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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Understand the motive but meat is just so good :coma:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    The problem with becoming a vegetarian is iron deficiency, not protein, which you can provide in your diet if you have enough variety of vegetables a day. Also, the other problem is that the iron in vegetables is not well absorbed by the body for which I tend to take supplements. Cereals also provide enough of your daily iron requirement.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Another logically fallacious appeal to nature, with a dose of mistaking plants for sentient beings; that is, beings that can feel pain and suffer. But, even if it were true that plants could feel pain and suffer, you yourself admit that cows eat plants, so by eating meat, you're responsible for both the suffering of the animal and the plants: it takes a lot more plant protein to produce 1kg of meat than it does to produce 1kg of plant protein.

    So, even in that case, there would be a more ethical diet.
    Not fallacious at all.

    I'm not talking about 'sentience.' I'm saying eating any living thing is "wrong."
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    Well, it seemed that we needed.
    That doesn't make any sense.

    But please explain.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I'm not sure there is anything to back that up, other than personal anecdotes. A large portion of vegetarians are likely to be Buddhist, Hindu and Jain.
    What's wrong with middle-class hipsters?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    But a long time has passed since then, no?
    I looveeee meat )))
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    That doesn't make any sense.

    But please explain.
    If it doesn't make any sense then don't say something which you don't understand. I don't think you are even able to explain your own response.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    If it doesn't make any sense then don't say something which you don't understand. I don't think you are even able to explain your own response.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This makes even less sense.

    If you say something which means nothing, it is not anyone else's fault that they cannot understand.

    Your inability to explain otherwise is telling.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Vegans be like...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm actually trying to be a vegetarian. I say trying because I sometimes slip and need to have some meat. However, I've noticed my stomach feels a lot better if I dont eat meat
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    This makes even less sense.

    If you say something which means nothing, it is not anyone else's fault that they cannot understand.

    Your inability to explain otherwise is telling.
    You most likely didn't understand my first post on this thread due to its simplicity, that's why your response was a bit flawed. You said "I wasn't aware anyone needed to be excused". What does that even imply? I need an excuse to become a vegetarian? If so, read my response again.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    Well, it seemed that we needed.
    That really does makes no sense even with context. And grammatically it is appaling.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    If this was an attempt to justify speciesism, it doesn't do much good.

    A society which rejected speciesism would act consistently with its logical conclusions. Changes would not happen instantly, but progress would be made gradually towards the overall goal.
    You must accept that this would inevitably be a human goal chosen by humans. How then can it not be 'speciesist'?

    This reads more as an appeal to undesirable consequences rather than a refutation of anti-speciesism.

    Practically, we would have to gradually make progress, and that involves eliminating the largest instances of suffering first. Mice being killed by combine harvesters can actually be avoided by using better technologies, moving towards veganic farming, and growing more of one's own food in one's house and backyard.

    But, do combine harvesters significantly kill mice in a habitat? A couple of studies have looked at this. Tew and MacDonald conducted a study in 1993. Their results? 1 in 33 mice were killed by the combine harvester. Not exactly significant. Cavia and colleagues did another study in 2005, and found that the density of animals on farms went down after harvesting. Why? They had moved to the forests instead. Mice do have senses, and they can generally move out of the way of combine harvesters.

    It's also worth noting that 40% of the world's grain is actually fed to nonhuman animals reared for meat, so, by consuming meat, one is responsible for the suffering of the nonhuman animals and the death of the odd mouse which may be killed. The expansion of pasture is also one of the best ways to destroy habitat, so grass-fed won't work either.

    As for insects, it's unlikely that they can feel pain or suffer; they are not sentient.

    Anti-speciesism is not to say that humans and nonhuman animals are equal in every respect. Most humans have an interest in continuing to live, and they have future plans and desires which wouldn't be satisfied if they were not to live. Ensuring that the lives of most humans continue, therefore, is more important than ensuring that the lives of most other animals continue, not because they're humans (indeed, severely intellectually disabled humans and human infants are also unable to reason and have no self-awareness), but because they have a preference to continue to live, whereas most nonhuman animals, but for a few, do not.
    This is genuinely amusing. 1 in 33 mice is quite a lot. Can you imagine if we killed 3% of people? And the idea that they just moved into forests! As if no animals previously lived there, or they were underpopulated!

    Now, as for the expansion of pasture, it depends very much where you are. Cutting down rainforest to rear cows is obviously bad. Rearing sheep on grassland land where nothing else would grow (as I mentioned, the North York Moors) is very much less so.

    I might say it's unlikely any non-human animals can suffer. Many scientists may disagree, although not all, but this is why it comes down to a line-setting exercise. Some may suffer and some not. If you say a cow suffer but an insect not, where is the line? A rabbit? A mouse? At least those of us who say we should care about humans alone are logically consistent.

    Then you get quite rambly. Of course humans want to continue to live. There are many ways we might want to ensure our children are able to live (i.e. houses) which may prevent animals from doing the same. How is this any different, morally, from eating meat?

    Let's face it. Abolishing meat production will prevent 58 billion animals from going through the cycle of suffering and death every year.
    Yea, because otherwise all those animals would live happily and unimpeded forever, because that's the way the world works.

    Yet you fail to provide a logical justification for this.
    You fail to provide a logical justification for the counter, so...

    Greenhouse gas emissions are still higher than those from the vast majority of plant-based products, nonetheless, particularly methane emissions.

    Plus, even if we assume that everyone switches to 100% grass-fed beef and lamb, we'd all have to drastically reduce our meat consumption anyway: there's simply not enough land for everyone to keep up their current rate of meat consumption and reduce the impact on sentient beings and environment.

    Essentially, the best way to reduce one's impact on the environment and sentient beings is to go vegan. I am, however, simply making an argument that we should do the most good we can do. I applaud people who reduce their meat consumption with a view to eliminating it, and who even go so far as to support the Reducetarian movement: I'm not an absolutist. In my view, Richard Dawkins put it best when he said: "Full vegetarianism is a noble ideal, but many are intimidated by an illogical fear that it has to be a single major, all-or-nothing leap. Reducetarianism is a good, humane, environment-friendly, step-by-step approach to an ideal whose time will finally come."
    Methane occurs when organic matter is broken down by bacteria. It's actually very prevalent in rice production (a practice which also uses far more water than meat). Which of course is why environmental campaigners are tirelessly campaigning against rice...

    No, but given that many people have nothing to eat at all, taking grain from poor, developing countries where people are starving and feeding it to nonhuman animals in the developed world to satisfy our craving for meat is hardly justifiable.
    There is much more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, the reasons we don't are economic. You can argue against the economic environment if you want, but meat has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    As for antibiotic resistance, a substantial proportion of our antibiotic use in Britain is still dedicated to the meat industry, and recent findings of MRSA strains in pork highlight all too well the dangers of meat production.
    OK, but that's still much, much less than the rest of the world! To the extent antibiotic resistance would continue unabated without us.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    That really does makes no sense even with context. And grammatically it is appaling.
    It makes no sense because you don't want to refer back to the other post.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    You most likely didn't understand my first post on this thread due to its simplicity, that's why your response was a bit flawed. You said "I wasn't aware anyone needed to be excused". What does that even imply? I need an excuse to become a vegetarian? If so, read my response again.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ok so, you started with:

    "Is that your excuse not to become a vegetarian?"

    To which I asked, not unreasonably, why an excuse was needed.

    This you seemed to be unable to explain. and indeed your replies since then have made absolutely no sense. If you think an excuse is necessary, please explain why.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Ok so, you started with:

    "Is that your excuse not to become a vegetarian?"

    To which I asked, not unreasonably, why an excuse was needed.

    This you seemed to be unable to explain. and indeed your replies since then have made absolutely no sense. If you think an excuse is necessary, please explain why.
    Exactly, that's why I said the the other poster seems to have needed an excuse by saying that vegetarians are dumber/more attention seekers. This definitely indicates that the poster decides not to be a vegetarian solely on those grounds, which is an excuse.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    It makes no sense because you don't want to refer back to the other post.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I did refer back to your previous post, that is why I included "with context".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    Exactly, that's why I said the the other poster seems to have needed an excuse by saying that vegetarians are dumber/more attention seekers. This definitely indicates that the poster decides not to be a vegetarian solely on those grounds, which is an excuse.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I cannot speak for him, but it sounded like an observation rather than an excuse.

    I'm interested why you think he would be vegetarian if it weren't for his perception of a vegetarian's intelligence, because to me this seems an unreasonable conclusion.

    Simply out of personal experience, I would say a lot of vegetarians whom I know are otherwise attention-seekers, although of course I would not dream of extending this to their dietary choices.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I cannot speak for him, but it sounded like an observation rather than an excuse.

    I'm interested why you think he would be vegetarian if it weren't for his perception of a vegetarian's intelligence, because to me this seems an unreasonable conclusion.

    Simply out of personal experience, I would say a lot of vegetarians whom I know are otherwise attention-seekers, although of course I would not dream of extending this to their dietary choices.
    It wouldn't be an excuse if he'd said vegetarians are intelligent/not attention seekers, because that would at least partially explain why people would choose to become vegetarians.

    Well, I don't know, that's why his response was just an excuse for not becoming a vegetarian because it would contradict with the idea of people becoming vegetarians.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've been a vegetarian since I was 6. I'm 24 now. I found out what meat was back then and thought it was disgusting. Now, I still think it's nasty so wouldn't go near it, but I'm also aware of the environmental consequences of our insatiable appetite.

    I suppose the knowledge of the process of putting meat on your plate and the consequences of livestock farming are much more readily available today, so many more people are aware of it. Alternative food is also much easier to obtain than it was a few generations ago, so becoming a vegetarian or even vegan is an actual possibility.

    Worth mentioning that being a vegetarian doesn't really solve much of the moral or environmental issues as dairy farming is just as bad as livestock farming. That said, it is still a step in the right direction.
 
 
 
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.