or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Death or This God-awful threak?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Death or This God-awful threak? - Page 13

post #181 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
It isn't refuted, it is qualified. Big difference.

Fine, but it's a very large qualification, one that doesn't mesh with most contemporary practices in agriculture.
post #182 of 345
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage Gent View Post
Reduced incidence of illness and disease--e.g. cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer.
This is not quality of life, or at least only a small part of it. We can't run around imposing our own values on others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage Gent View Post
Fine, but it's a very large qualification, one that doesn't mesh with most contemporary practices in agriculture.
It pretty much meshes with my own life, which, if this is even an ethical issue at all (I say it isn't) is all I can deal with. I might consume slightly more meat than that, not much, but afaik, I don't eat any meat that is not local. It isn't so much that I care, but that I have great local options.
post #183 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
What if I weight eating meat strongly in terms of utils compared to health benefits?

Then it's your choice. And, presumably, it works for you. And it makes me no never mind.
post #184 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
How did you draw an arbitrary line between the Animal and plant kingdoms and decide one was ok and another was not?

What's the logical basis for being a vegetarian?

Arbitrary line? Humans are animals, we can relate to most other animals in at least some ways.

Try and minimize your contribution to the pain/suffering/death of animals as much as you are willing or able, that's the basis of vegetarians and vegans.
post #185 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
We can't run around imposing our own values on others.

That has been my point from moment one in this thread. I chose not to eat foods derived from animals, but have absolutely no interest in imposing my values on others. I just ask for the same respect from the meat eating crowd.
post #186 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosu3 View Post
Arbitrary line? Humans are animals, we can relate to most other animals in at least some ways.

Try and minimize your contribution to the pain/suffering/death of animals as much as you are willing or able, that's the basis of vegetarians and vegans.

Humans are also organisms, plants are organisms why don't you try to minimize plant death?

I already refuted your argument about pain and suffering since not all animals feel pain or suffer in order to be eaten.
post #187 of 345
Veganism... It's really not that hard. Plenty of tasty meals to choose from:

Boca Burgers taste great.
Good ol' spaghetti & red sauce.
Salad w/ olive oil & vinegar.
Eggplant makes a great sandwich.
Portabello mushrooms are tasty.

Yeah, why not?
post #188 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
Humans are also organisms, plants are organisms why don't you try to minimize plant death?

I already refuted your argument about pain and suffering since not all animals feel pain or suffer in order to be eaten.

Plants are needed for survival. Being an organism is just similarities, but we still can't relate to them the way we can animals.

Which animals don't feel pain or suffer?
post #189 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosu3 View Post
Plants are needed for survival. Being an organism is just similarities, but we still can't relate to them the way we can animals.

Which animals don't feel pain or suffer?

you misudnerstnad the point of suffering and pain which assuredly plants do have soem sense of... if a lant is damaged does it not produce a diffrent chemicals etc to repair the damage? pain would be the way an animal is aware of damage to it´s body correct? if plants coudl not be aware of damage doen their body repair processes would nto occur.
post #190 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage Gent View Post
OK, gents, I know it's inconvenient to let facts get in the way, but Slate examined this very question:

http://www.slate.com/id/2176420

I have no idea why you quoted me here. In no way, shape, or form does this link refute my comment. Please do not say it was not meant to, as then quoting me was a complete non sequitur.

Damn, I am really hungry now and I really want some foie gras tonight. If Chef doesn't have some in-house for me, I'm going to be pissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
This is the height of silliness.

It's the height of teenage mentality. "My position is so mind boggling, so correct, so avante guard...you can't deal with it!"
post #191 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosu3 View Post
Plants are needed for survival. Being an organism is just similarities, but we still can't relate to them the way we can animals. Which animals don't feel pain or suffer?
Oysters do not feel pain. And what do you mean by pain/suffering? If you block the sunlight to a plant it reacts to stimuli, which is part of our biological definition for an organism. Some animals (mostly mammals) have faster reactions to stimuli (your idea of pain) compared to others which do not react as quickly. How/where do you draw the line? We have kingdoms as a tier of taxonomic rank and for ease of categorization, is that all you're going by? Some rules that have changed quite a few times in the past that are more or less arbitrary and not definite? Why can't we relate to plants the way we relate to animals? Arbitrary line? We don't need plants for survival, you can live off of just fungi/mushrooms.
post #192 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
Oysters do not feel pain. And what do you mean by pain/suffering? If you block the sunlight to a plant it reacts to stimuli, which is part of our biological definition for an organism. Some animals (mostly mammals) have faster reactions to stimuli (your idea of pain) compared to others which do not react as quickly. How/where do you draw the line?

We have kingdoms as a tier of taxonomic rank and for ease of categorization, is that all you're going by? Some rules that have changed quite a few times in the past that are more or less arbitrary and not definite?

Why can't we relate to plants the way we relate to animals? Arbitrary line? We don't need plants for survival, you can live off of just fungi/mushrooms.

Personally, I don't have a clear line. I focus mostly on the cognition of animal species and its closeness/similarities to humans. From an environmentalist perspective, I'd be concerned with more things like sustainability, endangered species, or just unnecessary killing.

Tell me, in which ways can we relate to plants as we can animals?

I'm pretty sure one can't get proper nutrition from fungi alone as a food source.
post #193 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
It's the height of teenage mentality. "My position is so mind boggling, so correct, so avante guard...you can't deal with it!"

That's rich. There are people here asking if oral sex is vegan, and I'm the one with the teenage mentality.

I'm not claiming to be enlightened, avant-garde, or anything else. Vegetarianism does not confer saintliness. I'm not even one of them! I just think people deserve to be called on it when they say stupid things or make illogical arguments (see, e.g., "If I had my way IRL, all vegetarians and vegans would be shot;" "vegan parents are negligent")

I'm not the only one to have noticed the irrational response vegetarians and vegans get - some here have said the same thing, others here have demonstrated it, and I know people that get the same stupid flack every single day (the bingo board didn't come from thin air). I'm not imagining it, just offering an explanation.
post #194 of 345
I'm not against vegetarianism as a whole, I just find it funny picking at their justification/reasoning for being vegetarian. Vegetarians, like most people are irrational but don't really realize it, which is why its so fun. I also think its hilarious when vegetarians are militant about it. In the future, if you're vegetarian, just take the "religious reasons" route, it'll make it much easier when you realize your position is more or less indefensible, at least blanket vegetarianism is.
post #195 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
In the future, if you're vegetarian, just take the "religious reasons" route, it'll make it much easier when you realize your position is more or less indefensible, at least blanket vegetarianism is.
"Indefensible?" How much more of a reason does someone need than doing it because it's what they choose?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Death or This God-awful threak?