Vegetarianism/Veganism

[Scotland]

Yeah but this is to the point where it's being forced down my throat. I should be able to choose what I eat. I should not be told what I should or should not eat and be made to feel guilty (not saying I am), for doing what I do.

These are also the same people who once challenged then paint meat eaters to be the devil.

Should you be allowed to eat dogs? Cats? Liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti?

There are the moral/ethical arguments over whether you should eat animals (I'm good with it), how much cruelty/suffering is involved and where the line is drawn. The Muslims and Jews won't eat pork but want animals butchered as per Halal/Kosher customs which others think are cruel. It's never black and white.

The bigger issue is the effect of agriculture IMO. It would take 5 or 6 Earths for everyone on the planet to live the way the Americans do, and I imagine we are pretty comparable here in 'straya, probably worse if you take into consideration our exports. I'm happy to eat beef, but then I don't think the Amazon rainforest should be continually deforested for more beef production. There's a sustainable balance and right now we're not achieving it.

An example of something he posted

 

[Scotland]

I'm going to give something from this Quorn stuff a try on my next trip to Woolies. Not expecting big things from a frozen supermarket product but what is life without whimsy?

 

[Cruyff14]

Should you be allowed to eat dogs? Cats? Liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti?

There are the moral/ethical arguments over whether you should eat animals (I'm good with it), how much cruelty/suffering is involved and where the line is drawn. The Muslims and Jews won't eat pork but want animals butchered as per Halal/Kosher customs which others think are cruel. It's never black and white.

The bigger issue is the effect of agriculture IMO. It would take 5 or 6 Earths for everyone on the planet to live the way the Americans do, and I imagine we are pretty comparable here in 'straya, probably worse if you take into consideration our exports. I'm happy to eat beef, but then I don't think the Amazon rainforest should be continually deforested for more beef production. There's a sustainable balance and right now we're not achieving it.

I agree.

That's what I mean though, constantly posting that sort of stuff and all this s**t about speciesism and being salient and people not having their own brains blah blah. That's all it is, over and over.

 

[Gralin]

The funny thing is that most of the preaching people do to get people on board with their view reinforces the view they oppose.

Now they will get some with it, I guess the question is if they think alienating 10 people is worth changing 1 when a less agressive stance might encourage more people to make a change

Issue probably is a lot of people see it as a black and white issue, eating meat is always bad so reducing meat consumption is the same as not reducing to a lot of people

one of my favorite Ali G topics (remember back when he'd get people in and interview them on a topic as a group) was around eating meat

he asked a vegetarian or vegan (I can't remember which) what if I asked you to eat this hamburger I have in my hand or I will kill this cow

one of those great questions

 

[GreyCrow]

one of my favorite Ali G topics (remember back when he'd get people in and interview them on a topic as a group) was around eating meat

he asked a vegetarian or vegan (I can't remember which) what if I asked you to eat this hamburger I have in my hand or I will kill this cow

one of those great questions

Isnt that the runaway train problem dressed up in leather?

 

[Gralin]

Isnt that the runaway train problem dressed up in leather?

same sort of quandary for sure but everything is more fun dressed up in leather

well not exercise

not swimming

new topic, good and bad things to do while wearing leather

 

[perthblue]

The funny thing is that most of the preaching people do to get people on board with their view reinforces the view they oppose.

Now they will get some with it, I guess the question is if they think alienating 10 people is worth changing 1 when a less agressive stance might encourage more people to make a change

The trouble is if you are an ethical vegan then any attempts you make to 'convert' people will involve having to make judgements, directly or indirectly, on the person's lifestyle choices. So even if they are doing it in a less aggressive way, people are still likely to get upset at their lifestyles being put under the spotlight.

he asked a vegetarian or vegan (I can't remember which) what if I asked you to eat this hamburger I have in my hand or I will kill this cow

one of those great questions

Not sure if it's a great question.....

 

[Gralin]

The trouble is if you are an ethical vegan then any attempts you make to 'convert' people will involve having to make judgements, directly or indirectly, on the person's lifestyle choices. So even if they are doing it in a less aggressive way, people are still likely to get upset at their lifestyles being put under the spotlight.
Not sure if it's a great question.....

As far as I can tell there is no reason other than ethics to be vegan. I mean you can always have a couple of chickens in your own back yard for eggs for example, treat them well only eat what they offer etc, nothing unethical about that as far as I can tell.

My point was that if you can get someone to start eating less meat or animal products, they may continue down that path but if you look down on them for not cutting it all out then you aren't helping your own cause really

As far as the question goes, he asked this person if they would ever eat meat again, they said no, meat is murder. He said what if it was to save the life of an animal? What if I gave you the choice of eating this burger (made from an already dead animal) or I will kill this living animal.

That I find an interesting question. Someone won't eat meat because they don't want animals dying, so you present them with the bad choice, eat meat or an animal will die in front of you.

There are lots of these sorts of questions in ethics

 

[MWPP]

That I find an interesting question. Someone won't eat meat because they don't want animals dying, so you present them with the bad choice, eat meat or an animal will die in front of you.

As a lifelong vegetarian , even I would eat meat in that (extreme and unrealistic) situation
Or at least try to
The times I have had it accidentally - I have found it difficult to stomach (and those were just small pieces)
I think I’d struggle to finish the portion
But for the sake of both the animal and my conscience , I’d try :’(

 

[perthblue]

As far as I can tell there is no reason other than ethics to be vegan.

Lots of people go vegan for health reasons

I mean you can always have a couple of chickens in your own back yard for eggs for example, treat them well only eat what they offer etc, nothing unethical about that as far as I can tell.

I'm a newbie to this sort of world (thats why I started this thread) but as far as I can tell, this stuff is contentious in vegan circles. Starting from whether you can eat the eggs at all, to where you got the chickens from etc etc

As far as the question goes, he asked this person if they would ever eat meat again, they said no, meat is murder. He said what if it was to save the life of an animal? What if I gave you the choice of eating this burger (made from an already dead animal) or I will kill this living animal.

That I find an interesting question. Someone won't eat meat because they don't want animals dying, so you present them with the bad choice, eat meat or an animal will die in front of you.

There are lots of these sorts of questions in ethics

well it doesn't really make sense. Vegans attempt to limit cruelty wherever possible, so I don't think it's really an ethical issue for any vegan to save a cow for one that has already been killed.

 

[Gralin]

As a lifelong vegetarian , even I would eat meat in that (extreme and unrealistic) situation
Or at least try to
The times I have had it accidentally - I have found it difficult to stomach (and those were just small pieces)
I think I’d struggle to finish the portion
But for the sake of both the animal and my conscience , I’d try :’(

it's an interesting test, that is just one example of it as GreyCrow mentioned the most famous one (which was used on The Good Place, a show I highly recommend if you have Netflix) is the runaway train/tram/trolley car

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the side track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the most ethical choice?

At the root the question is one of action vs inaction, do you actively choose to do something you find abhorrent or do you do nothing even though that will also lead to an abhorrent outcome and say it's not your fault

 

[GreyCrow]

it's an interesting test, that is just one example of it as GreyCrow mentioned the most famous one (which was used on The Good Place, a show I highly recommend if you have Netflix) is the runaway train/tram/trolley car

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem



At the root the question is one of action vs inaction, do you actively choose to do something you find abhorrent or do you do nothing even though that will also lead to an abhorrent outcome and say it's not your fault

Sometimes its changed that the 1 person is someone you know

 

[Gigantic]

As far as I can tell there is no reason other than ethics to be vegan.

Personal taste preference, health, mental well-being (some people's conscience might not be able to deal with killing)? There are many reasons

I mean you can always have a couple of chickens in your own back yard for eggs for example, treat them well only eat what they offer etc, nothing unethical about that as far as I can tell.

For many vegans, it's not just a life and death thing. It's also about not exploiting them and treating them as property - it's not ours to take.

That I find an interesting question. Someone won't eat meat because they don't want animals dying, so you present them with the bad choice, eat meat or an animal will die in front of you.

Interesting. Eating the meat would be the preferred option for me. The animal is already dead, two unnecessary deaths would do neither the cause or the animals any good. But you have essentially self-sacrificed your own values and beliefs in the process.

 

[Gralin]

Lots of people go vegan for health reasons

Sure but it's not the only way to be healthy, it's like lots of people do cross fit but that doesn't mean it's the only or best way to exercise

I'm a newbie to this sort of world (thats why I started this thread) but as far as I can tell, this stuff is contentious in vegan circles. Starting from whether you can eat the eggs at all, to where you got the chickens from etc etc

Unless you have an allergy you absolutely can eat an egg, so not sure if its one of those pretend humans weren't meant to eat this stuff things
Last I checked as a species we are omnivores, we are predators and we are designed to eat meat, not exclusively but we have canines for a reason

Eggs are obviously very nutritious by design, if there is no embryo then there is just all that quality food going to waste if the bird lays it and nothing eats it
I'm curious what the where you got the chickens from part is? Is it like the don't get a puppy from a factory/pet store?

well it doesn't really make sense. Vegans attempt to limit cruelty wherever possible, so I don't think it's really an ethical issue for any vegan to save a cow for one that has already been killed.

It absolutely makes sense as a question, for some the answer is easy, for others not so. In the instance I was referring to it was as much about the person saying they would not eat meat under any circumstances and saying that the reason was ethically related to the treatment of animals

As a lifelong vegetarian , even I would eat meat in that (extreme and unrealistic) situation
Or at least try to
The times I have had it accidentally - I have found it difficult to stomach (and those were just small pieces)
I think I’d struggle to finish the portion
But for the sake of both the animal and my conscience , I’d try :’(

Not being a lifelong vegetarian, but having had periods where I ate mostly vegetarian with one or two fish meals thrown in, I remember the first time I was confronted with the opportunity for a steak, I was at a pub for a Bucks party and was looking forward to the steak until it was time to order. I ended up getting a vegetable stack as the at the time the thought of having such a heavy meal made me feel ill, it had nothing to do with the 6 pints and 4 shots I'd had at the time

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I was vegetarian for about a year when I was 12. My mum didn't really know what to do with me so I didn't replace the iron etc with any alternatives. I became sickly, gave it up, and would never go back to vego again.

 

[Gralin]

Personal taste preference, health, mental well-being (some people's conscience might not be able to deal with killing)? There are many reasons

Many justifications I would say, few reasons. I say this from the view that as a species we've adapted our diet to what is available to us locally. Studies have shown time and time again that throughout history what people could eat they would eat.

Now the difference these days is there is such an abundance of food, good and bad that we can actually choose what to eat. I don't know of any allergies that cover all animal food products, I mean I could be wrong but I just don't know of any.

Health is a loaded question, there are many unhealthy plants and many healthy animal products, I don't see any reason to cut either out completely based on health, I will give you the fact that if you are going to pick one to cut out animal products is the better one from a health perspective

As far as the killing thing goes well not all animal products involve killing do they so again the only reason I can see to cut out all animal products is based on your view of how they are obtained, how the animals are treated and whether you think they should be obtained.

For many vegans, it's not just a life and death thing. It's also about not exploiting them and treating them as property - it's not ours to take.

This one goes so against nature, and our nature that it's purely an ethical question. Look to nature you see ants farming and harvesting aphids for the honeydew as an example. They protect the aphids from predators and in return get a food source.

Symbiotic relationships exist throughout nature. The idea that an unfertilized egg for example cannot be eaten because it is exploitation is ignoring the fact that without the person providing a chicken coop in their yard and food, the chicken in question would either be in the food industry system living a much worth life, or dead.

Interesting. Eating the meat would be the preferred option for me. The animal is already dead, two unnecessary deaths would do neither the cause or the animals any good. But you have essentially self-sacrificed your own values and beliefs in the process.

See you get the question

I should add I have no issue with people that choose to go Vegan, I think the food industry is pretty s**t, it's not alone, people are s**t and we lots of s**t things, I just find the actual process of deciding anything animal based is bad illogical

 

[MWPP]

I have seen/thought about the trolley question before Gralin and GreyCrow and I still don't know what I would do
I think it's because even though I'm inclined towards a /yes (the utilitarian answer) in the original situation , for this variant:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives?

it’s a definite /no

 

[Silent Alarm]

What do people think about companies such as Memphis Meats? http://www.memphismeats.com/

Essentially they are stem celled produced meats which never experience life, therefore never experience death. It brings a whole different factor into the ethical considerations of meat consumption.

Granted there are other factors such as affordability, accessibility and taste of the product, but does anyone else see this as a really being the future of the meat eating industry?

Sounds like you're complicating matters.

Meat isn't that much important, you need to be a half decent cook and you can make great foods without any meat or trace of it.

I don't see why people need to substitute substitute for meat as opposed to utilising veggies and concentrating on flavours.

 

[Gralin]

I have seen/thought about the trolley question before Gralin and GreyCrow and I still don't know what I would do
I think it's because even though I'm inclined towards a /yes (the utilitarian answer) in the original situation , for this variant:

it’s a definite /no

It's the exact same question but phrased differently.

That is what is interesting. Give people two bad choices, unequal but bad. Phrase the two choices differently and see how many people pick action over inaction.

How much does how you phrase the question impact the result?

You will kill five people if you don't pull a lever, if you do you kill one person instead vs five people will die if you don't kill one person

It's the same exact situation but in one you say you will kill people either way, in the other you say you will only kill people yourself one way

it changes how people see the situation

 

[La Dispute]

Chicken doesn't have much flavour unless you garnish it or marinate it in some way. Same as tofu

 

[MWPP]

It's the exact same question but phrased differently.

That is what is interesting. Give people two bad choices, unequal but bad. Phrase the two choices differently and see how many people pick action over inaction.

How much does how you phrase the question impact the result?

You will kill five people if you don't pull a lever, if you do you kill one person instead vs five people will die if you don't kill one person

It's the same exact situation but in one you say you will kill people either way, in the other you say you will only kill people yourself one way

it changes how people see the situation

I understand what you're saying- but of course, pulling a lever is far more impersonal than physically pushing someone in the way or actively murdering them (comes down to intent, consequences etc)

That said, the transplant situation not the "exact" situation (even though it's similar) at least to me because it goes against the *first do no harm* mantra which is so deeply ingrained into me. For this reason I could never support that decision, even if I understand it.

 

[Gralin]

I understand what you're saying- but of course, pulling a lever is far more impersonal than physically pushing someone in the way or actively murdering them (comes down to intent, consequences etc)

That said, the transplant situation not the "exact" situation (even though it's similar) at least to me because it goes against the *first do no harm* mantra which is so deeply ingrained into me. For this reason I could never support that decision, even if I understand it.

but it's not any different
the question is do you kill one by action or allow five to die by inaction
it's just the method chosen and the description given

part of it is exploring how inaction seems safer and less your fault that action, at least before the event

 

[Gigantic]

Many justifications I would say, few reasons. I say this from the view that as a species we've adapted our diet to what is available to us locally. Studies have shown time and time again that throughout history what people could eat they would eat.

Now the difference these days is there is such an abundance of food, good and bad that we can actually choose what to eat. I don't know of any allergies that cover all animal food products, I mean I could be wrong but I just don't know of any.

Health is a loaded question, there are many unhealthy plants and many healthy animal products, I don't see any reason to cut either out completely based on health, I will give you the fact that if you are going to pick one to cut out animal products is the better one from a health perspective

As far as the killing thing goes well not all animal products involve killing do they so again the only reason I can see to cut out all animal products is based on your view of how they are obtained, how the animals are treated and whether you think they should be obtained.

I'll throw another one out there - environmental impacts of animal agriculture. Land use, land degradation, greenhouse gases, habitat loss etc. Just take a look at what's happening to the Amazon.

And also to prevent inefficiency. Livestock takes more from the world's food supply than it provides. How much grains does it take to feed just one cow? And how many people would that one cow feed? Now compare that to how much the grains the cow has consumed over its lifetime could have fed.

This one goes so against nature, and our nature that it's purely an ethical question. Look to nature you see ants farming and harvesting aphids for the honeydew as an example. They protect the aphids from predators and in return get a food source.

Symbiotic relationships exist throughout nature. The idea that an unfertilized egg for example cannot be eaten because it is exploitation is ignoring the fact that without the person providing a chicken coop in their yard and food, the chicken in question would either be in the food industry system living a much worth life, or dead.

I don't see that symbiotic relationship as natural though, I mean we had to domesticate fowls all those years ago for them to become what they are now.

See you get the question

I should add I have no issue with people that choose to go Vegan, I think the food industry is pretty s**t, it's not alone, people are s**t and we lots of s**t things, I just find the actual process of deciding anything animal based is bad illogical

Same sort line of reasoning goes towards why I've still got leather belts and shoes. I purchased them before I made the ethical decision not to consume animal products. So my justification is that if I were to throw them out or not wear them, I have possibly done them a disservice and their death would be in more vain. Although, while wearing them I am essentially promoting the use of animal products.

 

[Silent Alarm]

If you're using tofu you're just a s**t cook.

India is the biggest vegetarian country in the world in their food is sick. They don't use tofu.

 

[MWPP]

but it's not any different
the question is do you kill one by action or allow five to die by inaction
it's just the method chosen and the description given

part of it is exploring how inaction seems safer and less your fault that action, at least before the event

The main difference relates to the trauma /the actual experience (ie the process rather than the outcome)
The method would make a difference in that sense (pushing a lever comes with the option of not actually witnessing let alone being present for their deaths)