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

My favourite pro veganism quotation! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Out of interest, why do bi-valves appear to flinch when lemon juice touches them?
    I guess the same question could be applied to why the Mimosa Pudica plant reacts and seems to retract when touched or when a flame is put towards it?

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I guess the same question could be applied to why the Mimosa Pudica plant reacts and seems to retract when touched or when a flame is put towards it?

    Potentially. I'm trying to assess whether it's justifiable to hold that such beings have preferences/values and therefore can or cannot suffer.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Now you're just making things up. Why is the survival of the species paramount, first of all? Natural selection, recall, isn't about the survival of the species, but about the survival of your genes.
    Genes exist to propagate themselves, but let's be quite clear here - surviving at the expense of the rest of society is not a success, the rest of the species needs to survive to continue the genetic diversity needed to carry on the survival of the genes. Beyond that, you need to reproduce to pass on your genes and as social group animals, working to damage the group actively reduces your chances of reproducing.

    Secondly, you still fail to recognise that we don't need to eat meat to survive.
    There's no individual food you do need to eat to survive, as the multitude of intolerances, allergies and distastes for different foods show, so that means nothing.

    Either you really believe what you're saying, or you've gone on a parody site for worst meat-eater arguments ever and then transferred them here as a joke.
    I'm fairly convinced veganism isn't defensible as I've demonstrated, and you do yourself and the other vegans in this thread far too much credit; annoying a preachy vegan is like shooting a fish in a barrel, an easy little kick, since all you have to do is suggest they're not perfect; so putting any effort in would be a waste of effort. If I wanted to just take the piss I'd have just posted a picture of a steak on the first page with a troy mcclure quote:

    If a cow got the chance he'd kill you and everyone you care about
    or just a meme like this one:



    You're using the fact that lions don't think about the ethics of what they're doing as evidence that morals don't exist in predator-prey relationships. So you demonstrably are using lions are moral guides.
    I'll rephrase, I'm not using lions as a guide on how to live day to day, I'm simply using them as an example of a predator-prey relationship and how morals are not relevant in that situation.


    In anything that humans do, we're able to think about the morality of what we're doing, especially considering that we do a lot of things, such as eating meat, which aren't necessary for survival.
    Just because we can contemplate the morality of something doesn't mean it's wrong.

    The majority of nonhuman animals are raised in factory farms where they suffer, all of them are transported to the slaughterhouse under a great amount of stress and a significant proportion are slaughtered in intense pain, simply because a significant proportion of slaughters in abattoirs go wrong and even the most experienced workers get it wrong.
    And that is relevant to the question how? Animals are killed either way, why then is it not permissible to eat them? Why is the killing of an animal acceptable provided we don't make use of its carcass?


    Firstly, veganism leads to the reduction of a lot of suffering compared to a diet with animal products in it, especially as 40% of the world's grain is used to feed nonhuman animals reared for meat in the first place, meaning that any deaths of wild-animals from plant-based agriculture are also included in the total death toll from animal agriculture.
    [/quote]

    Very much depends on the animal products in question, a primativist hunter gatherer approach would permit meat and by cutting out farming all together would cause less suffering than veganism.

    Secondly, it's perfectly possible to follow a vegan diet and completely minimise wild-animal suffering, whether it's through buying from farms which don't use technology such as combine harvesters which lead to the deaths of around 0.76 animals per hectare, which isn't exactly a lot, according to a study conducted by Tew and MacDonald. It's also possible to grow food in one's own back garden and buy from farms practising veganic agriculture. The reality is, though, that plant-based agriculture is actually responsible for the suffering of very few wild-animals, and certainly less than meat production and, on top of this, it's far better for the environment in the vast majority of cases and doesn't involve confining, transporting and slaughtering tens of billions of sentient beings every year.
    You assume plants aren't sentient, despite reasonable evidence to suggest they're aware of their surroundings (for instance root growth), certainly there's as likely to be sentient and capable of pain as bivalves. But beyond that, the use of pesticides kills hundreds upon thousands of insects every year to protect the crops so it's a bit of a false claim to suggest plant based agriculture doesn't harm many wild animals unless you claim insects aren't animals.

    Third, many vegans, in theory, have no objection to eating bivalves, but there's often a lot of by-catch from bivalve farming, which makes it ethically problematic. Similarly, insect farming may be ethically problematic because there's a non-zero probability that they can actually suffer, and the numbers of insects who would be raised in insect farms thus makes the expected disutility of eating them quite high.
    Eh? How is there bycatch from bivalve harvesting, we already farm them for pearls and things like mussels grow attached to rocks, it's not just dropping a net in and seeing what gets caught up in it.


    Fourth, with all of the diets you mention, it's likely that your basic needs won't be met, so not following these diets may be necessary for self-aware and rational beings, such as normal humans.
    And without taking supplements you won't meet your basic needs as a vegan, so that's an irrelevant point.


    Anyway, since you, like others before you, still won't answer the question of why animals can be killed so long as they're not eaten, I'm backing out of this thread - quite clear it's going round in circles, and having done the vegan thing before and found it completely lacking in any sort of quality (I'm an excellent cook but found all the vegan recipes I tried to be just lacking any sort of substance, and rubbish like quorn is not a substitute), I can safely say I'll still be eating meat so long as there's somewhere in the world that legally allows it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Genes exist to propagate themselves, but let's be quite clear here - surviving at the expense of the rest of society is not a success, the rest of the species needs to survive to continue the genetic diversity needed to carry on the survival of the genes. Beyond that, you need to reproduce to pass on your genes and as social group animals, working to damage the group actively reduces your chances of reproducing.
    Some members of the rest of the species may need to survive, but not the rest of the species by any means.

    And, let's be quite clear here: natural selection has no bearing on what we ought to do.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    There's no individual food you do need to eat to survive, as the multitude of intolerances, allergies and distastes for different foods show, so that means nothing.
    Precisely, but lions have to eat what they can find and hunt, whereas we have a choice.

    Unfortunately, you seem to be completely oblivious to this elementary point.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    I'll rephrase, I'm not using lions as a guide on how to live day to day, I'm simply using them as an example of a predator-prey relationship and how morals are not relevant in that situation.
    You are using lions as a guide on how to live in predator-prey situations. Why is their behaviour relevant in those situations but not in "day to day" life (even though their predator-prey interactions are day-to-day and so are the actions of the meat industry).

    Morals are relevant in predator-prey relationships because the suffering of sentient beings objectively matters, no matter what the context. Just because a lion cannot think about it, doesn't mean morals aren't relevant for us. It's a fallacy to infer that morals aren't relevant in all predator-prey relationships because lions don't think about morals in predator-prey relationships, so even if your predator-prey relationship point weren't hilariously illogical and ad hoc in its own right, you're still tying yourself up in knots.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Just because we can contemplate the morality of something doesn't mean it's wrong.
    I'm not saying that. We can also contemplate the morality of giving to charities, and that can be demonstrated to be right. The immorality of meat production can be demonstrated to be wrong.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    And that is relevant to the question how? Animals are killed either way, why then is it not permissible to eat them? Why is the killing of an animal acceptable provided we don't make use of its carcass?
    Sigh. Once again, killing nonhuman animals is not wrong if they're not rational or self-aware. It's simply not the case that the same numbers of animals suffer either way, though: veganism causes less suffering than a meat-eating diet, and that's the point.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Very much depends on the animal products in question, a primativist hunter gatherer approach would permit meat and by cutting out farming all together would cause less suffering than veganism.
    A veganic farming or backyard-vegetable-growing approach would cause less suffering than a primitivist hunter-gather approach. So, even ideally, a vegan diet is still ethically superior!

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    You assume plants aren't sentient, despite reasonable evidence to suggest they're aware of their surroundings (for instance root growth), certainly there's as likely to be sentient and capable of pain as bivalves.
    There's no evidence that plants can feel pain or suffer. In the absence of any capacity for rapid self-propelled motion, no evolutionary selection pressure can exist to create an energetically expensive nervous system – or the unitary subject of experience supported by the vertebrate CNS. And, even if they could, what do you think animals reared for meat eat? Plants. How many plants? Well, it takes a lot more plant protein to produce 1kg of meat than it does to produce 1kg of plant protein.

    This is becoming something of a trend now: veganism is still the diet of least suffering.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    But beyond that, the use of pesticides kills hundreds upon thousands of insects every year to protect the crops so it's a bit of a false claim to suggest plant based agriculture doesn't harm many wild animals unless you claim insects aren't animals.
    Again, it's highly unlikely that insects can feel pain and suffer. And, you can't have it both ways, because earlier you were asking me why I wouldn't follow an insectivorous diet! You're just moving from rationalization to rationalization! My point here is that plant-based agriculture would cause less potential suffering to insects than insect farming.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Anyway, since you, like others before you, still won't answer the question of why animals can be killed so long as they're not eaten.
    I've answered this on a number of occasions now (you know, all the stuff about reducing suffering). You're just desperately clinging onto this argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Actually that myth is mostly based on Goebbels's propaganda.

    And lets says that Trigger warning:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I had a friend who said he knew rape was wrong, but he just couldn't help himself
    Would you just accept him saying he would never change?

    I'm not comparing the two, what I'm doing is using the exact logic you've used in another scenario. I'm not saying either one is less or more immoral here.

    So would you accept that same logic you presented in the above scenario?
    1. If I knew this person kept raping people, obviously I'd call the police.
    2. If they just insisted that there was nothing wrong with it, I just wouldn't associate with their dumbass. This is part of my point. You can disapprove of/be disgusted by someone's opinions all you want. But preaching about it doesn't help anyone. Also, as above, you can legally do something about a rapist. There is no legal way to punish a meat eater (well not purely on that alone anyway).

    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's not that veg*ns are necessarily more ethical in their life as a whole, but it is the case that, when it comes to the issue of consuming animal products, they are more acting in a more moral way.

    One clear way in which a meat-eater could be more ethical in her life as a whole compared with a veg*n is if she donates a lot of money to the most cost-effective animal charities, as evaluated by Animal Charity Evaluators, for instance, which promote veg*nism and strive to improve the conditions on farms and in slaughterhouses.

    I'm aware of quite a few people who have reduced but not eliminated their meat consumption, but every time they eat meat they donate money to these charities, which, per animal, reduce suffering very effectively.




    Yes, my point was that some vegans would, in theory, be willing to eat bivalves but don't do so because of concerns about by-catch and so on. The people who actually eat bivalves are not vegans, no.

    I myself would assign very little moral weight to bivalves as it is unlikely that they can feel pain and suffer. I do not eat them, however, because of other concerns to do with the production of bivalves,
    I appreciate the reasonable opinion. Personally I'm not the richest person on the planet but I do donate where I can. Like I said in my op, I feel guilty about it so I do as much to stay cruelty free as I can.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    1. If I knew this person kept raping people, obviously I'd call the police.
    2. If they just insisted that there was nothing wrong with it, I just wouldn't associate with their dumbass. This is part of my point. You can disapprove of/be disgusted by someone's opinions all you want. But preaching about it doesn't help anyone. Also, as above, you can legally do something about a rapist. There is no legal way to punish a meat eater (well not purely on that alone anyway).


    Can we keep trigger warnings in posts? Or do you look down upon survivors of that?

    Why is there a reduction to the law? Irregardless of the law you would despise someone doing that.

    And it wasn't that long ago that it was legal.

    So why bring the law into this?
    I'm not saying meat eaters should even be punished. My argument is that they should stop being meat eaters, not that they serve jail time.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Spoiler:
    Show


    Can we keep trigger warnings in posts? Or do you look down upon survivors of that?

    Why is there a reduction to the law? Irregardless of the law you would despise someone doing that.

    And it wasn't that long ago that it was legal.

    So why bring the law into this?
    I'm not saying meat eaters should even be punished. My argument is that they should stop being meat eaters, not that they serve jail time.
    Ok 1. I'm not looking down on anyone. I just forgot to include a trigger warning. It happens. For the record TRIGGER WARNING TO THE SECOND POINT.
    2. I never said you were implying meat eaters should be punished. My point was that part of the reason rape is seen as more immoral than meat eating is because its a crime. Therefore preaching to someone to stop thinking of rape indifferently or positively is more likely to have some effect than preaching to a meat eater not to eat meat. Furthermore, most meat eaters are not directly harming animals so it's easier to think of it in a more apathetic light. As I said, I personally feel guilty about it but my guilt does not outweigh my enjoyment of certain meats. I know this about myself and if someone in my life has a problem with it, I'd rather they just ended the friendship than have them constantly complain about it. I have a friend who's vegetarian and its just a topic we don't talk about.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a recent vegan after being vegetarian for 9-10 years.

    I don't think you can truly be a vegan / animal rights activist without advocating your beliefs, but this shouldn't be preachy.

    Promote, don't preach.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Spoiler:
    Show



    Can we keep trigger warnings in posts? Or do you look down upon survivors of that?

    Why is there a reduction to the law? Irregardless of the law you would despise someone doing that.

    And it wasn't that long ago that it was legal.

    So why bring the law into this?
    I'm not saying meat eaters should even be punished. My argument is that they should stop being meat eaters, not that they serve jail time.
    Irregardless doesn't mean anything


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    Ok 1. I'm not looking down on anyone. I just forgot to include a trigger warning. It happens. For the record TRIGGER WARNING TO THE SECOND POINT.
    2. I never said you were implying meat eaters should be punished. My point was that part of the reason rape is seen as more immoral than meat eating is because its a crime. Therefore preaching to someone to stop thinking of rape indifferently or positively is more likely to have some effect than preaching to a meat eater not to eat meat. Furthermore, most meat eaters are not directly harming animals so it's easier to think of it in a more apathetic light. As I said, I personally feel guilty about it but my guilt does not outweigh my enjoyment of certain meats. I know this about myself and if someone in my life has a problem with it, I'd rather they just ended the friendship than have them constantly complain about it. I have a friend who's vegetarian and its just a topic we don't talk about.
    It's only more likely if you choose to follow logical fallacies. Which appears to be what you're doing. Morality cannot be reduced down to law, and something being illegal doesn't make it worse than something being legal.

    Why is it about your guilt and your enjoyment?

    You need to justify why your feelings are more important than the suffering that you cause to animals.

    And as to the last part, sounds a lot like confirmation bias to me.

    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Irregardless doesn't mean anything


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This post doesn't make sense. You need to specify what points are void of meaning.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It's only more likely if you choose to follow logical fallacies. Which appears to be what you're doing. Morality cannot be reduced down to law, and something being illegal doesn't make it worse than something being legal.

    Why is it about your guilt and your enjoyment?

    You need to justify why your feelings are more important than the suffering that you cause to animals.

    And as to the last part, sounds a lot like confirmation bias to me.



    This post doesn't make sense. You need to specify what points are void of meaning.
    Its about my guilt because that's the part of me that cares about the pain I'm causing animals. I'm not saying my feelings are more important. I'm saying they are what influence whether I eat meat or not, how I decide if the animals mean more to me than my enjoyment of meat. That's just how I am. You can think whatever you want about me. But don't preach at me and call me a savage; these are systems I've already tested on myself.

    As for the legal argument, ok you got me. I'll tell it how it is. The majority of people see rape as a worse thing than meat eating. That's just how society is. It's easier to preach to a rapist/rape enthusist because their opinion is not a common one. The may not be convinced its wrong, but they sure as hell can be convinced its abnormal.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    Its about my guilt because that's the part of me that cares about the pain I'm causing animals. I'm not saying my feelings are more important. I'm saying they are what influence whether I eat meat or not, how I decide if the animals mean more to me than my enjoyment of meat. That's just how I am. You can think whatever you want about me. But don't preach at me and call me a savage; these are systems I've already tested on myself.
    I haven't called you a savage. Bu what I don't understand is how what you do is any worse than what people who commit the crime we've just spoken about.

    [/quote]

    As for the legal argument, ok you got me. I'll tell it how it is. The majority of people see rape as a worse thing than meat eating. That's just how society is. It's easier to preach to a rapist/rape enthusist because their opinion is not a common one. The may not be convinced its wrong, but they sure as hell can be convinced its abnormal.[/QUOTE]

    So morality should be reduced to what is or isn't normal or abnormal?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I haven't called you a savage. Bu what I don't understand is how what you do is any worse than what people who commit the crime we've just spoken about.
    Because I'm not directly doing it for one. It makes it easier to live with. I wouldn't expect you to understand. The crime we've spoken about is just worse in my opinion.

    As for the legal argument, ok you got me. I'll tell it how it is. The majority of people see rape as a worse thing than meat eating. That's just how society is. It's easier to preach to a rapist/rape enthusist because their opinion is not a common one. The may not be convinced its wrong, but they sure as hell can be convinced its abnormal.[/QUOTE]

    So morality should be reduced to what is or isn't normal or abnormal?[/QUOTE]

    I was never making a point of what is and isn't moral. My op was arguing about preaching not being effective towards meat eaters. Which it isn't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)

    I was never making a point of what is and isn't moral. My op was arguing about preaching not being effective towards meat eaters. Which it isn't.
    So morally you have no defense.


    You just want to stand on a soap box and say: "meat eaters shouldn't be preached to about the suffering they cause!"?

    Did I get that right?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So morally you have no defense.


    You just want to stand on a soap box and say: "meat eaters shouldn't be preached to about the suffering they cause!"?

    Did I get that right?
    Close. You missed out the "because it's unlikely to make any difference". Plus I involved no soap box. I was simply putting my two cents on the thread.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    Close. You missed out the "because it's unlikely to make any difference". Plus I involved no soap box. I was simply putting my two cents on the thread.
    Basic supply and demand, of course it makes a difference. Which is why more people are turning veggie/vegan and even those that don't are starting to drink less dairy milk and use plant based ones instead.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    i'm a vegetarian but life's too short to be a vegan
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by defenestrated)
    i'm a vegetarian but life's too short to be a vegan
    Nope.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Nope.
    oh
    that really opened my eyes thank you
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by defenestrated)
    oh
    that really opened my eyes thank you
    I thought I'd apply the level of intellect of a 4 year old, as that's what you seemed to do.
 
 
 
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
Do you like carrot cake?
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.