Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daydreamer4life)
    My favourite vegan quote is Theodor W. Adorno
    “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they're only animals."
    Adorno who said it was a jew himself!

    could always turn a sharp phrase adorno... if you like him you should have a look at minima moralia
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Which was simply to counter your belief that having lots of people belief something doesn't equate to the position being sustainable.
    Should I take your lack of counter to be a backing down of your absurd defense?
    I never claimed that so I don't need to counter it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    I never claimed that so I don't need to counter it.
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    1) We do not need meat to survive.

    2) Free range chickens (Like, actually free range, they wander around in a huge field where they can graze freely with a diet of whatever they can find)

    I'm not clutching at straws. The majority of the world eats meat. I'm not losing the battle here.


    You just thought you'd start making non-sequiturs then? If this isn't meant to some how add weight to your position then what is it mean to show?

    Before you answer, bear in mind:

    Bears often **** in the woods therefore, rabbits like to hop.
    The pope has a funny hat therefore, elephants stomp their feet.
    I LIKE MUSHROOMS! Therefore, God exists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You just thought you'd start making non-sequiturs then? If this isn't meant to some how add weight to your position then what is it mean to show?

    Before you answer, bear in mind:

    Bears often **** in the woods therefore, rabbits like to hop.
    The pope has a funny hat therefore, elephants stomp their feet.
    I LIKE MUSHROOMS! Therefore, God exists.
    They must be magic mushrooms, you're odd.

    What do you think I'm 'arguing' for? What do you think I'm trying to do? I'm not against veganism. I'm not pro-meat. It's just a personal choice. I don't need to add weight lol.

    How do you feel about remote tribes that have very limited food sources who DO actually have to hunt for their food and survive?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  vegans.jpg
Views: 39
Size:  42.1 KB
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    Flavour.

    I get 5% fat mince. That's hardly any fat in the grand scheme of things. Nothing wrong with a nice serving of saturated fat anyway.

    Protein is not all the same. Where did you get this information from? Look up 'complete' protein sources and 'incomplete' protein sources.
    Have you ever tried soya mince? It is delicious. My point is that it is perfectly possible to have a balanced vegan or vegetarian diet.

    Having a multi vitamin tablet once a day is is useful, regardless of whether or not you eat meat. Most people are deficient in at least one vitamin.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    They must be magic mushrooms, you're odd.

    What do you think I'm 'arguing' for? What do you think I'm trying to do? I'm not against veganism. I'm not pro-meat. It's just a personal choice. I don't need to add weight lol.

    How do you feel about remote tribes that have very limited food sources who DO actually have to hunt for their food and survive?
    That they're in a very tough position where meat is a need and not a want.

    And yes, it's a personal choice, just as a person's decision to...you guessed it, own a slave plantation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Have you ever tried soya mince? It is delicious. My point is that it is perfectly possible to have a balanced vegan or vegetarian diet.

    Having a multi vitamin tablet once a day is is useful, regardless of whether or not you eat meat. Most people are deficient in at least one vitamin.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Actually it's not, for anyone :P . But that's due to the fact that multivitamins don't appear to be effective.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    If quotes from fiction are allowed too, I'd add this from the Vulcan T'Pol in Star Trek: "You humans claim to be enlightened, yet you still consume the flesh of animals", and this from later on in the timeline, from Commander Riker: "We no longer enslave animals for food purposes...You've seen something as fresh and tasty as meat, but inorganically materialized out of patterns used by our transporters." (This parallels the development of lab-grown meat, in my view).

    I'd also add this from Peter Singer: "We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet - for the sake of hamburgers."



    The freedom of choice argument shouldn't apply when other sentient beings are harmed as a result of that choice. Murdering someone or torturing someone is also someone's choice, but we still ban both actions because they inflict unnecessary suffering on humans.



    Therefore, you acknowledge that nonhuman animals do suffer in the meat industry in many instances: in fact, it's the majority of instances.

    If you agree that unnecessary suffering is wrong, regardless of whether it's physical or not, this should logically lead you to reduce and eliminate your consumption of animal products. Indeed, severely intellectually disabled humans and human infants can't reason either, meaning that they would only experience "physical suffering" too. I doubt you would condone treating them in the way that we treat nonhuman animals reared for meat, however.

    Also, your point about the wild is irrelevant: the alternative to farming and slaughtering animals for meat is not to release them into the wild, but to stop breeding as many animals, thereby preventing further beings from having to go through the cycle of suffering and misery prevalent in the meat industry.
    It's a strange goal to want to reduce the number of animals being born: furthermore where do you envisage existing populations will go? Onto reservations? In that case they are scarcely more free than on an (ethical) farm.

    Human infants at least have the potential to develop sentience in the future so they are out. Mentally disabled people you have a stronger argument with, but look at how we respond to the idea of people eating beloved pet animals like cats and dogs, or animals with some sort of higher consciousness. It's not "reason or no reason". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a mentally disabled person with intellect lower than a cow or sheep in particular.

    The differentiation I am making between physical and existential suffering is key to my position on the argument. Even the most ravening of carnivores value ethical husbandry, even if it's something as small and probably misguided as avoiding the battery eggs or bottom shelf meat in the supermarket: I certainly believe that insofar as it is financially viable animals should be raised to minimise the physical suffering they endure.

    The question of existential suffering resulting from an unfree set-up is to me a far more interesting part of the argument. Is unfreedom justified if the unfree can't understand it? What if they can but just don't have the opportunity to learn, as I would argue is true of the working population? What if the unfree set-up gives then an objectively better life than the alternative, as I have argued, especially given that animals do not suffer existentially from it.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Being an omnivore is not the same as eating meat.
    Eating is a biological function yes, but eating meat isn't just a biological function. In fact, trying to reduce it down to the extent that morality cannot be concerned is fallacious. Just because one needs to eat it does not mean one needs to eat meat. By such logic I would be able to eat humans with no moral repercussions.
    :banghead::banghead::banghead: Clearly we need a refresher here: You compared eating meat to slavery, I explained that biological functions aren't comparable to social frameworks. Whether it's a necessary biological function is 100%, entirely, irrelevant.

    No, it wasn't clear. I suppose in your eyes eating chocolate that comes from fair trade sources and slave base sources is the same then.
    Actually, it was quite clear - you claimed eating meat was a social occasion, I said in as much as eating is a social occasion. That I'm saying eating is a social occasion is completely obvious.

    Where on earth have you pulled that from?

    Veganism is about reducing the level of harm down as much as you can, obviously within reason. You talk about ridiculous arguments but then claim that vegans should all go and kill themselves.
    I didn't actually claim that they should all go kill themselves, I said that that would be the logical step taking the notion of ending harm to its maxim. Now, that they don't shows it's only about reducing harm, not ending it. Furthermore the fact that you've not adopted the less harmful diets such as fruitarianism, bivalve based, insectivorous or primativist hunter-gatherer shows it's not even about reducing harm as much as you can, it's about reducing harm as much as you think is necessary. Which therefore means that eating meat is justifiable under the vegan argument provided we're not doing maximum harm (e.g. ensuring decent living conditions for the animals) since by eating free range rather than battery, I've reduced harm as much as I think is necessary.

    or is it your view if you can't be 100% moral why be moral at all? Inf act do things that are immoral because: why not? (and no, 'why be moral?' isn't a question about moral philosophy).
    Not at all, I just don't see that morality comes into a predator-prey relationship, because frankly basic animalistic survival doesn't revolve around ethics - the lion doesn't consider the ethics of killing the gazelle, nor the shark of the fish or the polar bear of the seal.

    *makes a false premise"
    "acts as if the argument is won*.
    The words pot, kettle come to mind...

    Irregardless, we don't have a predator prey relationship. We farm animals
    That we farm them doesn't mean it's not a predator-prey relationship, ants farm aphids but the aphids are still prey and the ants the predators.

    What is the quality humans have that makes them moral subjects which animals lack?

    Not sure how many ways I have to phrase the same question for you to stop what appears to be trolling and bother to answer the question.
    I've not answered the question because it's irrelevant, but if it'll get you to actually answer the question of why veganism is fine with killing animals provided they aren't directly used for food or clothing, right and wrong are such undefinable concepts and subject to change depending on geolocation, species, and place in time that it's very difficult to say that humans and other animals are separated by a notion of morality.

    So, given animals are killed every single day for our basic needs, dehomed and destroyed to clear building room for our towns and cities, dehomed and destroyed to provide the building materials for said towns and cities, have their habitats polluted, ultimately killing them, as a result of manufacturing, hunted and killed to protect crops (so even a vegan diet requires animals to die), why is the killing of animals presumably justified so long as we don't eat them? Is it just plain hypocrisy? Is it a case of never having thought about it (out of sight, out of mind as it were)?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    :banghead::banghead::banghead: Clearly we need a refresher here: You compared eating meat to slavery, I explained that biological functions aren't comparable to social frameworks. Whether it's a necessary biological function is 100%, entirely, irrelevant.



    Actually, it was quite clear - you claimed eating meat was a social occasion, I said in as much as eating is a social occasion. That I'm saying eating is a social occasion is completely obvious.

    Where on earth have you pulled that from?



    I didn't actually claim that they should all go kill themselves, I said that that would be the logical step taking the notion of ending harm to its maxim. Now, that they don't shows it's only about reducing harm, not ending it. Furthermore the fact that you've not adopted the less harmful diets such as fruitarianism, bivalve based, insectivorous or primativist hunter-gatherer shows it's not even about reducing harm as much as you can, it's about reducing harm as much as you think is necessary. Which therefore means that eating meat is justifiable under the vegan argument provided we're not doing maximum harm (e.g. ensuring decent living conditions for the animals) since by eating free range rather than battery, I've reduced harm as much as I think is necessary.



    Not at all, I just don't see that morality comes into a predator-prey relationship, because frankly basic animalistic survival doesn't revolve around ethics - the lion doesn't consider the ethics of killing the gazelle, nor the shark of the fish or the polar bear of the seal.



    The words pot, kettle come to mind...



    That we farm them doesn't mean it's not a predator-prey relationship, ants farm aphids but the aphids are still prey and the ants the predators.



    I've not answered the question because it's irrelevant, but if it'll get you to actually answer the question of why veganism is fine with killing animals provided they aren't directly used for food or clothing, right and wrong are such undefinable concepts and subject to change depending on geolocation, species, and place in time that it's very difficult to say that humans and other animals are separated by a notion of morality.

    So, given animals are killed every single day for our basic needs, dehomed and destroyed to clear building room for our towns and cities, dehomed and destroyed to provide the building materials for said towns and cities, have their habitats polluted, ultimately killing them, as a result of manufacturing, hunted and killed to protect crops (so even a vegan diet requires animals to die), why is the killing of animals presumably justified so long as we don't eat them? Is it just plain hypocrisy? Is it a case of never having thought about it (out of sight, out of mind as it were)?
    Breathing = biological function.
    Deciding whether to make a room with a specific set of gases so that breathing will be a different experience =/= biological function.
    Eating = biological function.
    Deciding what to eat =/= biological function.
    Not sure why you insist on making me restate the same thing over and over.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    It's a strange goal to want to reduce the number of animals being born: furthermore where do you envisage existing populations will go? Onto reservations? In that case they are scarcely more free than on an (ethical) farm.
    N

    In what way is it strange? One cannot be harmed by not coming into existence. If that were the case, then you would surely advocate everybody having as many children as possible.

    Veganism is likely to be a gradual process, such that we're not completely overrun with domesticated animals. Existing populations will likely go into sanctuaries: indeed, there are already many sanctuaries in existence that care for animals rescued from the meat industry. They're a lot more free than they would be on the majority of farms today, and they won't have to be transported under great deals of stress on long journeys to the slaughterhouse, nor will they have to be slaughtered in a process which goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases in secular slaughterhouses.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Human infants at least have the potential to develop sentience in the future so they are out.
    Potentiality plays no role in my view, and nonhuman animals are sentient, it's just that most are not self-aware or able to reason.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Mentally disabled people you have a stronger argument with, but look at how we respond to the idea of people eating beloved pet animals like cats and dogs, or animals with some sort of higher consciousness. It's not "reason or no reason". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a mentally disabled person with intellect lower than a cow or sheep in particular.
    It's not about being hard-pressed. The fact of the matter is that we clearly deem physical suffering to matter, and matter a lot, so it's surely indefensible to inflict unnecessary physical (and mental) suffering on animals reared for meat.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    The differentiation I am making between physical and existential suffering is key to my position on the argument. Even the most ravening of carnivores value ethical husbandry, even if it's something as small and probably misguided as avoiding the battery eggs or bottom shelf meat in the supermarket: I certainly believe that insofar as it is financially viable animals should be raised to minimise the physical suffering they endure.
    For a start, I reject the distinction, as nonhuman animals in the meat industry are highly complex and intelligent social animals, who clearly want to be free and not confined. And, if you value physical suffering, then that's surely the end of the argument. Physical vs. existential suffering may be an interesting side-debate, but unless you require meat, there's no logical justification for continuing to consume it.

    The claim that all meat-eaters value ethical husbandry is clearly false, given that the majority of animals in Britain and around 99% of the animals in the United States are raised in factory farms. These farms survive precisely because meat-eaters are willing to buy meat from these farms. The physical suffering that animals endure is best minimised by not putting them through the process of producing meat in the first place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's a known fact that those who identify as vegans suffer from severe levels of unwarranted self-importance. Most vegans are arrogant, conceited and self-righteous, judging others at the drop of a hat.

    The only solution, it seems, is to banish all vegans to India, an already overpopulated Vegan country that is falling apart from the inside. There, they can fester in their own human waste, eating their own excretement under the pretense that it's 'not harming the planet' and that 'humans cause so much waste to the world'.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Not at all, I just don't see that morality comes into a predator-prey relationship, because frankly basic animalistic survival doesn't revolve around ethics - the lion doesn't consider the ethics of killing the gazelle, nor the shark of the fish or the polar bear of the seal.
    Basic animalistic survival does not equate to eating meat, for the simple reason that we don't require meat in order to survive. You could also use "basic animalistic survival" to justify murdering other humans and enslaving them.

    And, whether lions consider the ethics of what they do is irrelevant: why are you using lions as ethical role models? Lions also kill each other to steal their homes and their "wives", and also kill each other's babies.

    Finally, morality does apply in nature, and applies especially to us. Assuming for a moment that it is a predator-prey relationship, we have the mental capacity to decide whether this predator-prey relationship should be in existence in the first place.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    I've not answered the question because it's irrelevant, but if it'll get you to actually answer the question of why veganism is fine with killing animals provided they aren't directly used for food or clothing, right and wrong are such undefinable concepts and subject to change depending on geolocation, species, and place in time that it's very difficult to say that humans and other animals are separated by a notion of morality.

    So, given animals are killed every single day for our basic needs, dehomed and destroyed to clear building room for our towns and cities, dehomed and destroyed to provide the building materials for said towns and cities, have their habitats polluted, ultimately killing them, as a result of manufacturing, hunted and killed to protect crops (so even a vegan diet requires animals to die), why is the killing of animals presumably justified so long as we don't eat them? Is it just plain hypocrisy? Is it a case of never having thought about it (out of sight, out of mind as it were)?
    Meeting humans' basic needs is justifiable under an anti-speciesist ethic: most humans are rational and self-aware and have an interest in continuing to live. There's very little that's ethically problematic with the actual act of killing most nonhuman animals (aside from chimpanzees and other primates; dolphins; elephants and some birds), because they have no preference to continue to live, and do not conceive of their existence on a time continuum. Therefore, killing animals in order to meet basic human needs is justifiable, and we also have to ask: what would have happened to these wild-animals had they not been killed? The answer is that they would've died deaths just as bad, if not worse.

    By contrast, by shutting down the factory farms and outlawing the slaughterhouses, we don't have an effect on the wild (in fact, we'll probably have a positive effect, given that the meat industry is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions), and we prevent further animals from having to suffer in the meat industry.

    Now, all of the examples you cite are to do with wild-animals. To address your previous point about morality in nature, wild-animal suffering is actually incredibly important for many vegans (see Brian Tomasik and David Pearce's work, for instance), and the vegan community is increasingly on board with the idea of striving to eliminate wild-animal suffering too.

    Thus, your fallacious appeal to hypocrisy itself rests on a false premise, namely that veganism is not concerned with animals "out of sight and out of mind".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evening)
    It's a known fact that those who identify as vegans suffer from severe levels of unwarranted self-importance. Most vegans are arrogant, conceited and self-righteous, judging others at the drop of a hat.
    The bolded bit is meant to be ironic, right? Or are you actually saying you are judging vegans by the drop of a hat?
    The only solution, it seems, is to banish all vegans to India, an already overpopulated Vegan country that is falling apart from the inside. There, they can fester in their own human waste, eating their own excretement under the pretense that it's 'not harming the planet' and that 'humans cause so much waste to the world'.

    You seem to not understand what india is.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Basic animalistic survival does not equate to eating meat, for the simple reason that we don't require meat in order to survive. You could also use "basic animalistic survival" to justify murdering other humans and enslaving them.

    And, whether lions consider the ethics of what they do is irrelevant: why are you using lions as ethical role models? Lions also kill each other to steal their homes and their wives, and also kill each other's babies.

    Finally, morality does apply in nature, and applies especially do us. Assuming for a moment that it is a predator-prey relationship, we have the mental capacity to decide whether this predator-prey relationship should be in existence in the first place.



    Meeting humans' basic needs is justifiable under an anti-speciesist ethic: humans are rational and self-aware and have an interest in continuing to live. There's very little that's ethically problematic with the actual act of killing animals, because they have no preference to continue to live, and do not conceive of their existence on a time continuum. Therefore, killing animals in order to meet basic human needs is justifiable, and we also have to ask: what would have happened to these wild-animals had they not been killed? The answer is that they would've died deaths just as bad, if not worse.

    By contrast, by shutting down the factory farms and outlawing the slaughterhouses, we don't have an effect on the wild (in fact, we'll probably have a positive effect, given that the meat industry is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions), and we prevent further animals from having to suffer in the meat industry.

    Now, all of the examples you cite are to do with wild-animals. To address your previous point about morality in nature, wild-animal suffering is actually incredibly important for many vegans (see Brian Tomasik and David Pearce's work, for instance), and the vegan community is increasingly on board with the idea of striving to eliminate wild-animal suffering too.

    Thus, your fallacious appeal to hypocrisy itself rests on a false premise, namely that veganism is not concerned with animals "out of sight and out of mind".
    Lions have wives??
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The bolded bit is meant to be ironic, right? Or are you actually saying you are judging vegans by the drop of a hat?


    You seem to not understand what india is.
    Vegans suffer from a sickness of the mind, therefore it is only fitting that they're put down.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Pythagoras should have stuck to his triangles.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Lions have wives??
    Ha, my intention was to use the analogy and apply it to human society, but I ended up implying that they had actual wives. I will edit it now.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daydreamer4life)
    Being kind to animals is a disease? Damn....
    eating their food isn't very kind.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 30, 2015
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.