Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is there any real reason to be a vegetarian? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Shall we go on to the section about stunning then? The part before the animal is killed using these methods.

    You said the regulations were vague. However I have shown you the documentation which clearly and concisely proves your allegation to be incorrect.

    But the fact of the matter is that the meat industry would be impossible to ban. Which so many vegans and even vegetarians ask for. I have a lot of respect for those who choose not to eat meat and that is their choice. However I don't particularly like it when they try and preach to me how it is wrong and all meat is bad. There is nothing anyone can say to me to stop me from eating meat. Not even banning the meat industry would stop me.
    loool well if you read my original post, I have already stated I do not preach to people about not eating meat. It is their choice. Also, the regulations you have shown me are vague they say the way the animal may be killed, but they do not state to give the animal pain killers, nor how to kill them with electric or gas. Consequently, animals on the farm result in watching other animals die before they do, get electrocuted which causes severe pain. Not only this how about animals that get branded? or animals that get their tail cut off without pain killers? or stored in horrible conditions they cannot move? Yes, your regulations show how they may be killed, but it is not detailed therefore vague. For some odd reason you think listing a variety of websites proves that your regulations are not vague
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. People only do it to appear cool/edgy/unique/different/emo, or because they're bored.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Troytheboy)
    lAlso, the regulations you have shown me are vague they say the way the animal may be killed, but they do not state to give the animal pain killers, nor how to kill them with electric or gas. Consequently, animals on the farm result in watching other animals die before they do, get electrocuted which causes severe pain. Not only this how about animals that get branded? or animals that get their tail cut off without pain killers? or stored in horrible conditions they cannot move? Yes, your regulations show how they may be killed, but it is not detailed therefore vague. For some odd reason you think listing a variety of websites proves that your regulations are not vague
    The section before killing clearly states how the animals should be stunned.

    Actually Schedule 7 lays out how gas should be used on pigs and birds. And electrocution is not currently used for large animals however it is used on poultry once they have been initially stunned.

    Hot Branding in the UK is illegal as causes unnecessary pain to the animal.

    The removal of tail is done through the use of elastic bands at a young age which cuts off the circulation. This prevents both infecting and pain caused. If the tails are left on pigs, quite often you will see them chewing on each others tail. Which leads to infecting. In lambs longer tails can create birthing problems and fly strike. Neither of which are particularly pleasant for the animal in question.

    The use of battery farming in the UK is once again illegal. It does not allow the animals to have their 5 freedoms and it will also cause them undue stress. The use of sow crates in the pig industry is illegal. There are regulations detailing the minimum requirements for each animals and stocking rate when they are put to grass.

    You haven't even read through the regulations set out. It is all explained quite clearly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trustmeimlying1)
    plants have feelings too
    haha, true
    That's why I only buy reduced flowers - I don't want them feeling sad and getting thrown out (such a waste of life)
    However, fruit and veg have evolved to be eaten and are a way of 'spreading' the seeds ergo it's fine
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roxiepluto)
    haha, true
    That's why I only buy reduced flowers - I don't want them feeling sad and getting thrown out (such a waste of life)
    However, fruit and veg have evolved to be eaten and are a way of 'spreading' the seeds ergo it's fine
    by buying them youre playing a part in their killings!
    GIVEN THEM A MARKET

    fruit and veg would prefer to stay alive thank you
    their seeds dont survive in your loo
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    The section before killing clearly states how the animals should be stunned.

    Actually Schedule 7 lays out how gas should be used on pigs and birds. And electrocution is not currently used for large animals however it is used on poultry once they have been initially stunned.

    Hot Branding in the UK is illegal as causes unnecessary pain to the animal.

    The removal of tail is done through the use of elastic bands at a young age which cuts off the circulation. This prevents both infecting and pain caused. If the tails are left on pigs, quite often you will see them chewing on each others tail. Which leads to infecting. In lambs longer tails can create birthing problems and fly strike. Neither of which are particularly pleasant for the animal in question.

    The use of battery farming in the UK is once again illegal. It does not allow the animals to have their 5 freedoms and it will also cause them undue stress. The use of sow crates in the pig industry is illegal. There are regulations detailing the minimum requirements for each animals and stocking rate when they are put to grass.

    You haven't even read through the regulations set out. It is all explained quite clearly.
    haha fair enough, my bad. I should have read the regulations into more depth. I concede to this debate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stinkum)
    No. People only do it to appear cool/edgy/unique/different/emo, or because they're bored.
    I agree some people become vegetarian to get attention, but there are loads of other reasons. I'm not veggie, I'm a pescetarian, but only because my parents are, so I just didn't grow up eating meat, and the smell of raw meat puts me off trying it. I don't make that association with fish though, which smells even worse .

    I don't think people require a morally/logically flawless argument to be a legitimate vegetarian or vegan or whatever-if they don't want to eat something they don't have to eat it; end of story. The problem starts when they waste hours of their lives telling everyone who they can make listen the reasons they are a vegetarian or try to assume the moral high ground because they don't eat meat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trustmeimlying1)
    by buying them youre playing a part in their killings!
    GIVEN THEM A MARKET

    fruit and veg would prefer to stay alive thank you
    their seeds dont survive in your loo
    lol, I somehow doubt you don't eat fruit/veg or you wouldn't be living long.
    There is currently no scientific evidence that plants suffer like animals do, so I will continue to eat them. If I didn't want to cause harm to anything, I would not be able to live; no one would. However, I am reducing what suffering I can by not eating meat, and working towards not buying any animal products. That is all I can currently do to live as ethically as I can.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattyR2895)
    The only real reason I can see to be a vegetarian is if you happen to dislike the taste of meat, and so you don't eat it, which I suppose technically makes you a vegetarian, but it's not on any kind of ethical grounds.
    I'm a meat eater, so obviously I have no ethical problems with killing animals to eat them, but most vegetarians do, and yet they still consume dairy and eggs? Those industries have the same implications for the animals as the meat industry. The cows that produce milk are killed after a couple of years when they are no longer able to produce the milk, usually they are turned in to meat for people to eat. Same in the egg industry, male cocks are of no use and killed.
    I have nothing against people who are ethically against the consumption of animal products, ie vegans. We just share different ethics. I just think it's hypocritical to say killing animals is wrong and then contribute to the dairy and egg industry, as most vegetarians do.
    Also any self proclaimed 'vegetarians' who still eat fish, gtfo.
    Can't a person be allowed to fall short on their ambition to make ethical choices in food consumption? I take your point about ethical vegetarians who, seemingly arbitrarily, might not apply the same argument against eating fish or eggs as they do to eating beef or lamb, but not many people are perfectly consistent in the application of whatever ethical framework they adopt, whether we're talking about food or other things.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roxiepluto)
    lol, I somehow doubt you don't eat fruit/veg or you wouldn't be living long.
    There is currently no scientific evidence that plants suffer like animals do, so I will continue to eat them. If I didn't want to cause harm to anything, I would not be able to live; no one would. However, I am reducing what suffering I can by not eating meat, and working towards not buying any animal products. That is all I can currently do to live as ethically as I can.
    you could live an awful lot ethnically tbh

    but youre doing no harm doing what youre doing so why not!

    Glory to be god for dappled things-James Hopkins

    Variety is the spice of life
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, being a decent, moral human being.

    At least that's my reasoning.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm an environmental vegetarian. Humans won't last on a meat-based diet and it's environmentally un-sustainable. I'm not sure if you realise but this little blue dot is all we have to call home right now.

    Some of you keep making points of 'humans and animals'. Humans are part of the animal kingdom; we're a species of animal. Sorry folks.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    While I'm not a vegetarian I would turn the question around and ask why he's not a vegetarian. Humans historically needed meat because their plant food source was limited to a few hundred miles (ergo limiting nutrition), this is not the case today.

    Regarding my wider thoughts I have some sympathy because of how inefficient creating meat is in comparison (something like ten times more water required) and also because I find it hypocritical to suggest that its humane to electrocute an animal (death is death) so I may cut meat out of my diet at some point although I don't really care for all the hippy arguments about it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    For me, eating meat and not eating meat is a spectrum - the less meat people eat, the better.

    The ethical argument against eating meat is simple - we are unnecessarily inflicting pain and suffering on nonhuman animals by producing meat, and so being vegetarian is a way to minimise the net suffering in the world.

    Secondly, vegetarianism reduces the catastrophic impact that humans have on the environment. According to a 2006 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations report, the livestock sector makes “large and multiple contributions to air pollution”, and contributes around 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. These figures have also led the United Nations Environment Program to state that “impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth and increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”

    In addition, a vegetarian diet can help to alleviate world hunger, a major problem which will only exacerbate as population growth accelerates. For instance, a Cornell University study found that the grain fed to livestock to get them big enough for commercial use could instead help to feed up to 800 million people.

    As for health, the American Dietetic Association has declared that a vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrients necessary for a healthy diet. Not only that, but a vegetarian diet is likely to provide one with a healthier diet than a non-vegetarian diet: when all factors were controlled, a study of 76,000 people found that vegetarians have a 24% lower chance of getting heart disease than non-vegetarians. Another study conducted by the University of Oxford found that vegetarians have a 32% lower chance of contracting heart disease. In addition, vegetarians have a lower risk of getting most cancers, including colon cancers.

    Furthermore, breeding animals for consumption can harm our health in other ways as well. As Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote in a letter to the US Congress, there is “a clear link between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans”. The existence of this simultaneously potential and existing problem is corroborated by numerous studies into the link between use of antibiotics in animal feedstock and antibiotic resistance.

    So, for me, the question really is: is there any rational justification for maintaining an omnivorous diet? Rational means putting our emotional attachment to meat aside, which discounts the "meat is tasty" argument immediately. The answer to that question, as far as I can tell, is no.

    EDIT: On the eggs and milk issue, it's true that some vegetarians continue to consume these products, but, as I said at the start of the post, it's a spectrum. Also, some vegetarians do have some justification for continuing to eat eggs, as long as they are free range: while I don't agree with this position, some vegetarians are only interested in the suffering that animals endure when they are being prepared for slaughter, not the slaughter itself, which they may believe to be relatively quick. And, because chickens, for instance, don't seem to be too bothered when their eggs are taken away, they see no reason not to eat free range eggs.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with what you are saying, if I gave up meat I would have to give up eggs and dairy too. Layer hens and dairy cows quality of life is not much different to their meat equivalent, they don't live much longer, they are still killed and the nature of the production system results in a lot of surplus (and therefore culled) males.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattyR2895)
    The only real reason I can see to be a vegetarian is if you happen to dislike the taste of meat, and so you don't eat it, which I suppose technically makes you a vegetarian, but it's not on any kind of ethical grounds.
    I'm a meat eater, so obviously I have no ethical problems with killing animals to eat them, but most vegetarians do, and yet they still consume dairy and eggs? Those industries have the same implications for the animals as the meat industry. The cows that produce milk are killed after a couple of years when they are no longer able to produce the milk, usually they are turned in to meat for people to eat. Same in the egg industry, male cocks are of no use and killed.
    I have nothing against people who are ethically against the consumption of animal products, ie vegans. We just share different ethics. I just think it's hypocritical to say killing animals is wrong and then contribute to the dairy and egg industry, as most vegetarians do.
    Also any self proclaimed 'vegetarians' who still eat fish, gtfo.
    That depends on what you consider a "real" reason. Eating meat implies killing/murder. Some people are fine with that and some people are not. Some people were fine with slavery and some were not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    That depends on what you consider a "real" reason. Eating meat implies killing/murder. Some people are fine with that and some people are not. Some people were fine with slavery and some were not.
    Killing, somewhat, murder, definitely not. One would assume that the animal was raised for the express reason of killing it for food, which is generally the case, but not always. And murder has nothing at all to do with it.

    "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Killing, somewhat, murder, definitely not. One would assume that the animal was raised for the express reason of killing it for food, which is generally the case, but not always. And murder has nothing at all to do with it.

    "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide."
    The use of murder here simply means "killing with aforethought of another lifeform". The point is that we kill because pleasure is a by-product of it. In this we are the same with all other life forms.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    The use of murder here simply means "killing with aforethought of another lifeform". The point is that we kill because pleasure is a by-product of it. In this we are the same with all other life forms.
    But we also kill through necessity, again, like a large number of other life forms.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But we also kill through necessity, again, like a large number of other life forms.
    I wouldn't call it a ncessity.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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