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

Why are more people becoming Vegetarian? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Out of interest, do you use or would you use any product tested on animals?
    I'm not replying to trolls. If a non-troll asks I'll happily reply to the content. But you have shown your intentions already as that of being a troll. Now go do one.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    I have no interest in playing games like this with you.
    Heaven forbid that you put down a reply with intelligent thought where you try to avoid contradictions.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehrdad jafari)
    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
    I would genuinely like to know what this means.

    Edit: I think I understand, any idea which contradicts the basic premises of vegetarianism is an excuse, or something. I feel that this is pushing the definition of 'excuse' to its limit. I could very well say you believing that eating meat is wrong is merely your 'excuse' for not eating meat.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I would genuinely like to know what this means.

    Edit: I think I understand, any idea which contradicts the basic premises of vegetarianism is an excuse, or something. I feel that this is pushing the definition of 'excuse' to its limit. I could very well say you believing that eating meat is wrong is merely your 'excuse' for not eating meat.
    Becoming a vegetarian is not an easy thing that's why some people tend to have excuses for not becoming one. I can easily get one with my daily life eating whatever I want from chicken wings to turkey, I don't need to have an excuse for refusing to stay non-vegetarian.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm not replying to trolls. If a non-troll asks I'll happily reply to the content. But you have shown your intentions already as that of being a troll. Now go do one.
    Shall I take that as a yes, or are you dodging the question?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Not fallacious at all. I'm not talking about 'sentience.' I'm saying eating any living thing is "wrong."
    Why is it wrong?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    You must accept that this would inevitably be a human goal chosen by humans. How then can it not be 'speciesist'?
    A human goal chosen by humans to equally consider the interests of all sentient beings is not speciesist.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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!
    You still ignore the fact that mice deaths are not necessary in plant-based agriculture: as I stated, different technologies would kill even fewer mice, and veganic farming and backyard farming would kill none.

    You also ignore the fact that, to acquire the same amount of calories and protein from grass-fed beef and sheep as we do from, say, soya and corn, we require substantially more land. The animal scientist Steven Davis estimates that, on average, 7.5 wild animals per hectare per year are killed on grass-fed systems. Yet, in the Tew and MacDonald study, only 1 animal in 1.32 hectares was killed by a combine harvester, meaning that 0.76 animals per hectare per year are killed in plant-based agriculture. Even if we include the wild-animal on wild-animal suffering, when you factor in the fact that we require far fewer hectares of land to grow plant-based products, then veganism still comes out as the diet that causes the least suffering.

    Furthermore, your comparison to people is fallacious: mice are neither rational nor self-aware, therefore they have no interest in continuing to live. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the meat produced in Britain - and the world - is responsible for deaths in plant-based agriculture too.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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.
    Again, raising sheep in the North York Moors isn't going to feed everyone - in fact, it'll barely feed anyone! And, there are plenty of wild animals even there who would regularly have to be culled, and there would invariably be deaths from expanding the pasture too. On top of this, it's still substantially worse for the environment than growing most plant-based foods.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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.
    It doesn't come down to a line-setting exercise. Firstly, the idea that we're the only species can suffer is laughable. The neurophysiological structures that allow us to suffer are also present in most nonhuman animals; they're evolutionarily ancient compared to the structures that allow us to engage in higher reasoning, for instance. To claim that nonhuman animals can't suffer is akin to me claiming that the capacity to suffer only emerged when I was born, and that myself and people who were born after me are the only people who can suffer.

    Indeed, it's incredibly self-serving, and the evidence that, say, severely intellectually disabled humans and human infants can suffer is identical to the evidence in favour of nonhuman animal suffering: they have the same neurophysiological structures as we do; their behavioural responses are similar, and so on. The only additional piece of evidence we have when it comes to normal humans is that they can speak the same language as us and so communicate their suffering in this format.

    And you're again making a fallacious appeal to undesirable consequences, namely the exercise of having to determine which animals can suffer and which can not. This is not a burdensome exercise: insects lack the neurophysiological structures that allow us to suffer, and they also continue to behave in an identical fashion to before they were subjected to a potential source of pain.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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?
    It's surprising that you cannot see the distinction between meeting basic human needs and eating meat. As I said, most humans have an interest in continuing to live, whereas most nonhuman animals do not. Indirectly killing animals to allow humans to continue to live is therefore not morally problematic.

    Causing nonhuman animals to suffer unnecessarily to satisfy a base desire for their flesh is morally problematic, particularly when it contributes to a large extent to environmental destruction.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Yea, because otherwise all those animals would live happily and unimpeded forever, because that's the way the world works.
    No, those animals would be phased out and become extinct. In a non-speciesist, vegan world, the remaining animals would likely be kept in sanctuaries (numerous sanctuaries already exist that rescue nonhuman animals from the meat industry) and sterilised.

    Releasing them into the wild would not be an option if they would suffer as a result.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    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...
    For a start, this claim is disputed. The Environmental Working Group, for example, deems rice to be associated with few greenhouse gas emissions. But, even so, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, citing a number of peer-reviewed studies, found that ruminants were still associated with more methane emissions than rice, and it's worth bearing in mind that rice is not a requirement in a vegetarian diet by any means.

    As for water, 1kg of beef requires 15,415 litres of water, compared to a meagre 2,497 litres for 1kg of rice.

    This argument is, again, logically fallacious. "Rice is bad too, therefore meat" is not an argument. It suffers even further from the fact meat is still worse than rice.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    OK, but that's still much, much less than the rest of the world! To the extent antibiotic resistance would continue unabated without us.
    Antibiotic resistance would still continue even if everyone in my street didn't finish their course of antibiotics and my GP surgery was giving me antibiotics to take en masse.

    That doesn't mean that the residents of my street and the GPs aren't being completely irresponsible, because they're increasing the risk of something which could have massive consequences.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm not sure that vegetarianism does any good. Most meat is replaced by more dairy and eggs, and those industries are just as bad as the meat industry.
    Is there any evidence that meat is replaced by dairy and eggs if someone becomes vegetarian, rather than just them continuing to consume the same amounts of milk, eggs, etc after cutting out meat?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Is there any evidence that meat is replaced by dairy and eggs if someone becomes vegetarian, rather than just them continuing to consume the same amounts of milk, eggs, etc after cutting out meat?
    Quorn.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    I've been at a farm for a few weeks as part of my degree and it's honestly made me seriously consider being a vegetarian. It really upset me hearing the farmer say which ones are going for slaughter etc, knowing those poor piglets are only there so they can one day be killed for food. For me, it would be a moral thing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Partially because people are getting softer, partially because there is more publicity about how the meat is obtained
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I can see why morally people would become vegetarian and it's being gradually more exposed how corrupt the industry is. Personally thinking about it makes me uncomfortable but I just like meat too much. Plus I'm a fussy eater so becoming veggie would limit my options even more. I respect people with the restraint but I don't have it.

    However I do agree that a degree of it is a fashion thing. Less for the average joe but among the "social elite" it's definately seen as a status symbol.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Why is it wrong?
    Ask the vegetarians. Thats why its in quotes
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Partially because people are getting softer, partially because there is more publicity about how the meat is obtained
    What does 'softer' mean?
    Are you linking any expression of morality or emotion to weakness? Or is it something else?

    (Original post by EllieC130)
    I can see why morally people would become vegetarian and it's being gradually more exposed how corrupt the industry is. Personally thinking about it makes me uncomfortable but I just like meat too much. Plus I'm a fussy eater so becoming veggie would limit my options even more. I respect people with the restraint but I don't have it.

    However I do agree that a degree of it is a fashion thing. Less for the average joe but among the "social elite" it's definately seen as a status symbol.
    So you think you ought to be a vegetarian, you just can't be bothered?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    What does 'softer' mean?
    Are you linking any expression of morality or emotion to weakness? Or is it something else?
    Just generally - whether it be what would've been called a minor injury being considered major. Or just going gentler on punishing people. Britain has lost the stiff upper lip stereotype.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Ask the vegetarians. Thats why its in quotes
    I'm a vegan, and I don't think that eating every living being is wrong.

    Has anybody in this discussion stated that eating every living being is wrong, or are you just propping up a convenient strawman argument? Who are you quoting as saying eating any living being is wrong?

    The vast majority of vegetarians believe that raising sentient beings for meat is wrong. You stated: "I would because it's just the way of life lol. Lions and other animals eat other animals. Cows also still eat living beings (plants). The only organisms that don't harm innocent living beings are certain micro organisms (even plants end up killing other plants to survive). The rest of us have to kill to survive (including herbivores)."

    You were responding to a comment asking meat-eaters whether they would kill an animal for its meat themselves, and you said you would "because it's just the way of life lol". So, you were making a logically fallacious appeal to nature, and you were making the hilarious "lions do it too" argument to support your position.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SCIENCE :D)
    An increasing number of people I know seem to be turning to vegetarianism, is it fashionable to become vegetarian now, or are peoples morals changing?
    It is declining.


    Unless you take India into account where there is a population crises. , they have a billion strong populatin in which Hinduism and Jainism is followed by 65% . They kill anyone who eats meat.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Just generally - whether it be what would've been called a minor injury being considered major. Or just going gentler on punishing people. Britain has lost the stiff upper lip stereotype.
    I don't really understand what you mean with this in relation to being veggie.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I don't really understand what you mean with this in relation to being veggie.
    In the olden days people probably wouldn't have cared as much about the animals.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    In the olden days people probably wouldn't have cared as much about the animals.
    So you are saying that caring about others is weak.
    Given that it has been okay for women to care about things I'm going to make a tiny leap here:
    You're saying being veggie is at odds with being masculine?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.