, who live in shitty places, imagine the suburbs of Mumbai, Dhaka or New Delhi. But well, poor chickens, right? Overpopulation is something worthier to prevent

This is really hair-splitting but... discovered? Like, you never really thought about it, or you seriously didn't know...?
(isn't French toast a toast cooked in egg, or am I mistaken...)

Not that it matters but it surprised me...

I am not sure how old is the original poster (I calculate 14-18 y.o.), but I was surprised as well because it seems that s/he first realized that a delicious steak, chicken wings or a hamburger come from killed animals, that their throats are slit, that chickens live crowded in farms producing eggs, etc. I must be old now because I remembered when I was a kid and the chickens grew in farms outside the towns and when they were old enough they were tied and taken to the town to be sold, people bought live chickens, and someone needed to kill them at home, usually slitting their throats and letting the blood go out. Also by snapping the neck as said here before, and another interesting method is to take out a feather and insert the tip behind the skull. It's supposed to kill the chicken instantly and without too much pain.

People prevented kids younger than 10 to watch that, but later it becomes a normal thing. I have seen also how pigs are killed, stabbed in the neck, below the chin with a kind of dagger, and other people must hold it, it's quite a big job. The guy killing it usually makes a pray before. The same in other sides of the world. Muslims pray as well before killing a goat. And this is usual, and it has been usual since mankind's down ... hunt animals and eat them. In these times, all of that happens in background, and you just get a packed thing in the supermarket, hiding the truth to young generations who become fervient followers of whatever trend to save the world is on at the moment.

[linguaholic]

But well, poor chickens, right? Overpopulation is something worthier to prevent

As I said before: Caring for animals does not mean not caring for humans. At all.

it has been usual since mankind's down ... hunt animals and eat them.

Right. Hunt animals and eat them. No problem with that.
The connection between what we eat and how it is produced is lost in our society. I think it's alright to eat meat if you are capable of hunting/killing it yourself. It's not okay to eat something without even knowing how the animal it comes from looks. If you can eat a steak that used to be your parents' cow Linda, do it. If you can't, don't.

[KingHarvest]

Why? You don't see where your clothes come from, or your books, or cellphone, or anything else you own and use. Why make what you eat something special?