At least there seems to be one in Montana: candidate Roy Bown was accused of being…a vegetarian.
“I am not and have never been a vegetarian,” Brown said. “I am disgusted by the baseless allegation that I am a vegetarian and that my personal eating habits should somehow be construed as opposed to the economic interests of Montana’s livestock industry.”
So…would a compromising photo in Montana be one catching a politician eating peas and carrots? Are cholesterol levels and a history of heart attacks advantages in races there?
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
SORRY
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
I just find this so laughable that its an ISSUE.
Though I had been told by someone once that vegetarianism was an affront to god.
I saw that a while back. There’s a part of me that is little disturbed that this would be an issue, but there’s bigger part of me that is rolling on the floor laughing his fucking head off.
I feel a case of the vapours coming on!
It’s too early in the morning for shocks like that PZ.
Dammit, it is embarrassing to be a part of this states electorate. Oh well, he lost (big) to Schweitzer, and I am only here till I finish school. A shame though, MT is beautiful, but the stupid is strong here.
So, from the last few days, we have learned that the absolute worst evil that exists in this world must be an atheist vegetarian D&D player. Damn, that means I’m out of the running.
A vegetarian? What? What kind of craziness is that.
Now if he was called a Vegan, that i would understand. Those people are fucking anti-american.
Of course it’s a huge issue in Montana, where raising meat is one of the main economic pillars. Really, it’s not absurd that Montanans care deeply about the issue.
Sad thing is, we might have to go nearly vegetarian in the future (global warming), thereby contradicting our omnivorous evolutionary past. On the whole, I don’t much like vegetarianism either, maybe in part because I grew up a religious vegetarian.
Above all, the brain really should have fish and seafood (beef, not so much, sorry MT) providing the appropriate lipids for intelligence. Genetic engineering may help with a vegetarian diet in that respect, at least for those not afraid of GMOs.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
hey, I’m a vegetarian… and I’m also an atheist, a geek, a woman, a pencil-and-paper rolegame player, and a “classical liberal” (that’s what libertarians call themselves when they want to disassociate themselves from their stupid, stupid Party). I also get laid regularly (I have a fiance). Do I win something? Geek points?
Goddammit….
Why is it all of my identifiable charicteristics are “disgusting” or “immoral?”
In Montana, or so I’ve been told, chicken is considered a vegetable.
hahaha, that was frigging hilarious. Give me a break. He better hope he doesn’t get caught mowing down on anything containing tofu.
While I’m here, let me point out that here in Texas within the past few years, people have been SUED by the beef industry for suggesting on TV that eating less meat might be a healthy thing to do.
I would not even laugh if the candidate in question was running in Texas. That could SO happen here.
but, but,… how can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?
To put it another way, a politician being (a known)vegetarian in Montana is a lot like a politician driving into Detroit, Michigan in his Lexus to campaign for votes. Might as well save your breath.
And vegetables are defined as what food eats.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I think Oprah was sued for something similar to that.
meet is murder… tasty tasty murder!
Yet another reason to cast your vote for A Moose!
Cubed tofu in every pot!
(with a nice tamari/balsamic/sesame-oil marinade)
Vegetarian is an affront to God, as you no doubt recall from the
story of Cain and Abel. Why did Cain not find favor with the Lord? Because he offered vegetables and not meat. For a visual interpretation, try this.
Of course, as a 20-year vegetarian, I think this is all hilariously offensive.
Time for Michelle Bachmann to wake up and get in gear. Within the next few days she will be calling for an investigation to root out all the vegetarians in the US house and senate.
Well I can’t understand vegetarians cuz bloody meat is the best thing in the world but I sorta miss the point of vegetarians being evil politicians…?
While I’m here, let me point out that here in Texas within the past few years, people have been SUED by the beef industry for suggesting on TV that eating less meat might be a healthy thing to do.
I think Oprah was sued for something similar to that.
This, folks, is what unleashed the odious Dr Phil on an unsuspecting world!
I take my omnivory seriously, even to the point of (very)occasional entomophagy.
“Is there anything here that doesn’t have meat in it?”
“Possibly the meatloaf.”
So: with the election of Obama, the US has finally broken through one barrier of prejudice. When will we see the first vegetarian president?
(BTW, this post reminded me of the huge spat created when Shrub Sr. said: “When I was young, my mother made me eat broccoli, even though I didn’t like it. Now, I’m grown up, I’m President of the United States – now, I don’t have to eat broccoli anymore!”)
Nice, lunch lady Doris refs.
A friend of mine had a roommate in college who was a theology major. This roommate used to pride himself on having a Bible quote for every occasion. Without fail, my friend would be able to counter with a Simpsons quote.
Now that is a talent worth having.
I’ve often wanted to intone “Book of Simpson, Season 2, episode 5” (or whatever) in a mock-reverential tone before delivering the appropriate quote…as if I’m quoting scripture.
“It’s called the food chain, boys and girls…” — Troy McClure. “This scientist agrees…”
(Man in white lab coat, looks up, raises finger to speak, jump cut to the next frame before he can say a word).
“I can’t believe you expect us to buy this tripe!” Lisa Simpson
“Kids, courtesy of the meat company, free tripe…” Principal Skinner.
I met a vegetarian once. Cold, dead eyes she had. I thought I was a goner, but it was barbecue season and the smell of corn on the cob wafting from a few yards down competed with me for her attention. I tried to regulate my breathing and heart rate to sound less like a growing tuber like the pamphlet said (they give ’em out at when you enter the National Parks here so they don’t get sued by the families of dumb hikers who try to feed vegetarians–or worse, their cubs!–because they look ‘cute’), and after what seemed like several terror-filled hours of snuffing and pawing at me, she took off after the more palatable prey. Only then, as I watched her lope majestically away that, did I allow myself to notice the size of her masseters and calculate that she could have easily bitten me in two should she have chosen to.
I’m not a religious man, but if there is a God, He saved me that night.
she took off after the more palatable prey
And here I am thinking that a guy’d look forward to being eaten by a vegetarian!
heh heh
nice Brownian.
Every single vegetarian that I know personally has slipped up at least once after they’ve become sans meat.
What was it that cause that little traipse back into the land of the carniverous?
bacon.
Every
single
time.
And do you fault them?
Bacon turned my wife back into a full time omnivore. Which is good because I’m not sure I could have married someone who didn’t like a good rare steak every now and again let alone Guanciale.
My husband’s from Texas, and he tells me that the people there consider CHICKEN to be a vegetable.
At least he wasn’t accused of being vegan. Them’s shooting words.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Think about it.
@ #30
Bacon, yeah, Bacon! And Pepperoni Pizza. Damn, I just got no control. Can do without the rest.
I must be the most hated man in the country.
Atheist, D&D playing, vegan, anarchist. Ouch.
ROFL, “slipped up.”
I eat what I want to. Almost all the time, what I want to eat is plant-based. Every now and then, maybe a few times a year, what I want to eat is a hamburger or a plate of hot wings or my grandmother’s special pot roast that she makes for me on the day I fly to visit her because she always forgets I don’t eat meat.
So what? I’m an atheist. I’m not going to replace the religion of Christianity with the religion of High Church Vegetarianism. Having a meat meal once in a blue moon isn’t a sin, and doesn’t make me a non-vegetarian. It’s more like a Democrat voting a straight Democratic ticket except for the Republican dogcatcher.
“What was it that cause that little traipse back into the land of the carniverous?
bacon.”
I’ve been a vegetarian most of my life, and I slip up on average once a year. But I don’t think it’s ever been for bacon; always for fried chicken! Particularly Chinese sweet & sour chicken…mmmm….
I saw what you did there…
Rev, I’ve got some similar anecdotes of bacon-induced backsliding.
I figure if the Designer didn’t want us to eat some animal protein now and again She wouldn’t have given us pancreatic elastase.
spgreenlaw, I don’t hate you. You’re the only other person I know who would order the same pizza I would at an all-night gaming session. Plus you’d understand and even maybe enjoy it if I structured a game based on a Renaissance-era anarchocapitalist society ruled by a Hanseatic-style merchant guild, heh.
What was it that cause that little traipse back into the land of the carniverous?
bacon.
Ah yes, bacon. When I first became a vegetarian, I struggled with the allure of bacon cheeseburgers (succesfully!). After a couple of months, though, it settled down. Now I find bacon to be as unappetizing as any other flesh, but other vegetarians and vegans I know, some who have been meat free for decades, still crave it. It does seem to be a weak spot for many people.
Hmmm. . . Montana and Texas consider chicken to be a vegetable. Now like all poultry, chicken is classed as a white meat, as opposed to the red meat of beef (and lamb).
Off and on the pork producers advertise pork as the OTHER white meat. That puts pork in the same group as chicken. Does that make pork also a vegetable in those states?
In part I agree with The Petey and The Chemist: I hven’t laughed this hard since seeing “Saving Silverman”!
FromThe Skeptic’s Annotated Bible:
1 Timothy 4:1-3
Romans 14:2
Acts 10:9-13
WTF??? I’ve been a vegetarian *and* an atheist for over 30 years. Good thing I’m not running for any political office!
I don’t tell other people what to eat or how to think. Why don’t they just mind their own business and leave me alone?
This would be funny. . .but it’s not. Intolerance is no laughing matter.
And. BTW, #30. I have never, ever “slipped up” and eaten meat. The smell of bacon makes me gag.
*eats his tempeh silently*
speedwell,
I am intrigued. That sounds like the most entertaining gaming all-nighter ever (thank the gods that Red Bull is vegan).
I’m right up there with Stalin and Mao, apparently: Vegan Atheist who has played a great deal of D&D and even GURPS.
But more seriously, why do people love to taunt people who care about life and choose not to KILL things everyday for a snack? WTF? Do any of you have any idea what kind of heinous half-life is lived by the animals that end up dead and rotting in your supermarkets and freezers? Do any of you care that pigs are smarter than your beloved dog or cat?
Yes, humans were able to advance as civilizations because we could hunt and then use agriculture. So what? We now don’t have to. And lipids and other nutrients can be had without eating fish (gasp), and who knows, maybe if we stop eating fish we’ll stop the collapse of the world’s fish populations.
Oh, and I’m not actually a cannibal (or a cold-blooded killer) because I only eat 2nd-Grader intestines and cold cuts now and then, around holidays or when I’m too lazy to heat up some rice.
I’m pretty certain that Red Bull is inorganic, spgreenlaw.
Not bacon here, either. It’s definitely ham that keeps me from going vegetarian.
Hammmmmmmmmm…
Damn, man. And you were doing so well at holding a conversation like a grownup.
Now if he was called a Vegan, that i would understand. Those people are fucking anti-american.
If they don’t like it here, why don’t they just go back to Vega?
Nentuaby, that is completely alright by me.
Appeal to emotion.
You are in the completely wrong place to be preaching. About anything.
And then he bit the head off a baby owl.
And just as well… I looked at their web site, I thought I was joking, but…
Hmmmmm…I don;t like the sound of these “boncentration bamps.”
I know I’m not someone you know personally, but just so you know we exist:
I am 25 and have never had meat in my life, and neither has my younger brother.
My mom is 55 and has not had meat in 35 years.
“I think he’s right about the coons, but then I’m a bit mental.”
Oh riiiiiiiiight
You all know it’s bacon and if you don’t admit it you are lying.
There are no vegetarians with hangovers.
When you’re time comes you all know full well that you’ll be screaming for bacon to save you.
That last sentence is just hilarious. I wonder if Monsanto is involved.
Yes yes I know. My comment is being taken a wee bit more seriously than I intended.
Bacon: the gateway meat.
My roommate in college and I had this hypothesis that pigs must be the natural prey of humans, since we seem to universally find them so tasty.
Maybe if we create food pills that supply the day’s calories and nutrients we can stop using agriculture to take up all the greenspace that would be available.
“Everything in a pig is good. What ingratitude has permitted his name to become a term of opprobrium?”
Grimod de la Reynière
The pig is “an encyclopedic animal, a meal on legs.”
Grimod de La Reynière
tell me about it….
No, they might be tasty too.
Speedwell, re #8: I’m sorry, in order for you to earn any points, your fiancée would have to be female as well.
Atheist, vegetarian, role-playing gay/lesbian seeking to marry – that’s the ticket. If you also wanted to raise children with your partner, you’ll give them fits.
Heh. Missoula went Obama.
And Helena’s Lewis & Clark public library board just voted to keep “The Joy of Gay Sex” on its shelves.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/10/22/top/60lo_081022_book.txt
They’re not all bad. I liken them to Nevada, where things gradually shifted through the years. 12 years ago, Nevada was red, through-and-through. Times change. Nevada changed. Montana is transitioning itself.
I think I heard a bunch of people chanting, “Yes we can” last night. Might have been my imagination, though.
I dunno, I’m not a vegetarian but I eat a lot of vegetarian food. Except seitan. That shit is nasty. Does that mean I can’t run for office now?
Vegetarian food is cheap, healthy, and puts less stress on the food system. I’m not giving up beef, chicken, or bacon entirely, but I don’t need to eat meat 3 meals a day.
Above all, the brain really should have fish and seafood (beef, not so much, sorry MT) providing the appropriate lipids for intelligence. Genetic engineering may help with a vegetarian diet in that respect, at least for those not afraid of GMOs. – Glen D
How well supported is that? I know you need long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (DHA and EPA) for brain function, and that seafoods are the best source, but you can make then from short-chain omega 3s, which are available in vegetable sources (notably walnuts). I (although I sometimes eat fish) and my family (who don’t) now take supplements made from (cultivated) marine algae – which is where sea fish get theirs in the first place. Incidentally George Monbiot recommends farmed tilapia, a fresh-water herbivorous fish with a calorie-conversion ratio of 1.7, as the most environmentally responsible source of animal food – but presumably, that doesn’t give you your DHA and EPA.
I am reminded of a brother of a guy I was dating, back in the early ’70s. It was explained to me that he and his wife had been vegetarians for several years, but would eat bacon when visiting their parents.
Oh hell, same with me. I actually enjoy cooking vegetarian. I lived with two vegetarians when I lived in WY. I cooked for them every night. One of the restaurants I worked at as a chef had 1/4 of their menu vegetarian. The wife and I try to eat veg as much as possible. But sometimes you just gotta have some chile rubbed pork chops or a bacon cheese burger.
I have no problem with it what so ever. I just like to poke fun.
It’s funny. I got a pamphlet from a PETA front on campus the other day (the last pamphlet I got was from the Scientologists). Bleh. I don’t like hypocrisy with my food. I palmed it an threw it away.
I actually tried being a vegetarian for a while. It was okay too. I let myself eat fish and milk, because I don’t care about the animals, it was a health kick. I felt better, primarily because I was switching from a fast food diet. In the end though, it wasn’t the meat that made a difference.
I never understood vegetarians. Nothing they do seems to be based on anything rational whatsoever. The only vegetarians I’ve ever understood were those that told me they don’t like meat. Not rational- but understandable.
I always wondered, if vegetarians are opposed to meat, why are there so many vegetarian products that look like meat?
More to the point, I think it’s important that we start supporting these blue areas that sit in the middle of red states. Reno. Vegas. Tucson. Missoula. Helena. St Louis.
If we make fun of them, that’s it, they’ll be red in 2012.
Just think it over.
Oh you misunderstand me. I wasn’t making fun of those areas. I was making fun of ALL vegetarians.
My roommate in college and I had this hypothesis that pigs must be the natural prey of humans, since we seem to universally find them so tasty.
I understand the feeling is mutual. And cannot resist posting this a second time:
The Pig – Roald Dahl
In England once there lived a big
And wonderfully clever pig.
To everybody it was plain
That Piggy had a massive brain.
He worked out sums inside his head,
There was no book he hadn’t read.
He knew what made an airplane fly,
He knew how engines worked and why.
He knew all this, but in the end
One question drove him round the bend:
He simply couldn’t puzzle out
What LIFE was really all about.
What was the reason for his birth?
Why was he placed upon this earth?
His giant brain went round and round.
Alas, no answer could be found.
Till suddenly one wondrous night.
All in a flash he saw the light.
He jumped up like a ballet dancer
And yelled, “By gum, I’ve got the answer!”
“They want my bacon slice by slice
“To sell at a tremendous price!
“They want my tender juicy chops
“To put in all the butcher’s shops!
“They want my pork to make a roast
“And that’s the part’ll cost the most!
“They want my sausages in strings!
“They even want my chitterlings!
“The butcher’s shop! The carving knife!
“That is the reason for my life!”
Such thoughts as these are not designed
To give a pig great piece of mind.
Next morning, in comes Farmer Bland,
A pail of pigswill in his hand,
And piggy with a mighty roar,
Bashes the farmer to the floor…
Now comes the rather grizzly bit
So let’s not make too much of it,
Except that you must understand
That Piggy did eat Farmer Bland,
He ate him up from head to toe,
Chewing the pieces nice and slow.
It took an hour to reach the feet,
Because there was so much to eat,
And when he finished, Pig, of course,
Felt absolutely no remorse.
Slowly he scratched his brainy head
And with a little smile he said,
“I had a fairly powerful hunch
“That he might have me for his lunch.
“And so, because I feared the worst,
“I thought I’d better eat him first.”
And a very big thank you to Colorado for rejecting Amendment 48. Failed huge; thank you.
This might be the wrong thread for my new crown of pork recipe …
The Chemist,
You can’t see the rationality in understanding that other animals are just as capable of suffering physical pain as humans are, and that causing suffering ought to be avoided when it is not necessary? Nor can you see the reason behind trying to reduce one’s negative ecological impact by cutting out cattle from one’s diet?
By the way, I and many other vegans and vegetarians hate PETA, and are quite loud about it. They do not speak for all of us.
Yeah, I tend to think that if the grid ever goes down and we go into dystopian survival mode, there’s gonna be a lot of former PETA jerkwads knocking critters on the head and sticking ’em in a stew pot.
Yeah, they haven’t cottoned onto the vegan “insult” yet, that’s too crazy to even be thought of.
For vegetarians the hard bit is supposed to be bacon, for vegans, it’s cheese… so which state would that make you most hated in?
This is coming from another female atheist vegan… but I’m from Europe and I have an anarchist sister living in an autonomous space in Berlin, can I get extra points for that?
Funny, all I can think of now are the scenes from Pulp Fiction discussing the eating of swine, and the name Royale with cheese instead of quarter pounder.
“Do any of you care that pigs are smarter than your beloved dog or cat?”
Yes, it’s where the flavor comes from.
Consider that line stolen.
I’m a liberal female vegetarian atheist who plays Dungeons and Dragons. I also support the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and pro-Choice.
Does this qualify me for a first-class ticket to hell, or do I have to try a little bit harder?
beckyws,
Nonconsumption of Cheese would probably make us unlovable in Vermont or Wisconsin. Vermont being so liberal and all makes Wisconsin seem like the least safe ground for vegans to me. Their football fans are so in love with cheese they wear it on their heads for sporting events.
From previous experience, it probably won’t matter if I point out that Bown didn’t say that there is anything wrong with being a vegetarian, or that, generally, the claim that a characterization is slander doesn’t imply that there’s anything wrong with those for whom the characterization is accurate. That false premise seems unbudgeable in some people’s minds.
It’s well-known that some omega 3 can be made in the body from plant sources, but it’s also well-known that the amount is quite small:
It’s not the greatest source, but then it agrees with what the scientific sources relate. It is unlikely, of course, that genetic engineering of plants to produce omega 3 lipids would be done if, say, such lipids were like vitamin A, readily produced from plant precursors. Indeed, I have seen that rationale given for making plants produce omega 3s (at the least, seafood and fish are not likely to supply all the omega 3 we will want to consume, unless fish farming were dramatically increased (which would probably run into environmental issues), and without using fish to feed the fish as so often happens today).
As far as algae goes, fine, I’m not concerned about that. Most people aren’t going to go for that, except as a supplement (GMO plants seem to me to be a better way to eat it, but I assume algae is a present source for omega 3 addition in foods), and I wasn’t going for a comprehensive discussion of the possibilities. I was primarily discussing the evolutionary context, and the fact that unmodified plants are a poor way to get omega 3s.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I don’t know about hell, but you’ve turned on half the guys and perhaps a couple of women here.
I’ve lived almost-vegan for over a year by necessity, since I had chinatown on one side, and little saigon on the other, and all the groceries in walking distance were dairy free (and the meat there creeped me out to much to buy it), and i had to borrow a car to get to the nearest safeway.
i don’t think i ever felt as weak as I did during that time. I rarely eat meat as it is, but going completely without animal products just doesn’t work for me, especially since i’m iron-deficient, and supplements make me shit bricks. not to mention that all the resident long-time vegans around here look downright sicky pale :-/
as much as i understand the global need to eat lower on the food-chain, i will always need a small amount of meat/dairy in my diet. soy-cappuccinos are an atrocity :-p
oh and also, I don’t like bacon very much. it’s too fatty. solid animal fat (except butter) makes me gag… only cartilage is worse. but i still occasionally use melted bacon fat instead of oil when cooking… i’ll just hand the actual bacon bits to the boyfriend to eat
Oh hell, same with me. I actually enjoy cooking vegetarian. – Rev.BigDumbChimp KoT,OM
* Take one plump young vegetarian.
* Remove head and internal organs, setting the latter aside for the gravy…
I never said where those vegetarian roommates ended up….
Atheist, vegetarian, role-playing gay/lesbian seeking to marry – that’s the ticket. – Robert
Would it count if you were pretending to be a gay atheist vegetarian seeking to marry in a role-playing game?
Marge: What’s wrong, Lisa? Didn’t you get enough lamb chops?
Lisa: I can’t eat this. I can’t eat a poor little lamb.
Homer: Lisa, get a hold of yourself. This is lamb, not _a_ lamb.
Lisa: What’s the difference between this lamb and the one that kissed me?
Bart: This one spent two hours in the broiler.
Marge: Bart! Sensible bites! All right, Lisa, if you don’t want lamb chops, there are lots of other things I can make. Chicken breast. Rump roast. Hot dogs.
Lisa: No I can’t! I can’t eat any of them!
Homer: Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute. Lisa honey, are you saying you’re *never* going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad! Those all come from the same animal!
Homer: [Chuckles] Yeah, right Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.
If you have a food allergy or dietary restriction I’ll try to accommodate you if I’m cooking. Vegetarian? Kosher? (Kinda hard with only one stove but…) No problem. Vegan? That becomes too restrictive when everyone else is in omnivore mode. BYOF. AND you do not have the right to insist that everyone become meatless in your presence if you are one of many invited guests.
Just because you go meatless doesn’t give you the right to fucking lecture me about animal cruelty. We raised cattle when I was a kid. I take full responsibility for the consumption of animal products, even down to the leather belt and shoes. Cruel world, innit?
Well, you know vegetarians are all elitist bastards (j/k). LOL More power to them!
Glen D@89,
Thanks Glen, what I was most wondering about was how much EPA/DHA is actually necessary, and what studies have been done to establish this. AFAIK, a lot of the “recommended daily amounts” of micronutrients are pretty much guesses – not easy to do conclusive studies ethically I’d have thought. Anecdotally, my son has never eaten fish, nor did his mother from long before his conception, and he’s bright, with no developmental problems. Same, as I understand it, with vegetarian children generally.
Jadehawk@91,
Similarly, are there any good studies suggesting veganism is unhealthy? (For children especially you need to be careful they get enough B12, but it’s certainly possible.)
We need to remember that on all sides of dietary issues, there are people with financial and/or ideological interests in saying “you need a lot of/don’t need/shouldn’t eat X to be healthy”.
It’s more a question of whether they process it as humans do. Then there’s the simple question of abruptness. Regardless of sensation, kill it quick enough, and I don’t care. Wolves don’t care about pain in their prey, evidence shows meat is a natural part of our diet anyway.
Our impact on the environment still has a lot more to do with overpopulation than anything else. There is no evidence that a global population shift in diet would change anything without introducing significant problems of its own.
Not loud enough obviously.
Or to misquote Sir William S. Gilbert, “a vegetarian of the most bigoted and persecuting kind.”
(5 points for recognizing the source.)
Every bit of evidence I’ve seen shows that they do. It isn’t just the killing (which is not particularly abrupt and in factory farming often goes very badly when it comes to slaughtering livestock because of the emphais placed on speed rather than humane treatment. Chimpanzees have been known to rape females of their species to spread their genes, that does not mean it is acceptable for humans. Slavery and subjugation of women was likewise a cornerstone of most of human civilization. Is it ethical now?
Western lifestyles, and that of the rising middle classes in the East, where individuals consume huge amounts of resources, is the primary problem. A vegetarian diet puts far less pressure on the environment per person than an omnivorous one, especially an American style diet that relies heavily on beef. Not only is less land used, because it costs a huge amount of plant calories to produce a single calorie’s worth of beef, but the huge amounts of greenhouse gasses produced by cattle themselves are removed from the equation.
PETA’s sexist tactics and pontificating style just gets more media attention. Bad behavior gets more attention, sadly. Next thing you’ll say is that moderate Muslims have not spoken out loudly enough against the horrors that occurred on 9/11.
“AND you do not have the right to insist that everyone become meatless in your presence if you are one of many invited guests.”
Seems like there’s just as much extreme vegetarians out there as extreme atheists.
“I always wondered, if vegetarians are opposed to meat, why are there so many vegetarian products that look like meat?”
Hint: they’re not oppossed to it on grounds of appearance.
“Some guy: But more seriously, why do people love to taunt people who care about life and choose not to KILL things everyday for a snack?
T.S.G.: Appeal to emotion. You are in the completely wrong place to be preaching. About anything.”
It was worded as an appeal to emotion, but it’s also a legit question.
Actually an open-minded blog such as this would be the best place to preach as long as one’s arguments can be backed up. I know, I know, preaching is what those xians do and we don’t like them so it does get a little confusing, but you’ll get it soon enough.
Something went terribly wrong with my comment between previewing and posting, let me fix that paragraph.
Every bit of evidence I’ve seen shows that they do. It isn’t just the killing (which is not particularly abrupt and in factory farming often goes very badly because of the emphasis placed on speed rather than humane treatment.) One has to take into account the terrible conditions most animals produced for food now live in. I’ll leave it to you to look up footage if you choose, it might be too graphic for PZ’s liking and I wouldn’t want to link to something like
that without his permission.
Chimpanzees have been known to rape females of their species to spread their genes, that does not mean it is acceptable for humans. Slavery and subjugation of women was a cornerstone of most human civilizations. Is it ethical now?
if i understand the issue correctly, it is possible to supplement your diet sufficiently to live healthily on vegan food. from the wilted looks of the vegans around here, i can only say that a lot of people don’t bother, or don’t know how. this of course is contrasted with the massively obese corn-dog eaters, so i daresay not paying attention to your diet is a much bigger issue here.
but
having some meat/cheese once in a while is more affordable than supplementing everything that’s necessary(a big issue in the Starving Student community :-p). and you can call me a technophobe, but replacing available food-sources with pills/massively GM’d food seems like an iffy proposition. not that i distrust the science, but monsanto and friends are the last people whom i’d trust with my health.
and no, i don’t have any studies at hand. i’m fairly certain humans are perfectly capable to live healthily on a low-animal-product diet. it just seems to me that it’s easier to live healthy on a non-vegan diet. i’d have to scarf down ridiculous amounts of iron pills just to keep the aenemia at bay, not to mention the calcium i’d be missing out on. as it is, some milk, some cheese, and the occasional beef-and-spinach means i seem to be able to get off the pills (almost) completely. if others can remain healthy at even lower level of animal consumption, good on them.
#30:
“bacon”
I’m vegetarian and I only “slip up” when I don’t realise that what I’m eating has got meat in it. I don’t eat meat and even if I did, it wouldn’t be bacon, ‘cos I never liked it anyway. That said, I think that was what made my sister give up being a vegetarian.
Does remind me of the “fact” – don’t know if it’s true or not – that Smokey Bacon crisps (or “potato chips”) in England are vegetarian, but Cheese and Onion are not.
And Erik – unsurprisingly, you are wrong – Hitler was not a vegetarian. His doctors advised him to avoid meat for health reasons, but he didn’t.
When I cook for people I’m typically sensitive to vegetarians less so if they eat vegan, kosher or halal.
The only people who bother me are those who eat meat but could never bring themselves to kill an animal or feel that hunting is barbaric. Dietary choices don’t bother me, hypocrisy does.
As a pejorative “vegetarian” is pretty weak. After all, who’s scared of a vegetarian?
Just like Medusa #44
I don’t get the whole bacon thing. As a veggie of 10 years, the only thing I miss is Anchovies, which i suppose is the fishy equivalent of bacon, come to think of it.
How could all you people be exposed to the religious on such a constant basis and not know how they think?
It’s because if someone’s a vegetarian, they can’t eat the magic cracker, and hence must be an atheist.
Non sequitur.
I guessed you missed the part about being my invited guests. You can do whatever the fuck you want at your party. It is irrelevant to any form of atheism.
FAIL.
So an effigy of dead meat is acceptable? pfffft.
Fallacious statement. I don’t “KILL things everyday for a snack.” T.S.G. gave you a respectable answer though.
#104
The only thing lacking in an otherwise healthy vegan diet is vitamin B12. Vegans *must* take supplements in some way to overcome this. Otherwise, a careful choice of diet – which doesn’t need to be expensive – can supply all the iron and calcium that humans need without supplements. Sure, humans are omnivores and it’s easier with meat, but it’s not essential.
The hard point about veganism is that it is nearly impossible. Being a vegetarian is fine until you go to a restaurant and there is nothing vegetarian. Or there is one option that I don’t like. Nobody understands this, because this one option is vegetarian, so I must like it! Generally, there is nothing vegan on a menu, so you can’t eat out as a vegan.
I’ll turn vegan when the rest of the world makes it possible. I don’t expect this to happen soon.
Seen on a shirt: Vegetarian – Cree word for poor hunter.
I have no problem with someone being vegetarian, but I do like to have meat several times a week.
hinschelwood @ #105:
You beat me to it. Hitler ate a bizarro diet, and forced people in his circle to eat it too when they were in his presence, but he wasn’t even close to being a vegetarian.
Oh, and for those who asked, the meat amalgams are mostly about being able to use standard and old family recipes more easily. Also, feeding a mixed diet crowd so that everyone is happy.
Re#102
That is only in America where ex-carnivores want something that looks like meat but isn’t. I am from India where we have healthy wholesome vegetarian meals which are NOT based on imitating their non-veg counterparts.
I am an atheist and a vegetarian. So i guess that makes me an elite among the damned. Oh wait… the elite are hated too… damn!!
I read of a group who avoided this problem. In their community they had problems keeping insects out of the grain. Although they screened out the insects they got enough B12 from their droppings.
Killing to eat and hunting for sport are two totally different things.
“Some guy: But more seriously, why do people love to taunt people who care about life and choose not to KILL things everyday for a snack? ”
No, they still do, they just choose a different Kingdom for their murderous ways. And good for them, those plants are a devious bunch.
Perhaps this is clearer:
Although TSG didn’t intend it in that way, the statement is overall quite accurate.
A second answer is that it’s fun to taunt people with no sense of humor.
This is a joke, right?
Truly love this forum, more food for thought?
* So, lots of arguments that vegans are weak/sickly/etc. Would you change your mind if someone did Ironman triathlons and was vegan? 4 second google search equals http://www.thefinalsprint.com/2007/05/book-review-thrive-by-ironman-triathlete-and-vegan-brendan-brazier/. No idea who he is, he may be a complete loon, but he’s not exactly sickly.
* No problem eating dogs, they taste better. Nothing to say against this, really – it’s completely valid and think more omnivores should feel this way.
* PETA is obnoxious. Yep, and as was pointed out, just because they claim to represent vegans doesn’t mean they represent all of us. I’ve met some stupid and obnoxious atheists, but that doesn’t make catholicism a rational world view.
* Lessening your environmental impact. Can anybody argue that eating meat with our current fishing/ranching practices is better for the environment? Hell, 37% of all fishing goes into feeding farmed fish and much of our livestock…
And my appeal to people’s emotions was meant as a nod to our humanity and our ability to empathize with other life, not to PREACH. Having just watched my adopted state CA ban gay marriage, I’m sickeningly aware of how very eager people are to discriminate against The Other, in whatever form it may take.
Looked at the original reference. The “slander” is said to have been launched by an opponent named McDonald. Now I’m sure this is a joke…
#117, couldn’t agree more about friendly taunting…just a bit extra aware of people vilifying/bashing others and the immensity of our resource/environmental problems in the wake of the US elections.
#114
*grin*
Yes, that’s the thing about B12. It’s not present in plants – and animals can’t synthesise it themselves. Only bacteria can make it. It’s present in dairy stuff because cows eat dirt while they’re eating grass and “accidentally” get the B12, which then shows up in their meat and milk. Humans then get it this way. I presume insect shit works in the same way.
I’m against cruelty to animals. I buy free-range meat fairly often and I’m trying to increase that amount. It’s not hard in Australia – grain fed and intensive farmed is the exception, except with pork. Kangaroo is the best – totally wild & free, must be a clean kill with a head shot, or it’s not allowed to be sold. And yummy. And the local butcher’s organic free-range bacon is way better than the supermarket crap, so it’s win-win.
One thing that the eco-vegetarians forget is that not all land is good for growing human-edible crops. Australia has a lot of grazing-only land; so does Tibet. By all means cut down on meat, but cutting it totally out doesn’t make sense to me.
Oh, Christ! (!!) I’m a vegan and an atheist, So there’s no hope me, then.
While out bird-watching (far from Montana) some hunters brushed past. They reeked of beer, and they were dragging a deer. And I just thought that it was unnecessary, while packaged meat is already at the market. On the other hand, I respect that the carnivore can hunt and kill his own dinner. In any case, I make cultural exception for people of Montana. It seems that everyone in Montana hunts for their meat, so the issue is a matter of an analogue of nationality for that state.
We have a choice here? The only thing I’ve seen free-range is eggs.
Because caring about animals (or anyone) is associated with femininity. Denigrating women for being women is the essence of patriarchy. Denigrating men for being like women is necessary to perpetuating patriarchy.
Trashing and taunting vegans and vegetarians is still a socially acceptable way of venting one’s misogyny and homophobia.
I can’t count how many times I’ve been called a “faggot” or a “pussy” for being vegan. This is before I inform the speaker that I am in fact a faggot.
G’Day All
No, it’s organic, the principle ingredients are taurine, an organic acid, glucuronolactone, caffeine, B group vitamins, sucrose and glucose. All of these are organic. They may be synthetic, but they are still organic*.
See http://www.redbull.co.za/
Although the Red Bull site says “All ingredients for Red Bull Energy Drink are synthetically produced by pharmaceutical companies. This guarantees the highest quality”, and taurine is synthesized from ethylene oxide and sodium bisulfite, I sincerely doubt they are synthesizing caffeine, sucrose and glucose from basic chemicals.
*Organic, in chemistry and biochemistry terms, means compounds containing primarily carbon and hydrogen (but they can contain other elements such as oxygen, nitrogen sulphur etc.). When confronted with a sign saying “organic vegetables” ask yourself what else they would be? Carrots made from silicon anyone?
I’m an atheist and a vegetarian. Does that mean I’m double-evil?
I think there are at least a few rational vegans. Peter Singer, and the late James Rachels to name two. I comp;letely accept their arguments, but due to weakness of will I am not a vegan.
keep in mind that according to singer it’s not so much the killing that’s wrong. It’s the suffering that makes meat eating wrong. Eating humanely raised and slaughtered meat is better than eating the eggs of a de-beaked chicken.
Becoming a vegetarian is one of the best ways to help the planet.
New Scientist:
David Pimentel of Cornell University and colleagues have drawn on an extensive body of existing studies to highlight the wastage in the US food production chain. To bring their point home, they have estimated how much energy could be saved by making a few relatively simple changes to the way corn is produced.
[…]
… half of the energy used to make food in the US is spent making animal products – meat, dairy and eggs. Farmers must produce crops to feed the animals that eventually provide humans with animal protein.
In 2004, Pimentel estimated 6 kilograms of plant protein are needed to produce 1 kg of high quality animal protein. He calculates that if Americans maintained their 3747 kcals per day, but switched to a vegetarian diet, the fossil fuel energy required to generate that diet would be cut by one third.
Reducing their meat intake is not the only way Americans can cut the nation’s energy bill. And Pimentel’s other suggested change to US eating habits would have the added benefit of cutting the national health bill as well.
In addition to the 3747 kcals, the average American consumes one third of their calories in junk food and Pimentel and colleagues suggest this could be cut by 80% and the total calorie intake be reduced by 30%. That could drastically cut the amount of energy which goes into feeding Americans, as junk food is typically low in calories, but energetically expensive to produce.
For instance, Pimentel calculates that the equivalent of 2100 kcal go into producing a can of diet soda which contains a maximum of 1 kcal. About 1600 kcal go into producing the aluminium can alone. [continues]
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14391-americans-must-diet-to-save-their-economy.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14391
This is a mischaracterization of Singer. He says suffering makes killing worse, not that killing isn’t wrong. His utilitarianism is all about degrees.
Check out Tom Regan and Gary Francione too.
You mean legit as in “have you stopped beating your wife?” No, it was not a legit question. It was a loaded question.
IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!
Appeal to emotion isn’t backing up your argument. “If that pig was as cute as your cat you wouldn’t eat it.” Maybe, maybe not. But it isn’t, so I do.
No, see, the problem with preaching is that the preacher always, without fail, assumes that those who he’s preaching to simply haven’t heard the claims before and that’s the only reason they haven’t converted. I have. I rejected them. Thanks for playing, though.
Well said tsg.
Roy Brown huh?
He’s loves his meat
“He’s hackin’ and wackin’ and smackin’
He’s hackin’ and wackin’ and smackin’
He’s hackin’ and wackin’ and smackin’
He just hacks, wacks, choppin’ that meat”
Nicely said tsg – extra twirl for you. ;o)
I’m a little surprised by the antagonism towards vegetarians/vegans in this comment thread.. you’d think that us free-thinkers and truth-seekers would be less quick to mock something ‘althernative’, especially something 100% scientifically proven to be healthier for people and for the planet!
I’m a little surprised at the antagonism and hating in this comment thread about swine. Bacon? Fuck you! As a pig, the consummate omnivore, I’ll eat whatever–potatoes, beans, rattlesnakes, diarrhea. Don’t care. So I package my extra amino acids in the form of hams, crown roasts, bacon, etc. That’s my business and what right do you motherfuckers have to eat that shit?
Of course, you ‘umans are the other consummate mammalian omnivore, and our kind have been competing and eating each other for 10 million years or some shit.
Man, this whole topic just bums me right the fuck out.
(signed)
A Pig
I’m a little surprised by the antagonism towards vegetarians/vegans in this comment thread.
I’m surprised you’re surprised.
err, fuck.
I’m surprised you’re surprised.
Natalie,
I love your blog!
The older I get the less meat I eat,but on a cold snowy,blowin morning a cup o joe and some bacon sure hits the spot.
There are days when I wonder if our politics can become any more banal and petty, then things like this come along and I realize the answer is “Hell, yeah!”
I’m not a vegetarian, and never will be unless my health requires it. To me, a candidate’s dietary habits are about as important as his religion, which is to say not at all.
re vegitarians love of bacon, also sausages…I think its the nitrates. They create a pleasure feed back look in the brain, such that a Homer living next to a pig factory thinks of nothing but BAAAcon…
anyway,years after non-meat eating, the smell of the nitrates on the fat is like the smell of crack! and you know you want some. do not mean you take to living in the streets servicing taxidrivers…
OK, that does it… party at my place (errr, in my town, rather–I live in a dinky apartment) for all the veg*an atheists on the blog. At ten I’ll pass out the character sheets. I have the traditional Crown Royal bag full of dice. :D
The nitrates/nitrites have been phased out of most food due to the possibility of forming carcinogens during cooking. Still there are salts there to preserve the meat.
Thank you.
Tease.
What I’d like to ask all these vegetarians here is, “How do you get to play the moral high ground about how animals are killed, when you personally skin, vivisect and eat plants while we are still living and breathing?”
It’s not much of an improvement to be boiled alive before the eating or to be puréed and then drunk, either.
You are all such, such… animals!
Sincerely,
Daucus carota, PhD.
I’m a vegetarian, skeptical, atheist, socially liberal, childfree transvesite.
Just shoot me
@#1
Of course vegetarianism is an affront to God. It’s a disgusting, pagan tradition (sarcasm mode off).
Read the Old Testament. God LOVES those blood sacrifices like a crazed Aztec priest.
You know who I really wanna vote for? An Atheist Vegan Homosexual Communist Scientist named Saddam Hitler Mussolini Chavez.
Alternatively, I would consider voting for a Muslim Canibal Beastimist Libertarian Artist Convicted Felon named Jesus.
Yes, Yahweh enjoys the meat-smoke, when it rises up to his cloud-seat in the sky.
As an atheist, vegan *and* longtime Pharynguloid, I’m sorry I’m coming late to this conversation. There are a whole host of rational and progressive/ideological reasons not to eat meat, esp. industrially-produced meat. Even if the suffering of animals doesn’t move you – an immoral posture, pseudoscientific rationalizations about how/whether animals feel true pain, aside – the meat industries are horrific labor abusers and environment abusers. Every time you take a bite of meat or dairy or egg, you are complicit in all that.
You also take in a huge mouthful of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and other chemicals, as well as mad cow risk. Not exactly a rational choice, in my view. (The EU continues to ban imports of US hormone treated beef, despite incurring huge WTO fines/sanctions for doing so.)
Oh, and btw, seafood: also a problem. Modern industrial fishing techniques devastate entire ecosystems with huge waste. And something like half of all harvested seafood is used for animal feed anyway.
The anecdotal “gee, I tried going veg once and just felt kinda weak” arguments are not up to the general level of discourse on this blog. nor is talking about how veg*ns are unhealthy without epidemiological comparisons to carnists (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.), against whom we stack up pretty well. cf. Cornell prof. Colin Campbell’s famous China Study – http://www.thechinastudy.com
we had a monumental victory yesterday with the passage, by a broad margin, California’s Proposition 2 – http://www.yesonprop2.com/ – which bans the worst forms of farmed animal confinement (e.g., hen battery cages and sow gestation crates) 20 MM animals per year will suffer significantly less due to this, and there is going to be a ripple effect. Happily, the zeitgeist is moving toward compassion.
PS – GrammarRWA – kudos for nailing the patriarchy thing.
Hill
Yes, you would think that, wouldn’t you? I hope at least some of the mockers in this thread ponder their motivations. There’s plenty of information and support out there for anyone who wants to eat less meat and more plants. Anyone can email me, for example.
I’ll check out your blog!
Hillary
I guess that question is why do we eat candy bars and junk food when there are much healthier alternatives? Because life isn’t about survival, there’s enjoyment too. Meat tastes good, and no matter how many times we are told that vegetarian diets are better for us, it doesn’t change that fact. It’s all about moderation, not taking an extreme black & white view.
you’d think that us free-thinkers and truth-seekers would be less quick to mock something …
Not when we’re so quick to pat ourselves on the back for being “skeptical” and “rational”.
The sad thing is, Mr. Atkinson, given your posting history, I’m not sure whether this is a joke. x.x
Oh ffs this is some Gulliver’s Travels shit right here. Christ how freaking lame will these things get?
Whether it’s natural is morally irrelevant.
I heard the can’date don’t drive a pick-up truck and don’t chew tabaki e’ther. He’s pro’ly a godam homo-commi!!!
It is true but it is also irrelevant. Asshole is playing yet an other variation of the “Hitler was an atheist” meme in order to slime a topic.
Justin H.
Have you really eaten that much dog? In China dn Korea, where it is eaten often, it is still considered a garbage meat, not a delicacy. It’s eaten because it’s “stimulating” and increases one’s heat or yang qi according to Chinese medicine/folk wisdom. of the many many people I’ve ever met who regularly eat meet(I’ve lived in north China for a long time) few if any say it tastes good. Most people will only eat it when it’s really friggin cold out and they’ve got alot of beer on hand.
I’m just a layman but aren’t there actual reasons why pigs are almost the only omnivore/carnivore that are regularly eaten? Don’t most omnivores and carnivores have more urea and ammonia in their bodies since they are musclular hunters muscles, making their flesh smell funky? Aren’t omnivores and carnivores more likely to be host to more parasites and diseases since they will eat carrion?
Incidentally, I agree about bacon; it’s one of the few meats I actually like (actually, I like the taste of a lot of meats, but have serious issues with the texture). I definitely support more humane farming techniques, though, and try to reflect that in my buying choices to the extent that our family’s budget will allow.
He should have added “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”.
I consider the argument “You won’t kill animals with your own hands, so why will you eat them? You are such a hypocrite!!” pretty lame. Most people won’t perform surgery on anyone, does that mean they have to oppose surgery? Now, I know, it’s all about the morals behind it etc., but anyways: People have different aptitudes towards certain actions. Some can’t be bothered with anything involving blood and gore. No fault, there. Anyway, those people can be fully comfortable with other people performing those actions for them without somehow repressing that the nice, clean piece of meat in front of them originated from some living, breathing pig.
“But more seriously, why do people love to taunt people who care about life and choose not to KILL things everyday for a snack?”
I wasn’t aware that human life could be sustained on minerals alone.
“I’m a little surprised by the antagonism towards vegetarians/vegans in this comment thread.”
They show up preaching about how anyone not like them is either ill-informed, or a murderer, and a snarky reaction to that is antagonism?
Vegetarianism is fine. You’re a vegetarian? Great. It’s better for the environment? Cool. It’s more humane? Great. It’s healthy? Fantastic. More power to you.
Beyond that, STFU.
#167: breatharians.
Is it whimsical to imagine that, in time to come, civilised people will find it disgusting to think that their forebears actually fed upon actual, once-living plant and animal matter, instead of wholesome manufactured food?
Agree with craig at #168.
I’m a vegetarian, but boy do some vegetarians embarrass me with the preaching.
What anyone else eats (or doesn’t eat) is none of my business and I figure it’s no-one else’s business what I do and don’t eat.
I’m aware that vegetarianism is irrational, but I have no real desire to get over this particular irrationality.
The Chemist…
Why is eating meat more rational than not eating meat? What, cause your mommy told you it’s good for ya? Cause everybody else is doing it? Cause it’s delicious? Please explain.
Regarding others’ comments about how people discussing veg*anism should STFU, I don’t see why they should: if PZ posted it as an example of how stupid political jibes are, then why can people who are vegetarian/vegan not comment on this, the same way that all the athiests here felt rightly pissed off at the Dole debacle, and the resulting attitudes it uncovered, i.e. that being atheist is seen as something ‘undesirable’.
Whether or not it is the right definition of slander, people understand that to be slandered is to be accused of something bad: hence the refutation from the man in question that he was “disgusted” to be accused of being vegetarian.
If Pharyngulites think that veg*ans talking about their opinions are ‘preaching’, then what the fuck are people doing when they crash polls or make comments on blogs/articles that PZ links to? It’s not preaching, it’s debating. Nowt wrong with that on a blog supposedly populated by rational skeptical thinkers.
A vegetarian in Montana must be like a Kawasaki Rider in Milwaukee, or a Honda driver in Flint Michigan.
Becky, I think what’s considered objectionable is the moralizing, hyperbole, and emotionally loaded rhetoric, not the objective content of the views expressed.
I have heard that term but never really looked it up to see what it was or if it was just a made up word that sounded funny.
Unfortunately, it is not a made up word.
‘zactly, Azky.
Sheesh, on further review I’m in a Poe spiral about that site.
There’s actually one step even lower, PZ. That’s those who drink the Kool-Aid….
WRT why so many cultures eat pigs:
Try farming livestock in your backyard. Pigs gain weight quickly, eat scraps and acorns and things humans find unpalatable, don’t take a lot of room, can be let to range if you want, and aren’t bothered by many predators (hawks, weasels, etc. won’t mess with pigs much). You don’t need to buy special feed, you can get a pig from birth to slaughtering weight in under a year, they don’t require special shelter, all you need is a really good fence, a roof (walls optional) and a lot of garbage. To get cow, goat, sheep, horse, poultry, dog, etc. to the same weight takes a lot of specialized food, shelter, and a lot more time. Even goats are picky eaters compared to a pig. Pigs also have a lot of babies per litter, whereas other livestock tend to have only a few babies per pregnancy.
And they taste good and you can use nearly the entire animal minimizing waste.
I am no longer vegetarian {though I still habitually star out the word “m**t”}, but I still remain staunchly anichthyophagous — even down to not eating prawn cocktail flavour crisps or Worcestershire sauce. A person’s got to have something to get self-righteous over, n’est-ce-pas?
And I’ve met vegetarians who disapprove of “fake m**t” e.g. soya mince, and some who won’t eat food cooked in pans that have ever had m**t cooked on them. At the other end of the spectrum, there are the ones who you probably wouldn’t even notice were vegetarian.
I seem to recall that there is some sort of genetic disorder which would leave a person missing an enzyme required to synthesise taurine — which is only found in animals, and is required for certain body functions; there is no plant source — from other amino acids.
Among an omnivorous population, such a mutation would be considered neutral and so go largely undetected; but if someone with the disorder became vegetarian, it would catch up with them eventually.
My roommate in college and I had this hypothesis that pigs must be the natural prey of humans, since we seem to universally find them so tasty.
I personally don’t like pork all that much. Also, bear in mind that pork, unlike some other meats, is particularly dangerous if not cooked properly, since it contains bacteria harmful to humans. (This may well have been the root of the Abrahamic religious prohibition on the eating of pork, I would imagine. In the context of a primitive society with no mechanism for disease control, it made sense.)
Are you speaking of trichinosis? If so it is extremely uncommon and has been mostly eliminated from the hog stocks in industrialized countries. Once we stopped feeding raw meat scraps to hogs and dealt with how they are housed it essentially disappeared. During 1997-2001 there were about 12 cases per year. You are WAY more likely to be infected with E coli.
It is however much more prevalent in wild game.
MMMMMM. Love meat. Love veggies too. Getting in a political debate over what you eat is incredibly ridiculous. I would agree though that cattle ranching is quite detrimental. Eat venison instead! :-)
Azkyroth,
There are people here reacting with anger and spite to people talking about *facts* that support veg*ism. I think the converse to your “moralizing and preaching makes people angry” equation also applies: that just because a comment happens to make one angry doesn’t mean it’s moralizing or overemotional.
Anger is a pretty sure sign that one’s buttons are being pushed. I suggest the people here who are writing things like “STFU” figure out why, if the veg*n position is so ludicrous, they are getting so worked up. This fascinating quote, btw, could go straight into an activism textbook:
The moment between “More power to you” and the “Beyond that, STFU” is where someone can’t deal with his cognitive dissonance and devolves to denial and irrational attacks. If veg is better for the environment, is more humane, and more healthy, than surely rational, moral people would want to explore that and not shut if down.
Kristoff in the NY Times, today, quoted another “moralistic preacher” whom many found annoying, Martin Luther King, Jr., as saying (to the Hawaii legislature, no less), that the civil rights movement aimed not just to free blacks but “to free the soul of America,” which is surely what happened this week. Carnists may not be ready to hear this message right now, but veg*ism will eventually help free us all – from ill health, environmental degradation, labor abuse, and complicity in horrific suffering. (Note I said “help,” veg isn’t the total answer, but it is fundamental to it.) Regardless of all the sophistry and denial going on here, we simply do not need to cause egregious suffering to live and thrive, and if we don’t need to, then it is immoral to do so. And people don’t have to make giant changes overnight. Someone who decides to have one more veg meal a week is making a difference.
Hill
I don;t necessarily disagree with what you are saying as a whole, but making a connection between Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement and Vegetarianism is completely far fetched and fairly offensive.
Hill, I am the person who wrote STFU, and so I’ll assume you were responding to me.
I do not in any way, shape or form have any problem with vegetarianism. For health reasons I myself no longer eat red meat, and I would be perfectly happy being a vegetarian if not for a brain injury which makes it hard for me to be organized enough to feed myself properly without the extra care and organization and work it would take to be a vegetarian. I have enough trouble as it is taking care of myself, so a quick can of sardines is much easier for me than a vegetable based way of getting the same nutrients.
So, no buttons pushed there.
What pushes my buttons people screaming about “KILLING!” to someone who isn’t a vegetarian.
Just because I agree that there are many god reasons to choose a vegetarian diet does NOT mean I am experiencing cognitive dissonance when telling people to stuff their holier than thou attitude.
Black and white thinking pushes my buttons. Advocate for better food choices – fine. Explain the alternatives to meat – fine. Demonize meat eaters? No.
I am wholeheartedly, even militantly pro-choice. But even so, unlike many pro-choicers, I am not in denial about what abortion is. It may not be killing what we think of as a person or a “human being,” but it absolutely is ending a human life. It’s a living thing, and it’s not a fucking carrot. It has human DNA. I can accept that and also accept that ending the life of that little clump of living human cells is sometimes preferable to the alternative.
I don’t need to see it in black and white and either deny what it is or call anyone who has an abortion a murderer.
Explaining the benefits of vegetarianism is like telling someone how to use birth control. A great way to reduce the negative effects of meat consumption… same as birth control is a great way to reduce the negative effects of abortion.
Screaming at meat-eaters about “KILLING!” is like calling pro-choice people murderers. They both merit a STFU.
Meat may be considered to be part of the human diet, the same logic(denser calories, more nutritious) that may have spurred the evolution of a larger brain and more thinking, has been attributed to avocados and similar as well as possibly being meat. However, when you think about it, meat has been scarce until recently in the evolutionary scale.
Once a month to have meat in peasant times was considered a boon, and this is when meat was being raised, grown, and slaughtered instead of merely hunting wild game. (This is of course a more western-centric view, if you are interested in Asian culture, look towards Tofu, Seitan, Tempeh, etc…)
I’m a vegetarian, but if you want to be healthy(or say, go with the evolutionary need to eat meat) simply cut back. Evolutionary roots may be a bit further back than you are comfortable with, and “meat” isn’t always the same as what you get from cattle, but there is hunting with rock and stick. :)
There’s no reason you need meat, not even B-12 anymore, that myth is long gone. But who cares? Like I said, I’m a vegetarian, people ask me how to be healthier, I say cut out the beef(or most of it) and the processed meat(bacon and such, which has been linked to higher incidents of colon cancer and others) and you’ll be fine. A few veg meals once in awhile, go for it.
As far as climate change, figure you have to feed cattle for a number of years before slaughter, that food has to be trucked over, they have to be given water, water has to be used on the food to feed them, and then you still end up with a mess at the end. Not to mention refrigeration requirements, etc… It gets pretty messy. But still, cutting back is plenty to do.
Besides, who doesn’t like seitan? (pronounced SAY-tehn)
Hail Seitan!
From a godless gay liberal D&D(and Shadowrun) RPG vegetarian geek. Mwa-ha-ha, fear me, Seitan! :)
Except it isn’t even true. Hitler famously loved to eat pigeons and sausages. He simultaneously loved to brag about being vegetarian. It was an image thing, he played up his supposed asceticism (don’t drink don’t smoke) to claim personal purity as an Aryan ideal. Accordingly, his narrative wasn’t animal rights vegetarianism, it was “body is a temple.”
Or in other words, Hitler was a vegetarian like speedwell is a vegetarian. ;)
I have no problem with someone being vegetarian – Richard Simon
That this should even need saying is bizarre, but both the post and many of the comments show that it is. I think GrammarRWA nailed one of the main reasons.
Full disclosure: I don’t eat tetrapods, do eat occasional fish and some “organic” dairy and eggs. (Yes, yes, I know all foods are organic in the original sense, that’s why I put it in scare-quotes.)
Grammar RWA: And so’s yer mum. :P (haha)
Rev. BDC:
1) Social justice is social justice. MLK2 himself said justice anywhere leads to justice everywhere.
2) Many of the principles we now hold most dear were once considered far fetched and completely (not fairly) offensive.
3) Vegetarianism is a human rights movement along with an animal rights and environmental rights movement. These movements are not in competition but aligned, which is really a glorious thing if you think about it. That’s one reason Cesar Chavez, for instance, was vegetarian.
Below, some facts that clearly underline these connections. As the recent raid on the awful Postville kosher slaughterhouse demonstrates, people who abuse animals are typically also more than happy to abuse people in their quest for a profit. (This includes the “consumers” of their tainted products, btw.)
Peace,
Hill
The cruelty that factory farms and slaughterhouses wreak on animals is truly horrific. But the meat industries also treat the people unfortunate enough to work for them very badly. Here are three examples of labor abuse at factory farms and slaughterhouses:
In an article entitled Finger-Lickin’ Bad in the February 21, 2006 issue of the online environmental publication Grist, author Suzi Parker documents the exploitive and antiquated sharecropper-type business model used by poultry agribusinesses to dominate the small farmers who actually raise many of the birds sent to slaughter.
In an article entitled The Chicken Hangers in the February 2, 2004 online publication In the Fray documents not only the horrific working conditions in the poultry industry but management’s hostile (and often unlawful) resistance to unionizing efforts or even basic workers’ rights.
A January 26, 2006, The New York Times article entitled Rights Group Condemns Meatpackers on Job Safety , begins, “For the first time, Human Rights Watch has issued a report that harshly criticizes a single industry in the United States, concluding that working conditions among the nation’s meatpackers and slaughterhouses are so bad that they violate basic human rights.”
Hitler, according to various canards, was an atheist, socialist and vegetarian. Can anyone point me to the claims that he was gay and/or female? They just must be out there!
Note that the objection is not “this isn’t factual.”
It’s “I don’t like to hear the facts.”
Craig, a lot of people have been convinced to go veg because of the animal rights argument. It was what convinced me, because I really don’t care about my health. And I know several other people who it convinced. So it works. Maybe not for everyone, but it does work. And so, regardless of your objections, we’re going to keep using it.
(Any vegan who takes rhetorical advice from a non-vegan is a sucker anyway. It’s like Republican talking heads telling Democrats what they need to do to start winning. Just smile and nod.)
I second the recommendation to read “The China Study”.
****
Party at Speedwell’s!!
****
Ian @ #128 (and others):
When you make a big deal about the fact that the word “organic” has a specific meaning in chemistry that doesn’t match its different but no less accurate meaning in terms of farming techniques, I am reminded of a similar argument over the word “theory”.
Scientific inquiry has in relatively modern times developed a new and equally valid definition of the word “theory” which had already been around for millennia (from the Greek, obviously).
It seems disingenuous to quibble over a secondary definition of a word on a blog steeped in the theory of evolution.
In that light, point taken.
Craig – thanks for your comments. I’m sorry about your brain injury, and could see how it would make things harder.
there may have been a shouting veg*n in the above comments thread, but mostly what I’ve seen are people shouting *at* veg*ns. telling someone facts that make them uncomfortable doesn’t qualify as shouting at them, although it should be done as compassionately as possible, which can be hard via a comment thread. But, yes, when you eat meat you are complicit in the killing of innocent animals. There’s no way to escape that.
the link between being pro-veg and anti-abortion: yes I agree with you on this, but that’s a whole other huge discussion.
Peace,
Hill
Joey@189,
So far as cattle and climate change are concerned, you miss two of the main points: methane production (true of all ruminants), and forest destruction to grow soya to feed the cattle.
The problem I’m seeing here is that people are forgetting the one simple fact that disqualifies vegetarianism from the skeptical purview: it’s a value judgment. We can debate and discuss the facts of issue, but when it comes down to it, the choice is a matter of personal morality and values.
I’ve seen the claims that he was gay. Many of the Sturmabteilung higher-ups were rumored to be bi or gay (and surely several were). When you see any insinuations of Hitler excessively palling around with any of those guys, that’s a dog whistle.
Hitler wuz ghay, sez noo book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/books.booksnews
Uh, you asked. I’m still working on “Hitler was female.”
the one simple fact that disqualifies vegetarianism from the skeptical purview: it’s a value judgment – Hoku
It does no such thing. Value judgements can be rationally criticised on the grounds of internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with other value judgements, ignoring relevant facts, undesirable consequences of their adoption…
Looks like there are a lot of “flexitarians” here — ranging from mostly-vegetarians who occasionally break ranks for bacon, to people like myself who eat a mostly plant-based diet but have not given up meat.
I’m sorta the opposite of AJS. I can take or leave the flesh of four-legged creatures, and could grudgingly give up poultry, but seafood will always stand firmly between myself and vegetarianism. They’ll take away my salmon, tuna, and scallops when they pry my cold dead fork out of ’em.
“It does no such thing. Value judgements can be rationally criticised on the grounds of internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with other value judgements, ignoring relevant facts, undesirable consequences of their adoption…”
Again, you can flush out the facts, determine what the true reality of the situation is, but in the end, it comes down to how much weight an individual is going to give each issue.
That’s as useful as saying that the decision of whether or not to murder another human is just a matter of personal morality. It is that, and more.
Welcome to rights theory, the foundation for Western law, in which we debate issues not upon personal values, but rational consideration of each party’s interests.
Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights is a great primer.
“Welcome to rights theory, the foundation for Western law, in which we debate issues not upon personal values, but rational consideration of each party’s interests.”
Skepticism and politics are different things.
Skepticism and politics are different things.
Different, but not mutually exclusive. See the debates over creationism in the classroom, abortion, equality, euthanasia, conservation…
BTW, what’s the source of your quote? Why should I take it seriously?
Let me guess – you’re a “libertarian” and/or Randbot?
Rights theory is dependent upon and amenable to skepticism.
Ev Said: AND you do not have the right to insist that everyone become meatless in your presence if you are one of many invited guests.”
I said: Seems like there’s just as much extreme vegetarians out there as extreme atheists.
EV Said: Non sequitur. I guessed you missed the part about being my invited guests. You can do whatever the fuck you want at your party. It is irrelevant to any form of atheism.
No, I read all your comment. Vegetarianism is not anything like atheism, no. It’s just what you said reminds me strongly of people talking about “extreme atheists” who ask people to take off their crucifixes (Yes I have heard people complain about this). All I really wanted to communicate is that very few people do that, and you seem to be overly defensive against all vegetarians because of this, in the exact same way that many people are overly defensive when someone’s an atheist (this is only my experience).
TSG said:why are there so many vegetarian products that look like meat?”
I said: Hint: they’re not oppossed to it on grounds of appearance.
EV said: FAIL. So an effigy of dead meat is acceptable?
A thousand times yes. How could anyone think it’s not?
EV said: I don’t “KILL things everyday for a snack”.
Not you personally. I was under no illusion about that. Effectively though, what’s the difference between you paying for killing and you literally killing?
@ Nick Gotts: “BTW, what’s the source of your quote? Why should I take it seriously?”
see the comment just above mine
“Let me guess – you’re a “libertarian” and/or Randbot?”
Liberal Democrat
@ Grammar RWA “Rights theory is dependent upon and amenable to skepticism.”
Skepticism is a tool, we need to remember that it doesn’t necessarily lead to hard and fast answers.
Are, my apologies Hoku, I see your source was GrammarRWA! GrammarRWA, would you care to expand on that?
Skepticism is a tool, we need to remember that it doesn’t necessarily lead to hard and fast answers.,/I> Hoku
So far as I’m aware, no-one has forgotten it. I’m not getting your point. Do you deny value judgements can be rationally criticised? If so, why? If not, what do you mean?
I consider Texas to be a vegetable. I am not sure about Montana.
Is that a request to build a comprehensive rights theory from first principles? I don’t know if I have time this morning. :P I recognize that there are other bases for ethical veganism; Singer’s utilitarianism seems appealing to many people. I rely on Regan and classical liberalism, primarily because I find that it produces arguments that are rationally compelling regardless of one’s feelings about animals.
“So far as I’m aware, no-one has forgotten it. I’m not getting your point. Do you deny value judgements can be rationally criticised? If so, why? If not, what do you mean?”
My issue is that a bunch of us are acting like there’s an objective answer.
“But, yes, when you eat meat you are complicit in the killing of innocent animals. There’s no way to escape that.”
Who’s trying to escape that? Anyone who is is an idiot.
That was the whole point of my abortion example. There is an ethical component (however minor) to the decision to abort a fetus, and there is an ethical component to the eating of meat. And there is an ethical component to the decision to murder a kindergartener.
That does not mean that there is a moral equivalence to these three choices.
Eating meat IS killing a living thing, and it is causing suffering, but to equate that to civil rights, to the enslavement of humans is another matter altogether.
A rational person is able to understand the moral ramifications of eating meat, is able to make a choice, is able to advocate vegetarianism on that grounds… but if a person draws an equivalence between the snapping of a chicken’s neck and the snapping of a toddler’s, they are guilty of black and white thinking, and frankly they worry me. It IS a value judgement. You can place value in the life of and suffering of a calf and choose on that basis to advocate vegetarianism, and that’s fine and worthy… but if you can’t see the difference in moral degree between veal and human rights abuses, then your moral scale has a large finger of delusion (and perhaps sociopathy) weighing down one side.
Watch out, that strawman has a mean left hook!
When you have to choose between killing a chicken or killing a toddler, let us know. Somehow, I’ve been able to live for many years without doing either.
Is there an objective answer to whether you should murder another human in cold blood? I believe so, some believe no, and yet, despite this disagreement, we come up with functional answers that are good enough for crafting law.
In the end it doesn’t matter whether anything is “objective.” Getting out of bed in the morning is usually worthwhile, even considering that possibility that you’re a brain in a vat.
My issue is that a bunch of us are acting like there’s an objective answer. – Hoku
No, I don’t think so. We’re acting as though potentially answerable questions of fact (does meat-eating harm the environment, do cows feel pain, is meat necessary/bad for your health, what proportion of vegetarians are preachy) are relevant to the judgements we make. Which they are.
“Watch out, that strawman has a mean left hook!”
Kudos to spotting the strawman, but a big FAIL! to not recognizing that it’s a strawman erected by the radicals who equated meat with human right’s abuses.
*I* did not do that, I am merely referring to THEIR having done that.
Incidentally, I have from time to time wished that since I have trouble eating healthily myself, and I AM concerned about animal welfare, that some fantastic vegetarian chef would volunteer to be my personal cook and nutritionist, on call 24 hours (due to my sleep disorder), and willing to work for free since I’m living off $12k a year disability.
I’m sure I would be happier and healthier as a result. But I don’t see it happening.
And I’m not posting this out of snark.
Exactly, I was just going to make a similar comment. If we don’t think that it’s necessary to be polite about crackers, it’s a little bit ridiculous to read how the vegetarians are not being sufficiently polite to us meat-eaters and should just STFU.
And nobody except a couple of jokers equated meat-eating to murder before craig. Also there’s very little evidence of actual “preaching” here. (That’s another parallel to atheism: If you are talking about it in public, you must be an evangelical vegetarian/atheist who’s preaching and it’s just another religion and why are you so militant?)
Marc Abian wrote:
Some people really do think that imitation meat is as bad as the real thing. As far as they are concerned, the existence of vegeburgers lends legitimacy to beefburgers.
I don’t buy it myself, mind. But there are some who do (mostly of the screechy-preachy “I’m not eating anything that was bought from a supermarket where people who eat meat work” persuasion). I think it’s a pissing contest about who eats less than whom. And I’ve given up on pissing contests since I found something more interesting to do with my dick :)
No, you’re the one who’s doing the equating.
We radicals just say that these issues are on a continuum. There’s no need to perfectly equate them. X is worse than Y doesn’t mean Y isn’t also inexcusably wrong.
“Regardless of all the sophistry and denial going on here, we simply do not need to cause egregious suffering to live and thrive, and if we don’t need to, then it is immoral to do so.”
Internal combustion engines cause pollution which harms forms of life from plants to other humans.
Therefore if you ever drive a car, or even ride in one… or if you consume food, wear clothes or use as transportation a bicycle brought to you via truck, you’re immoral.
If eating meat is always immoral, then taking advantage of polluting forms of transport is always immoral.
I don’t drive. Ever. I never have. Ever. Sure, I probably would at least a little if my disabilities didn’t prevent it, but I’m still better than the rest of you immoral fuckers.
“We radicals just say that these issues are on a continuum. “
Geez, I coulda sworn that that was what *I* was arguing.
“Some people really do think that imitation meat is as bad as the real thing. As far as they are concerned, the existence of vegeburgers lends legitimacy to beefburgers.”
Personally I see such foods as stupid, but more because I don’t see the point in them. Why eat vegetables that are a piss-poor imitation of meat and crappy as vegetables too?
But that’s coming from the part of me that doesn’t understand why people would choose to have a prosthetic hand that’s an obviously fake, creepy looking and inferior imitation of a real hand when they could instead have a cool shiny silver one with a dremel built in.
And yet you want the vegans here to answer for hypothetical people who aren’t here, while we aren’t making the arguments you pin on us.
Nobody here is doing what you claim. Nobody here has to answer for it. It’s like when I express support for a more progressively weighted income tax and then I have to answer for Stalin’s gulags. Have fun with your strawman.
I’m pretty sure you can google.
http://community.livejournal.com/cheapvegan
“Welcome to rights theory, the foundation for Western law, in which we debate issues not upon personal values, but rational consideration of each party’s interests.” – GrammarRWA
I meant I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “rights theory”, and how it can be independent of personal values. For example, if “X has a right to Y” is taken as a statement of objective moral fact, how do you decide what rights a given X has? I don’t need full details, just a few sentences and/or a reference.
Sweet. I’ll make sure to drive a little more today since you’re not using your “miles”.
And yet you want the vegans here to answer for hypothetical people who aren’t here, while we aren’t making the arguments you pin on us.
Nobody here is doing what you claim. Nobody here has to answer for it.
I’m pretty sure you can google.
http://community.livejournal.com/cheapvegan
OK, I see what you’re doing here. You’re responding without having read the whole thread. Or the my quotes of parts of it.
People here HAVE screamed hyperbolically that eating meat is “KILLING!”
People here HAVE said that eating meat is a civil rights issue, have opined that meat eaters need to be educated in the same way as civil rights abusers (and thereby equated the two issues.)
People here HAVE said that eating meat is always immoral.
If you personally haven’t done that, then you do not have to answer for it, and I’m not asking you to. I’m not even asking THEM to answer for it – I’m merely calling bullshit bullshit.
I myself am arguing that there IS a continuum, and those individuals taking a hardline rather than measured stance on what others and not they themselves eat might as well be telling people that don’t use compact fluorescent lights that they are immoral.
Lay out the advantages of vegetarianism, fine. Lay out the ethical advantages of vegetarianism, fine. Do the same for wind power, not using vinyl siding, riding a bike to commute – great.
Take a holier than thou position? Fuck you. (I don’t mean you personally)
No straw man. That HAS happened in this thread, that’s what I was responding to… and my response to those individuals is what I am defending to others like yourself who were NOT who I was responding to but yet felt aggrieved by my reaction.
And regarding that “I’m pretty sure you can Google,” further evidence that you’re responding to me without reading what I have said – it’s not from lack of KNOWLEDGE of vegetarian alternatives that I eat fish. I have a disability which makes food planning and preparation difficult for me. I can cook from time to time, and usually cook vegetarian dishes when I do, but I can’t do that consistently. Days and weeks pass where the best I can manage is to grab something close at hand.
Sweet. I’ll make sure to drive a little more today since you’re not using your “miles”.
Hey, we can strike a deal – you can have all of them, my whole lifetime supply, if you buy me a recumbent bike. :)
Nick, at minimum it is self-evident that you own your own body, for this is what it means to be you. So you have a right to your own life, because no one else can establish a legitimate claim to you. That idea would be foundational to most theories of natural/moral rights.
How rights are identified is only through this sort of argumentation, but then, mathematical proofs are identified the same way. Whether this means they are objective or not is open to debate, but, I think, mostly a distraction, inasmuch as whether anyone else but you objectively exists is also open to debate yet functionally irrelevant.
And it is. And yet this is not the same as saying that killing a dog and killing a human are exactly morally equivalent. You are the one asserting that to even say “killing!” is to claim a perfect equivalence.
Lynching is a civil rights issue. Affirmative action is a civil rights issue. To not this is not to claim a perfect equivalence. You are the one asserting that all civil rights issues are perfectly equivalent.
As I said before, “X is worse than Y” doesn’t mean Y isn’t also inexcusably wrong. Eating meat can be “less bad” than running a death camp, or whatever, and yet still immoral. You are the one who is asserting that all immoral acts are perfectly equivalent.
Should be: “To note this is not to claim a perfect equivalence [between lynching and affirmative action, for the illiterate here.”
Craig – lots of communities have thriving veg clubs, which are also fun social clubs. They will help and encourage you to come up with a plan. Re the fantastic/24 hr/free requirement, that’s probably not going to happen, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. do your best, get others to help – email me if you want and I’ll try to connect you with people who can help.
Hill
Nick, at minimum it is self-evident that you own your own body, for this is what it means to be you. GRammarRWA
It’s not self-evident, as many people deny it. How could they do that if it were self-evident? In fact, I don’t think of myself as “owning” my own body. It’s not a piece of property, in the sense that I own my PC.
My father once tried to turn me against veganism by saying, “God says eating meat is okay.”
I’m still vegan.
And I’m still an atheist.
I don’t know if I want to get Hillary started again, but this is so full of fail I have to comment:
Um, no. I get my meat from a CSA – free range, hormone free, humanely raised organic beef. The people who own the farm are wonderful people who treat their employees well.
Just because you couldn’t find ethically raised meat doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.
Crap, that quote should end after “Not exactly a rational choice, in my view.
Also, I just noticed that Hillary seems to think that mad cow disease is a risk with all meat and eggs. Srsly? The incorrectness of that should be strikingly obvious, but just in case it’s not: mad cow disease comes from cows. Not chickens, not pigs, and not eggs.
And it is. And yet this is not the same as saying that killing a dog and killing a human are exactly morally equivalent. You are the one asserting that to even say “killing!” is to claim a perfect equivalence.
Of course it’s killing. I was referring to the person who shouted “KILLING” not as a way of pointing out a simple fact, such as “breathing is converting carbon and oxygen into carbon dioxide,” but rather for it’s shock value, as a moral bludgeon to hit others with, as a way of looking down at others. If you read the thread, you saw this and are being dishonest in overlooking the intent of that person – the intent that I was responding to.
Lynching is a civil rights issue. Affirmative action is a civil rights issue. To not this is not to claim a perfect equivalence. You are the one asserting that all civil rights issues are perfectly equivalent.
Again, the person who brought this up did so NOT to mention various moral issues of different weights, but to make a DIRECT comparison and to equate the struggle to teach people to be vegetarians with the struggle to teach people not to enslave each other. If they had not intended to do that, if they had not intended to cast these issues as equivalent, then they would not have chosen the shock value of that, they would instead have compared eating meat to, say, cutting down on the use of fossil fuels.
The example they chose was chosen deliberately so that it WOULD be seen as equivalent and elicit a desired emotional reaction.
As I said before, “X is worse than Y” doesn’t mean Y isn’t also inexcusably wrong. Eating meat can be “less bad” than running a death camp, or whatever, and yet still immoral. You are the one who is asserting that all immoral acts are perfectly equivalent.
No. I am NOT the one who chose the example of human civil rights in an appeal to emotion, I’m the one pointing out that that was done. I am NOT the one saying they are equivalent, I am saying that they are not.
To claim that there was NOT an attempt to cast the two as equivalent is a total fucking cop-out. Of course they are not equivalent, but the commenter most definitely WANTED people to see an equivalence or else they would not have deliberately chosen such disparate examples.
They would instead have compared not eating meat to, say, not recycling, or to driving a hum-vee.
And frankly, if eating meat is immoral, then so is using paper, driving a car, watching TV… so is, frankly, eating ANYTHING, since farms have a serious environmental impact.
Bottom line is that while I agree that there are degrees of immorality, by the standards used by people here claiming that meat eaters are immoral merely existing is immoral. It is impossible to exist without having a negative impact on another living thing… and if you think a person can live a moral life only by reducing their impact as much as they can, then everybody here acts immorally.
Advocating for vegetarianism using the very valid advantages of it, great.
Call meat eaters immoral and you invariably become a hypocrite.
I use the “you” as a generality and not to you in particular as I recognize that you personally didn’t raise the civil rights equivalency… but it was indeed done and done deliberately by the other commenter whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
I said: Actually an open-minded
TSG: IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!
Explain this comemnt please.
TSG: …the problem with preaching is that the preacher always, without fail, assumes that those who he’s preaching to simply haven’t heard the claims before and that’s the only reason they haven’t converted. I have. I rejected them.
How is the preacher to know when he’s preaching so? Unless the original poster knew what arguments you and other readers had been exposed to previously or it was clear that everyone had heard his arguemnts already, I can’t see how he could realise he was preaching.
I’m confused by this appeal to emotion thing. Is there anything in morality (or does anyone not consider this a question of morality?) where logic is used? Little help anyone?
And finally…
“What I’d like to ask all these vegetarians here is, “How do you get to play the moral high ground about how animals are killed, when you personally skin, vivisect and eat plants while we are still living and breathing?”
That’s just hilarious.
Hill, thanks for the offer, I truly appreciate it.
Part of the problem is that I can’t drive, and I’m stuck out in the boonies living with a family member and am dependent on them for transportation, and for grocery shopping.
When I lived in the city it was easier, and I shopped at a co-op (though that was hell on my wallet) but of course that only helped to a degree, since preparation is a problem.
I love my veggies, and I like to cook when I’m able, but I like most people can only do what I can do.
Posted by: Natalie | November 6, 2008
Also, I just noticed that Hillary seems to think that mad cow disease is a risk with all meat and eggs. Srsly? The incorrectness of that should be strikingly obvious, but just in case it’s not: mad cow disease comes from cows. Not chickens, not pigs, and not eggs.
Mad cow disease spreads through the practice of feeding rendered cow product to cows. It is carried in the brain. Stop the practice and the illness will be very rare.
You know that there is power and money to be gained from denying the self-evident. For instance, slavery didn’t become wrong when the laws were changed. It’s just that prior to then there were economic interests demanding that people ignore certain other peoples’ rights.
That’s fine, and there are at least two ways to look at this. You can skip the assertion of property rights over one’s body, and instead say that because you are your body, you’re the only one who has claim to it. Same conclusion.
Well she said mad cow risk. I don’t get that she thinks it comes from any thing but cows.
And it only comes from eating the nervous system tissue of an infected animal (or meat than came in contact with it).
But I make no bones about my choice to eat meat. I eat it. I enjoy it. I don’t have a problem with it. However, I try to limit it for health reasons and I eat veg more often than I have animal protein. But I still eat it and enjoy it. I just don’t eat as much and I buy from sources that are local when possible. As a matter of fact I buy most of my produce from local sources when possible. We have great farmers markets here in Charleston and we go weekly. We have good fishmongers and I buy from them vs. the super market. Our whole foods usually has local choices (or at least regional) for beef, chicken, pork and lamb but I do have sources I go to that are purely local selling either at the farmers market or by delivery / mail order.
This isn’t always the case but It is more than I was doing last year, and next year I’m sure it will be more than it was this year.
That’s fine, and there are at least two ways to look at this. You can skip the assertion of property rights over one’s body, and instead say that because you are your body, you’re the only one who has claim to it. Same conclusion.
Well, you could look at it like this – we don’t have property rights over our bodies, but the free use of our bodies is necessary for our right to the pursuit of happiness and other rights – someone else having property rights over our bodies would unfairly hinder the free exercise of other rights we have.
I like that a little better, because if I am my body and therefore own it, then it could be argued that I still have domain over my body after my death. As far as I’m concerned, I’m totally OK with the idea of, for example, the state having rights of use or disposal of dead bodies. I think we can imagine a number of scenarios where that would be a good thing.
You may have been making much the same point as I am, I just am not totally sure.
“That’s an appeal to emotion! You lose!” is always a red herring. There is nothing inherently wrong with appeals to emotion. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with an appeal to emotion:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, …
It’s the easiest and earliest way to teach children right from wrong: “how would you like it if someone did that to you?”
The appeal to emotion just compels us to listen to the logic, because someone is going to suffer if we don’t.
GrammarRWA,
But I’m not my body, any more than I own my body.
How about, say, my son’s body. He’s 13, so cannot consent to various medical procedures: his mother or I would have to do so for him. So in at least one sense, other people do have a claim on his body, in that they have the (legal) right to determine some aspects of what happens to it. This is not “self-evidently” right or wrong. In fact, I’d say this whole “self-evident” thing is hooey, at least as far as morality is concerned. You have given no reason to think otherwise.
So we can look forward to your new blog, “Edamame and Whiskey”?
“The appeal to emotion just compels us to listen to the logic, because someone is going to suffer if we don’t.”
Ahhh. So THAT’S what the McCain/Palin campaign was doing.
It’s possible. I actually do eat a lot of Edamame….
Well, the burden of proof there is on the supernaturalist who asserts that there is an “I” who remains after death to claim the body.
That wouldn’t fly in a US court, as it’s contrary to the establishment clause. But one probably ought to able to will one’s body to one’s next of kin, or anyone for that matter, with unclaimed bodies defaulting to the state. I think it’s ridiculous that in many places I can’t legally burn my dead relatives for winter fuel.
The closed-minded preaching to others to be open minded.
That’s why I told you you were. The problem with preachers is that they are fundamentally incapable of considering that others might have heard the arguments and rejected them.
Appeal to Emotion. In short, you’re trying to make me feel bad for this animal that wouldn’t even be alive if I wasn’t going to eat it by appealing to my emotions rather than to logic and evidence. You state your position with vapid platitudes presented as self-evident truths without, in any way, supporting them. You assume that because I wouldn’t eat my pets, that it logically follows I shouldn’t eat any other animal. By logical extension of that argument, I can say that you shouldn’t eat vegetables because they are also alive, so clearly the fact that something is alive doesn’t necessarily make it wrong to eat it. My attachment to my pets is an emotional one. I know that and recognize it for what it is. It does not follow that I should have the same emotional attachment for all living things.
Her exact words are: “Every time you take a bite of meat or dairy or egg, you are complicit in all that.
You also take in a huge mouthful of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and other chemicals, as well as mad cow risk.”
The “also” implies to me that the risks listed in the second sentence are risks of the actions listed in the first sentence. Perhaps I’m parsing that wrong – they didn’t teach us to diagram sentences in my high school.
No, the appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. It does not mean the argument is necessarily false, just that it’s not necessarily true. There are plenty of appeals to emotion that are valid, this isn’t one of them.
I didn’t think you believed in souls…
Be careful arguing from law toward ethics, because you may make an unwarranted is-ought leap. Not saying that you’ve done so here, because the law is probably correct. Note what you can’t legally do with your son’s body. You can’t arbitrarily choose dangerous medical procedures for him that he doesn’t need. He could do this when he reaches the age of majority, if he can find a doctor to play along. But you couldn’t, because your son’s interest in his own life is legally recognized, and your guardianship over him is granted conditionally on your protection of his interest. For a limited time, you are assumed to be a better protector of your son’s rights over his life and body than he himself could be. Your observation actually affirms the existence of his natural right to life as something inherently valuable.
I’m curious, Nick, do you believe that you have a right to live?
No, it’s only a logical fallacy if it isn’t paired with logic.
You’ve assumed that the argument rests on an animal’s status as “alive.” It does not. The salient point is that other animals can feel pain and have interests in their own lives continuing, just as your pets do.
TSG: The closed-minded preaching to others to be open minded.
How do you know that (is it me or the original poster you’re referring to here?) is closed-minded?
Me: How does one know they are preaching if it depends on the person they are speaking to? (paraphrased)
TSG: That’s why I told you you were.
Sure, for you they were preaching, if you define it as giving you an argument you have already considered (I’m not sure that’s the conventional definition). But the comment was directed to more people than just you.
TSG: Appeal to emtoion. In short, you’re trying to make me feel bad for this animal that wouldn’t even be alive if I wasn’t going to eat it by appealing to my emotions rather than to logic and evidence.
My question remains unanswered. Is there anything in morality where logic is used?
Obviously that idiot knows nothing about the facts of egg production. As a farmer I do. There is no risk of mad cow disease from eggs.
If you buy your eggs from a small family farm vs. huge factory farms, you can visit the chickens and you can see for yourself if they are kindly treated, pasture fed, and eat organic food.
The only vaccination required, to transport chicks or exhibit show chickens is for New Castles disease. Antibiotics, pesticides, and other crap is doled out to chickens in factory farms. With the smallest amount of research you can find safe eggs.
Why vegetarians refuse to eat eggs is beyond me. If the hens haven’t been with a rooster they treat the eggs like turds, and don’t give a damn what happens to them because there is no life in them. Instead of spouting off your pig ignorant ideas, why not ask your local farmer?
Rights theory. And I’m back to recommending Regan’s book. Somebody is going to suspect that I work for the publisher.
Because the egg industry economically reinforces the poultry industry. Egg-laying hens are slaughtered when they stop laying.
Patricia,
Why vegetarians refuse to eat eggs is beyond me. If the hens haven’t been with a rooster they treat the eggs like turds, and don’t give a damn what happens to them because there is no life in them. Instead of spouting off your pig ignorant ideas, why not ask your local farmer?
Typically, vegetarians do eat eggs. Vegans, as a rule, do not.
As someone who has known people who grew up on small family farms, I can say with a good deal of first and second hand experience that even on those farms the hens are not always (I’d say often, but it’s subject to my own anecdotal evidence and my experience is hardly conclusive) treated with respect or kindness. The birds are frequently carried about upside down by their legs, and if the egg collectors are in a hurry they will often physically penetrate the hens with their hands, searching for any eggs inside the birds, and then pull them out. The birds are still often kept in stressful conditions, chased by children, dogs, and workers, and given very little room to walk around. When eggs are inseminated and hatch, male chicks are often gotten rid of in most unpleasant ways. All these things I either saw or heard about from people who work on small farms.
In the original argument I was referring to, there was none.
The unsupported assumption is that killing them causes pain.
Evidence?
I’ve only eaten meat twice in my life, one time was fish the other was some kind of lunch meat. Both times were absolutely disgusting.
I’m extremely tired of people assuming I’m some kind of anti-meat nazi when I tell them I’m veg., I probably give less of a fuck about farm critters than most meat eaters. It’s just not food to me. Although I am a lot healthier than all my friends, I don’t attribute that to vegetarianism but rather to having to cook my own food and balance my own diet growing up(the folks are carnivores…).
Most vegetarians I know aren’t frothing PETA zealots, most of them couldn’t care less about your dietary habits, in fact you’d never know they’re vegetarians unless you specifically asked.
Vegans, however, are completely fucking insane. At least the one’s I’ve met.
The execution methods used in commercial farming do. And the treatment of commercial animals during their lives is painful. This is not even remotely controversial, so don’t play dumb.
“To be a sentient being means to have an experiential welfare. In this sense, all sentient beings have an interest not only in the quality of their lives but also in the quantity of their lives. Animals may not have thoughts about the number of years they will live, but by virtue of having an interest in not suffering and in experiencing pleasure, they have an interest in remaining alive. Sentience is not an end in itself–it is a means to the end of staying alive. Sentient beings use sensations of pain and suffering to escape situations that threaten their lives and sensations of pleasure to pursue situations that enhance their lives. Just as humans will often endure excruciating pain in order to remain alive, animals will often not only endure but inflict on themselves excruciating pain–as when gnawing off a paw caught in a trap–in order to live. Sentience is what evolution has produced in order to ensure the survival of certain complex organisms. To deny that a being who has evolved to develop a consciousness of pain and pleasure has an interest in remaining alive is to say that conscious beings have no interest in remaining conscious, a most peculiar position to take. …
A dog may not be able to think to herself, “my human companion is coming home on Wednesday at 4:00 pm,” but she can surely anticipate the return of her companion and anticipation requires a sense of the future. If a dog were unable to anticipate the future, she would not get happily excited when she hears her human companion on the other side of the door, inserting a key into the lock [or before the general time of day when a person routinely returns home, as many dogs do]. It is because the dog anticipates a reunion with her human companion that she exhibits happy excitement rather than aggression or defensiveness. The fact that humans anticipate the future by looking at calendars and clocks and that dogs anticipate the future by focusing on other aspects of their environment does not bear on the question whether either being should be treated exclusively as a means to the ends of others.” — Gary Francione, Introduction to Animals Rights
To reiterate: an anticipation of the future and a desire to experience pleasure is the definition of an interest in remaining alive.
An educated guess based on the style and content of the argument.
Do you honestly think anyone hasn’t heard those arguments before?
Quite a bit. If you want to convince me that eating meat is necessarily and absolutely wrong, you are going to have to support that with logic and reason. Otherwise, I can take the opposite position that not eating meat is necessarily and absolutely wrong, based on nothing more than that’s what I want to be true, and we get nowhere.
What a clever observation.
Please do me a favor and stop spreading unfounded hatred of me. I’m tired of the same abuse you get.
GrammarNWA,
I don’t believe in souls; this does not imply that I am my body. I am a perosn, and have a body.
I don’t believe that “X has a right to Y” is a statement of fact.
Oh, and I’m just supposed to take your word for it, am I?
This is just declaring it to be so without any supporting evidence.
I honestly think that everyone in America has heard the best arguments for why I should be able to marry a man I love, and yet California just said “no.” Hearing the arguments is not enough. We have to keep working through them over and over and over to make any meaningful change.
“What a clever observation.
Please do me a favor and stop spreading unfounded hatred of me. I’m tired of the same abuse you get.”
I never said I hate you, the word “hate” didn’t appear in that clever observation. I said that every single vegan I’ve met is “completely fucking insane”, which, in my life, is a completely valid observation. I’ll change my position once I start meeting sane vegans, which don’t seem to live in Ann Arbor.
It’s the definition of “sentience.” And there is no controversy over whether or not animals have experiences. You are playing way too dumb to be taken seriously now.
You know from personal experience that people get angry with you and even hate you just for not eating meat, because they perceive it as crazy. So you know what the result will be of you spreading the meme that vegans are crazy. I am not crazy, so please stop spreading hatred of me.
It’s as though you said “every single gay man I’ve met is a pervert,” and pretended like this wouldn’t lead to someone harming us. It’s not only insulting, it’s dangerous. Quit acting like your provincialism means anything worth stating.
You could do, you know, any research whatsoever. It’s not my job to educate you every step of the way. Everyone can see you’re feigning ignorance. Thanks for playing.
Thank you, Nick, now you’ve asserted a claim over your own body: “I … have a body.” It’s yours. I don’t care whether we call this property or not. What remains is that you’re the one who has most compelling claim to your body, and the life that depends on that body.
I don’t know what you mean by “fact” and there’s a lot to unpack there. But as I said before, I don’t think this has to be objectively established. We all get along fine without objectively establishing anything more than Decartes did.
So let’s not get caught up on objectivity. Do you think you have a right to live?
Regardless of the morality of the issue I do believe that going vegetarian is a rational decision. It has less of an impact on the environment (and alternatively, if the feed we sent to the cows and pigs instead was used to plant crops for human consumption would have a positive effect on food prices).
I don’t really understand how people can say being vegetarian isn’t rational. There are a lot of reasons not based in morality to go vegetarian or vegan.
You could do, you know, any research whatsoever. It’s not my job to educate you every step of the way. Everyone can see you’re feigning ignorance. Thanks for playing.
You know, you’re right. I don’t see how I could have been so blind. It is absolutely outrageous that anyone would eat meat and I swear from now on I’ll never do it again.
“An educated guess based on the style and content of the argument”
Oh. It came across as more certain when you said “IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!”
“Do you honestly think anyone hasn’t heard those arguments before?”
Yes, but not very many. I think the relevant thing is that many people have just dismissed them rather than refuted them.
(Is there anything in morality where logic is used?)
“Quite a bit.”
Can you give an example?
“If you want to convince me that eating meat is necessarily and absolutely wrong, you are going to have to support that with logic and reason”
Can you support the morality of not killing people with logic and reason?
Are those who make the “reduced land use” argument aware that there exists plenty of land which is utterly unsuitable for growing crops, yet still fine for raising edible animals? Also, an area the size of Britain (but not Britain herself, on account of the fact that much of Britain is either concreted over or no good for growing crops) could feed the entire world’s population on a vegan diet. So it’s really a non-issue. The fact that people are starving in some countries is due to logistics mismanagement.
Ultimately, vegetarianism is a crude form of mortality-denial (“if I don’t eat anything dead then maybe I won’t die”). And it isn’t even like everyone has a choice. Some people actually have sound medical reasons to eat meat — reasons that the vocal veggies conveniently ignore in order to remain convinced of their moral superiority. Of course, while they’re busy not eating anything that casts a shadow, animals are dying all over the world to feed other animals (get this: humans are not the only predators) and most of them in worse circumstances than even a third-world slaughterhouse. British animal welfare standards are some of the highest in the world, although many Britons buy still imported meat which is cheaper (wonder why?!).
Oh, and organic fertiliser is made from animal shit and bits of dead animal bodies; so if you’re growing veg you still need to keep animals. Don’t even think about using human shit and human corpse parts to fertilise vegetables for human consumption. Natural Selection already dealt with people who didn’t find that idea icky a long time ago.
AJS,
There is a hell of a lot wrong with your arguments, but I’ll try to wade through the BS, working from the back.
Don’t even think about using human shit and human corpse parts to fertilise vegetables for human consumption. Natural Selection already dealt with people who didn’t find that idea icky a long time ago.
Not true. Its called humanure. If you give human excrement a year to break down under the right, very easy to replicate, conditions, it is completely safe to use as a fertilizer. Google it, you should come up with a lot of useful information.
British animal welfare standards are some of the highest in the world, although many Britons buy still imported meat which is cheaper (wonder why?!).
If so the British government for not enforcing stricter import laws on meat. I hardly see how this, a political failure, is an argument against an ethical claim.
Of course, while they’re busy not eating anything that casts a shadow, animals are dying all over the world to feed other animals (get this: humans are not the only predators) and most of them in worse circumstances than even a third-world slaughterhouse.
Your right, lots of other animals kill animals for their food. Lots of humans rape, torture, and kill as well. Your point is?
And it isn’t even like everyone has a choice. Some people actually have sound medical reasons to eat meat — reasons that the vocal veggies conveniently ignore in order to remain convinced of their moral superiority.
Although it is easy to make up for the scant vitamins and nutrients you cannot get strictly from a vegan diet with a few supplements, lets go along assume that some people really do need to eat meat to function healthily. In their case, since it is for survival, I wouldn’t find anything morally reprehensible about their eating meat. If one steals to avoid starving, it’s fine. That special case doesn’t make theft always acceptable.
Ultimately, vegetarianism is a crude form of mortality-denial (“if I don’t eat anything dead then maybe I won’t die”).
Bullshit. I am an atheist with no misconceptions about a soul, and every day I am aware that it might be my last, and yet I eat a completely vegan diet. Either prove this outrageous claim or keep your make believe psychoanalysis to yourself, Freud.
Are those who make the “reduced land use” argument aware that there exists plenty of land which is utterly unsuitable for growing crops, yet still fine for raising edible animals? Also, an area the size of Britain (but not Britain herself, on account of the fact that much of Britain is either concreted over or no good for growing crops) could feed the entire world’s population on a vegan diet. So it’s really a non-issue. The fact that people are starving in some countries is due to logistics mismanagement.
It may just be a logistics issue, but it is one that is not going away if we maintain business as usual. To support the U.S.’ consumption of beef, many acres of South American rain forest are cleared every year to grow cattle feed. The rising demand for beef in China, with the advent of its middle class, will only further destroy ecosystems. And it is not just the land use, but the greenhouse gasses that are produced by the cattle that is a detriment to the environment, as was mentioned upthread. You do more damage by eating meat than you do by driving a car. And no, I don’t drive, either.
Biosolids from waste treatment plants are used in conjunction with other forms of fertilizers.
Sure. My old man was using Milorganite on the lawn when I was a kid.
Ultimately, vegetarianism is a crude form of mortality-denial (“if I don’t eat anything dead then maybe I won’t die”). – AJS
Good grief. Even from the godbotting trolls, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything stupider than this.
I just wanted to thank people for carrying on a fascinating (to me at least) discussion. Everyone won’t agree about everything, and most likely people won’t even change how they view the world based on this discussion, but it is still great to have and to think about.
Glad that this fantastic site/blog/group of readers exist so that this discussion can even occur.
Peace,
Justin
I just wanted to thank people for carrying on a fascinating (to me at least) discussion.
I agree. Thanks, everyone.
The fact that humans anticipate the future by looking at calendars and clocks and that dogs anticipate the future by focusing on other aspects of their environment does not bear on the question whether either being should be treated exclusively as a means to the ends of others
The misdirection in the sentence is clear: it’s not a question of the environmental cues that give rise to the experience, but of the content of the experience itself. I can question the proposition that “dogs anticipate the future” without making a lame argument to the effect that they can’t tell time.
A planarian worm can be conditioned to respond to a stimulus. So when such a conditioned animal seeks food after the stimulus is applied is it “anticipating the future?” Without taking a stand on dogs either way, nothing written here gives us a prima facie way to tell in either the case of dogs or worms. Yes, dogs behave in a way consistent with anticipating the future, but that doesn’t, in itself, rule out other explanations.
As for “treated exclusively as a means to the ends of others” the argument works as well against the use of seeing-eye dogs as it does to eating livestock.
Thank you, Nick, now you’ve asserted a claim over your own body: “I … have a body.” – GrammarRWA
No, I have not. “I have a body” is simply a statement of fact, but not one of ownership, which is a legal term. If I say “I have a pain”, I am neither claiming ownership of that pain, nor asserting my identity with it. I can say that i prefer a legal or moral code which gives me a privileged status with respect to my body to one which does not, but that’s a question of values, not of fact.
Do you think you have a right to live?
It’s no good just repeating questions. This is not a question with a true or false answer, except within a specific legal code, or a moral code that has been sufficiently formalised to yield an answer. I consider that a legal or moral code which forbids the deliberate taking of life, other than in individual or collective self-defence, or defence of another person, is preferable to one which does not; but this is a question of values, not of facts. There is no objective standard to which we can refer differences over values, as there is with alleged facts (in the latter case, it is the way things actually are in the world). I think you are fundamentally mistaken to think that a moral code can be founded on a set of “self-evident” axioms, which if I’m right, is what you are trying to do.
Yes it did, they are called the Chinese. I have understood that there is still a sizable number of these people in existence.
And there is no controversy over whether or not animals have experiences.
All animals? Does a mosquito have experiences? A sea urchin? A bluegill? A skink? A sheep? (famously) A bat? A chimpanzee? And even if it’s ‘yes’ to all, is that to say that there are no distinctions we can make as to the qualities of those experiences, and no controversy whatsoever about how and why to do so?
Over-broad generalizations of complex questions rarely shed light on the issue.
Natalie – just because you’re choosing to read what I write selectively and dishonestly doesn’t invalidate what I say. Of course, organic and humanely-raised and CSA meat is healthier and more ethical than industrial, chemically loaded meat. It also represents a tiny fraction of sales, and doesn’t address all the ethical issues by a long shot.
And I never said you get mad cow through eggs, although I could see how you could willfully misread my writing to see that. (But no one else here seems to have.)
The only thing “full of fail” in our exchange is your argumentation. And you might ponder the fact that specious nitpicking does not confer credibility.
There’s no misdirection. It’s just one response to one anticipated objection.
I thought the “key into the lock” example was weak for this reason, so I added that some dogs get excited around a certain time of day because they know it means their human will be home soon. Further, some dogs will pick up a ball or other toy and bring it to you, and even push it into your hand if you don’t reach for it, because they know this is a way to get you to throw it for them. This is planning and choosing, and the dog has to know what the desired results will be in order to decide to bring you the toy. Some dogs will also pick up a food bowl and bring it to you to make their point that they want to be fed. This is not explicable as stimulus/response. This is planning.
Francione is probably getting at that. I’m not sure to what extent I agree with him, so I’m not going to pursue this. Suffice that just because animals experience things differently from us does not mean that we are justified in ending their lives for our pleasure.
Ownership precedes anything we can call law. Previously it was whatever you can defend from theft.
But look, I don’t care if you call it ownership, or property, or anything in particular. What’s relevant is that when you say “I have a body,” that’s your body we’re talking about, and not my body. There is a difference, and this difference is what I’m pointing to, whatever you call it. If I were to try to enslave you, I’d be violating your choices and interests regarding you and your body, and there’s no argument I could make that would make it not wrong.
If you say that this first requires “a specific legal code, or a moral code that has been sufficiently formalised to yield an answer,” then you have a bootstrapping problem. There was a time when slavery was permitted, but we now realize it was wrong. How did that happen? There’s no way to get out of a legal or moral code that allows slavery by arguing from within that code. We got out by calling attention to, and then recognition of, a certain inalienable, axiomatic right to freedom.
I needed to know where you were coming from, and I didn’t want to guess.
Maybe I am wrong, Nick. However: this method has been extremely successful in the past, and every legal right that US citizens enjoy has been gained through this style of argumentation. It’s also been successful in bringing people over to veganism, myself among many. And I’ve seen no indication that it’s a fatally flawed approach. So I’m going to keep using it. I find your patient and respectful disagreement very valuable, though.
Further, some dogs will pick up a ball or other toy and bring it to you, and even push it into your hand if you don’t reach for it, because they know this is a way to get you to throw it for them. This is planning and choosing, and the dog has to know what the desired results will be in order to decide to bring you the toy. Some dogs will also pick up a food bowl and bring it to you to make their point that they want to be fed. This is not explicable as stimulus/response. This is planning.
Look, I’m not a hard-liner for behaviorism or the firm proposition that non-human animals do not have subjective experiences, period, but you are not arguing the point, you’re just asserting it.
Read what you wrote: “because they know this is a way to get you to throw it for them.” A hint: that “know” there is begging the question. There’s a perfectly available alternative explanation, which is that what we anthropomorphize as “knowledge” is in fact nothing more than conditioned behavior. We don’t need to posit subjective experience to explain how dogs make the connection between their behaviors and certain outcomes. And we wouldn’t in the case of fruit flies, say.
Generally, I would expect an animal capable of planning to be able to be able to conceive and execute a novel, multi-step behavior, where the order of the steps is important, directed at an anticipated outcome. Non-primates perform terribly at even the simplest of these kinds of tasks.
For instance, tie a dog in such a way that the leash wrapa around a pole or other obstacle. Put a juicy steak-bone in a place where it’s just out of reach when the dog stretches the leash as it wraps around the pole. The dog will continue to stretch and strain at the leash, when it would be a simple matter to walk away from the bone, unwrapping the leash to free up the slack to reach the bone. This is the most rudimentary sort of planning in my sense (walk away from the bone to reach the bone), but a dog simply won’t do it the first time it’s exposed to the puzzle.
Suffice that just because animals experience things differently from us does not mean that we are justified in ending their lives for our pleasure.
Despite my objections to your other assertions, I have sympathy for this view. However, I am more concerned with the quality of those lives and the manner of their ending, than with the simple fact of them ending to end up feeding me. Nothing gets to live forever, and nearly everything feeds something else in the end.
All animals? I said “animals.” In English, this is not a claim of universality. Sponges don’t. Does a mosquito have experiences? A sea urchin? I don’t know. There are other animals we do know about, though: A bluegill? A skink? A sheep? (famously) A bat? A chimpanzee? Yes.
And even if it’s ‘yes’ to all, is that to say that there are no distinctions we can make as to the qualities of those experiences, and no controversy whatsoever about how and why to do so?
The implication being that “because they are different, we should kill them.” Non sequitur.
Over-broad generalizations of complex questions rarely shed light on the issue.
Pretending that other people aren’t using the commonsense meanings of words isn’t very helpful either. A seven year old child has a pretty accurate inference of what I mean when I say “animal.” I hope you’re impressing yourself with your pedantry.
Then simply use your freedom of choice and don’t buy eggs from those people.
So many people on here paint themselves as scientific, anti-religious, atheist, skeptics, but when it comes to this debate, they seem to be none of those. Many posters here, on both sides of the arguement, sound just as zealously religious about their carnivorism or vegetarianism as the religious idiots that are often the focus of those same posters’ ridicule. Hypocrites!
99% of the people here eat meat because it is what they were taught to do. Just like the Christian kids who were taught to be Christians or the Hippie kids who were taught to be hippies. Most posters here don’t meat because they analyzed all sides and came to the best conclusion. They eat meat for the exact same reasons a Christian believes in Jesus or Hippe wears tie dye.
Just doing something cause it’s tradition and your mommy taught you it’s right is the epitomy of anti-science, anti-skepticism.
Of course there are many meat eaters, or even those who grew up vegans, who have considered their eating habits, analyzed them, and come to a conclusion either to keep that habit or change it. However, the vast majority of people here continue their eating habits as religiously and ignorantly as the religious nuts they themselves detest.
That’s a really unfair analogy.
Turns out people here are brought up to eat food, we can’t survive on rocks (not even if they are satayed in mud).
In English, this is not a claim of universality.
It is in the English I speak. Better to disambiguate by saying “some animals”. But that doesn’t really help, because it isn’t at all clear what “have experiences” means. California experiences earthquakes and cities experience riots. To rigorously distinguish that from human sensory experience and then try to put other animals on one side or the other of the line puts you in very controversial territory. Rather than declare what is or is not controversial, it would be better to just state your view and let others disagree if they do.
Well, yes, Patricia. That is exactly what vegans do.
No it isn’t. The statement “people like music” is true if some people like music.
Equivocation. You know what I mean. Nobody here honestly does not know what I mean. I’m surprised to see you posturing ignorance.
Animals are aware of their sensory input.
The implication being that “because they are different, we should kill them.” Non sequitur.
An utter one. Yet not intended by the plain meaning of what I wrote, divorced from your preconceptions as to what my motives must have been for doing so. I came to the discussion late, and without any of the heat that it may have acquired. I am simply interested in questions surrounding consciousness and subjective experience in general, and I felt that, in order to make a point that I don’t categorically disagree with, you were overstating some of your supporting claims. Believing that you have made a bad argument does not compel me to reject the position you are arguing for.
Pretending that other people aren’t using the commonsense meanings of words isn’t very helpful either. A seven year old child has a pretty accurate inference of what I mean when I say “animal.” I hope you’re impressing yourself with your pedantry.
Again, sorry to have aroused your ire. Asking about the degree of awareness of different animals wasn’t a ‘gotcha,’ and I pretended nothing. I genuinely think it’s illustrative to assess our own views on where these dividing lines may lie. It was rhetorical, but I don’t see how it was pedantic, and I can assure you that if I made a misjudgement of tone, I argued in good faith and not to impress anybody.
The burden of proof is no more on me than it is on the person who asserts that other humans have subjective experiences. All you can know is that other humans act like they have subjective experiences, but you take that for granted. To deny that animals have subjective experiences is to descend into solipsism.
I don’t think anyone here is that stupid. That’s why I’m not arguing the point. No, I don’t have to establish every single step of every single argument; I’m not going to jump through hoops for you. There’s a lot of shit we all already know is true, and I’m not going to get hung up on what’s already established.
It was a reasonable question whether animals can think about the future, and I’ll talk about that, but it’s ridiculous to deny that they have experiences. I’m not going to play that game. You’re not that stupid and no one here is.
No, that still would not account for the dog who picks up his bowl and brings it to you without being taught to do so. And dogs do discover these things on their own through experimentation.
What exactly do you think is going on when you pet a dog? Do you really think the dog does not feel your hand? That it doesn’t feel good? When you stop and the dog nudges your hand, why would it do this if it doesn’t feel the petting, and if it doesn’t feel good? Ridiculous.
And why would it? That’s not the kind of problem that a wolf will encounter in the wild. It doesn’t need to have evolved the tendency for that kind of planning. This is where your expectations are not useful. I said planning, not counterintuitive problem solving. A dog is able to execute the kind of planning that coincides with intuition. The human fills the bowl. So bring the bowl to the human if you want the bowl filled. That’s still planning.
Then it’s okay for you to kill me when you have a craving for human meat.
Then I’m sorry for assuming too much. It’s an emotionally exhausting thing to have this conversation every single week for the last few months, and something like a quarter of people just want to troll. Certain questions look like the lead-ins to certain tired troll tropes.
Sorry.
Well, I’m only concerned with the sort of conclusion that says “difference permits destruction.” So I point out early that “you can’t get there from here.”
Arguments for or against vegetarianism/meat eating aside, it seems like his opponent was trying to imply that Roy Brown was unmanly and unfit to lead a state that depends on cattle ranching. And, of course, he would immediately use his dictatorial powers as governor to force everyone to convert to vegetarianism, bankrupting all of the cattlemen! Just like Obama is going to make Amurrica a Muslin nation!!!!11!2!
Ahem. There are good ethical and environmental reasons to be a vegetarian. As a dog owner, I know that it’s irrational to cherish love and affection on two animals and eat others. So I should be a vegetarian. But my dogs eat meat, because they’re carnivores and they really have to. Feeding meat to my dogs but denying it to my family is another kind of cognitive dissonance.
My solution is organic dog food for them, and organic meat for the humans in the family, too – at least the animals that get eaten had better lives than they would have had on a factory farm. And since it’s significantly more expensive than conventional meat, we eat much less of it, which means killing fewer animals. It’s not win/win, but it’s at least win/less lose.
Actually no, dogs are not obligate carnivores like cats are. Dogs do fine on a well-planned vegan diet.
Doesn’t follow, and wouldn’t even if dogs were obligate carnivores. Think about that: “Cats need meat, so we’ll have to give them meat. And humans don’t need meat, so we’ll have to give them meat because we gave the cats meat.”
Ah, naive PZ… You’ve cracked open that old internet chestnut; vegetarianists -vs- carnivorists. They’ll happily tear each other to shreds over nothing more controversial than the contents of their lunch boxes.
Command/F reveals a “Hitler” incidence below 5% in these comments, which is unusually low in any thread discussing vegetarians in any way. I’ve never found a topic of internet discussion which so readily leads to invocations of Das Fuhrer, except possibly Holocaust discussions, and that might even be close.
Why is this? Nobody cares if I eat a pb/j for lunch, until I say it’s because I’m a vegetarian. (That really pisses people off; it’s something I keep in my social toolkit for people I want to leave me alone) But why should they care, much less take my diet so personally? Suddenly, peanut butter and jelly on whole grain bread equals Hitler. I’m not forcing anyone else to eat this, in fact I much prefer when other people don’t eat my lunch for me. I’m not even bragging openly about my cholesterol; hdl and ldl both in the 40’s. And still, one fundie coworker takes my diet far more seriously and argumentatively than my atheism, simply by awareness of the former in contrast to direct confrontation concerning the latter.
Calling someone a vegetarian can be an attack. And a significantly effective one in much of the country, I’m sorry to say.
When I want to indicate my vegetarianism in company that might not look kindly on them (for some reason Houston oil industry executives sometimes overact a sort of comic-cowboy role), I simply say, “I’ve been staying away from eating so much meat lately.” That seems to get respect, because it’s expressed as an individual preference.
It’s sort of as if I told a group of religious people, “I’m not much of a churchgoer.” Which I have said, when directly challenged about my religious preferences in a sensitive situation. More often, I tell people, “My religious preference is ‘none’.” It takes them a minute to think through that.
Kel… seems you haven’t explored or read about this world of ours very much. There are places in this world where they don’t eat pork (the Muslim/Jewish world among others), other places where they don’t eat birds (Chinese traditionally didn’t eat chicken), others that don’t eat cows (the Hindu parts of the world), others that almost exclusively eat cows (Tibet and Montana), other places where guinea pigs are prefered (the Andes), and even others where they are mostly vegetarians of a sort or even vegans (India, Nepal, most of SE Asia and any other places that is Hindu or Buddhist).
The argument wasn’t about eating food or not but about eating what food. Comparing eating habits to religious belief is completely fair. You can choose to follow or not. Whether raised carnivore, socialist, Christian, or Hippie (or all of them if possible) you are raised based on your parents culture, values, history, etc. It seems to me that most people in our world follow the diet their parents taught them to and do so “religiously”.
Well no shit.
No, it’s entirely unfair. What we had to eat as children is determined by what’s on the table, it’s a necessity to eat and there is no moral adherence associated with it. In that it’s not really a choice to obey or disobey except when religion comes into it. To characterise something that can be so passive as the same as religious indoctrination is very much cheapening both points.
Just consider the difference between a farming family who only grow vegetables and don’t discuss the ethics of meat eating with their children – they simply eat what is put in front of them. Then consider a vegetarian family who are radically anti-meat and tell their children that eating meat is wrong. Now when these children have the chance to eat for themselves, only the latter has a moral choice to make in the ethics of eating meat. For the farming family, it’s merely an unknown as opposed to a rejection in the vegetarian family. And that constitutes a huge difference.
Also
Don’t be a condescending shit.
The statement “people like music” is true if some people like music.
No, it isn’t, it’s a statement about people generally. Quite obviously “humans have two arms” and “humans have blue eyes” aren’t equally true.
Equivocation. You know what I mean. Nobody here honestly does not know what I mean. I’m surprised to see you posturing ignorance.
Fuck you, you stupid ignorant arrogant ass. The question of what is experience and what does or does not have it is a serious and controversial question in philosophy of mind and neuroscience.
Animals are aware of their sensory input.
Some or all, asshole? And how the fuck do you know? And it isn’t at all clear what the word “aware” even means there, but many people would question whether, say, a flatworm is aware of its sensory input.
craig @ 188 – Thanks for this. Calling people murderers or killers for dietary choices certainly isn’t helpful. One can make the case that just by existing we make it impossible for some other animals to live. The important point, I think, is to cause as little pain and death as possible.
Kel… you throwin “shit” around reminds me of days working in the zoo.
To the argument… your points are actually valid and I only disagree with you about the degree to which people have choices. Isn’t what’s on the table dertimined by what our parent’s beliefs are as well as what’s available? Don’t most people in the developed world have choices about what they eat? Isn’t religious indoctrination a passive experience for many, especially when they are young? Isn’t being a *add religious affiliation here* also just a superficial lifestyle choice for many just the same as being a hiipe vegetarian or a steak eating cowboy might be? Don’t many young children ask moral questions about eating animals yet are discouraged from even considering it? Are there not places and cultures where the need to belong and believe is as great a necessity as food?
I’ve been a farmer on two different continents. The farmers I know are the people most attuned to the issues regarding animal ethics. They understand animal suffering the most and minimalize it when they can or when it’s convenient and ignore it when they need to. Whether rich or poor, educated or not,they are not just passive players. They make choices on what to raise and how to raise it. Some even take their farmer lifestyle and turn it into a religion of pickup trucks, gun racks, and “Buy Beef” bumper stickers. Being part of a food culture is far from a passive experience.
Kel… BTW… I didn’t mean to offend you earlier but in your first comment to me you said…
“Turns out people here are brought up to eat food, we can’t survive on rocks (not even if they are satayed in mud).”
That might be construed as condescending and sarcastic as well. Dick!
Yeah, it was sarcasm. Sarcasm != condescension. I make lots of jokes and references to shows. Anyone who has watched futurama should have gotten the rocks reference.
There was a time when slavery was permitted, but we now realize it was wrong. How did that happen? There’s no way to get out of a legal or moral code that allows slavery by arguing from within that code. We got out by calling attention to, and then recognition of, a certain inalienable, axiomatic right to freedom. – GrammarRWA@294
First, reciprocal thanks for the civilised style of argument! I’m not sure we can take this much further here, since the issues are complex, and quite far removed, as you’ve said, from everyday moral choices, but I’ll just give a short account of my stance on “meta-ethics”.
In technical terms, I’m a consequentialist and you (I think) are a deontologist. In case you’re not familiar with the terms, a consequentialist makes moral decisions, including those about which laws or norms to adopt and campaign for, on the grounds of their (predicted) consequences. Utilitarianism is one variant, but I’m not a utilitarian – I’m what might be called a pluralist consequentialist: there is no single criterion by which to judge acts or norms, and the set of consequences we can take into account is itself subject to argument and revision. A deontologist seeks a set of basic rules or axioms which are taken as beyond revision, because they are the will of God, or what the ancestors laid down, or are “self-evident”. From my point of view, we can argue for changes in current norms by showing that they have bad consequences. Legal slavery has many bad consequences, but the most prominent is the suffering of the slaves. Of course, to succeed the abolitionists had to convince legislators and public opinion that this was both real, and a bad consequence. Matters of fact were highly relevant – for example, that those enslaved suffer in all the same ways we would if we were enslaved (as, for example, horses do not). Abolitionists appealed to considerations of both empathy and equity: these are the basis of morality, but they do not express facts about the world; they are evolved psychological features common to the great majority of human beings, although much influenced by culture.
Possibly our philosophical differences are partly due to different national backgrounds. British law, unlike American law, is not based on a succinct written constitution (a set of “axioms”), but purely on a combination of precedent and legislation.
Kristin – these are terrific steps, showing caring and thought for all involved. there is actually a terrific vegan dog food out there which I urge you to try. it’s called Evolution. http://www.petfoodshop.com/ Even organic dog food is still likely to have stuff in it you don’t want to feed your loved ones.
Hill
I’m curious what the vegetarians and vegans that are here who make that choice for animal rights issues think about medical research that use animals.
That’s 100% not meant to be snarky, I am curious on the position you take on it.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM,
For me, when it comes to medical research it really depends on the kind of work being done. If the research is to save human lives (say, a new emergency operation or some vital medicine) then I think it is acceptable for the same reasons I think it is acceptable for those starving or those unable to live healthily on a vegetarian/vegan diet to eat meat. It is a matter of survival. I don’t think most research falls under this variety, however. I am always against animal testing for things like shampoo and cosmetics.
I should also add that I tend to think we should also avoid using other great apes who seem to be capable of a high level of self-awareness in research, for exactly the same reasons we do not experiment on humans against their will.
Granted, and that’s more product safety vs. medical research. But baring someone showing me it is necessary for some reason I can’t quite fathom right now, I agree.
What if the very reason you want to not use them is the very reason they are the most important subjects for such medicine. That they so closely relate to us that they are necessary? I am always going to weigh saving human lives over saving animal lives (as far as necessary medical research is concerned). I’m sure someone will find a way to twist my words to mean something other than I do and some conditional example that doesn’t follow the nature of my comment, but I would hope you get what I mean.
And we don’t test on humans (well we do, but I know what you mean) not for the reasons you gave above but because we are humans. Apes, as intelligent and closely related to us as they are still do not retain the same rights or privileges that humans do.
Some medical research requires animals. It just is what it is. Will this change in the future? Maybe. But right now it is just that way.
slight blockquote fail. The first two sentences are of course from spgreelaw.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM,
Yeah, you’re right. It’s not medical research. I just felt I should include it because its usually the second question asked when this sort of thing pops up. I guess I jumped the gun a little, but I have had this conversation many hundreds of times, so it’s become a sort of routine for me.
I might not have explained myself well on this point; apologies, it’s early yet. And I think I understand what you are saying so don’t worry, I won’t be pedantic.
What I meant to say is that I think many of the Great Ape species are so intelligent (self-awareness is especially important) that they deserve certain rights that we usually extend only to humans. I would recommend checking out the Great Ape Project, which Richard Dawkins (appeal to authority!) is a supporter of, if I’m not mistaken.
Yeah it’s an interesting point that I understand completely, but one that I still think I’d fall on the side of necessary medical research. Determining what is necessary is of course going to be up for discussion.
I’ll for sure check out the Great Ape Project. I’ve heard of it just never taken the time to look into it.
Hilary, considering that I have to actively prevent my dogs from eating dead squirrels, used kleenex, and poo, I’m not going to worry too much about that. Besides, I can read the ingredient label. Their food has meat, some whole grains, some vegetables, and some vitamins in it. Period.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, I’m surprised you’ve never heard of the Great Ape Project. I always assumed you were one of its graduates. :)
Ah, Reverend, I see you are defending your crown well today. You managed to misspell my last name (there’s a “n” somewhere in there). No hard feelings and God save the king.
yuk yuk yuk
nah I’ve heard of it just never investigated it.
ahhhhhh crap. And the worst part…. I scrolled up to check. And KNEW there was an “n” in there and still fat fingered it.
sorry
Haha, it’s not a problem. At least you didn’t make some sort of ecology or Clean Air/Clean Water Act joke. That sort of thing has worn out its welcome.
Well, the posting here today has been highly entertaining! It was a pleasure to read some quite intelligent comments instead of the usual stuff that people write when it comes to vegetarianism vs flesh-eating, although I was disappointed to learn that as a vegetarianism I may not have much of a political future in Montana. On the other hand, I was intrigued to learn about all the intelligent, attractive veg*n women apparently out there and await my personalized invitation to Speedwell’s party. For those interested in the subject, the history of vegetarianism is rife with persecution (check out “The Heretic’s Feast”) but I think that it is probably less politically-unacceptable than being an athieist in the United States. I have been a vegetarian for a decade but have not been tempted by bacon. That will be of academic concern only in the future since I gather from my close reading of teh internets that America now has a Muslim/socialist/terrorist ruler anyway so the banning of pork is likely.
*ha haha
I hadn’t considered that. I better start stocking the freezer.
What we have all been waiting for: chocolate-covered bacon!
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/mmm-bacon-of-the-chocolate-covered-variety/?hp
I suspect that this alone would turn me into a vegetarian.
On Medical testing, I agree with what’s been said above. I’m against it in non-humanitarian/truly important medical research…though with a huge caveat that basic science is critical and it’s outcomes can’t always be predicted.
But yeah, much of the testing currently done on animals is not truly important basic research or human-life saving work, so I don’t support it.
And for great apes, I do think they merit much more protection than many other mammals, and though they certainly get extra protection under current law in most countries, I think they could get more protections…
Lastly, interestingly, much of the testing currently done on humans has its own perils: often it is the less-educated, poorer populations that are driven to partake for small monetary gain. At least governments don’t test on prisoners and the mentally ill any more (I think and hope!).
This whole “rational discussion of ethics, environmentalism and animal welfare” thing is no fun at all. Let’s crazy it up a bit!
SEA KITTENS!!
Thanks, PETA. Never has an organization defended so many sympathetic causes so weirdly.
Rev BDC –
Sorry for the delay in responding re vivisection and animal testing. It’s a huge topic and definitely merits discussion, but maybe at another time? But since you asked, veg*ns vary in their opinions of it – some believe it’s justified, some don’t. Personally, I’m against it. But, yes, I do use products and procedures that were once tested on animals, which I recognize is hypocritical. But I would still prefer that other models (cellular, computer) be further refined and used in preference to animals.
Just fyi, I’m getting ready to leave town for the month, so can’t get into a big discussion about this. But I didn’t want to leave your reasonable query hanging. Hill