No, they wouldn't, because they'd be too busy chewing on the carcasses of weaker organisms.
I take no issue with vegetarians/vegans, but I've never quite understood this particular argument. If you don't like the taste of meat - fine. If you just don't like the idea of eating meat - that's okay too. If you object to the treatment animals receive in farms or for slaughter - absolutely, and I agree. But to revert it to some patronizing sermon on the morality of being animal is insane to me. Living things subsist on other living things because if we ate rocks, we'd have run out of rocks by now. That's what life is. The fuel which consumes itself.
What's the line anyway? Are plants not also living beings? Is baby corn not mercilessly slaughtered in the fields every day? Or are we only protesting treatment of things that can make cutesy-wutesy eyes at you.
Maybe you can explain in it a way I can understand, and I'm willing to listen, but in the meantime don't equate me with an animal abuser because I've eaten a chicken wing.
We already know this. It's a matter of using/changing to technologies that reduce this risk. But in any case, you "reason" is just a red herring to distract away from the real underlying premise. Nice try, no dice.
my point is that if you eat veggies to spare animal life ... and your actions still end up with dead animals... what's the difference?
if anything it just brings to light what i really feel - people automatically assume if they can't actually see the dead animal then it's not an issue.
Like cows. It's a known fact that dead cows are processed and used for many things, including most of our hygiene supplies. (like tooth paste, after shave, etc). Many so-called vegans still use these products because... they can't see the dead cow so it's not an issue.
I mean don't get me wrong. I won't force vegans to eat meat but... I do believe people should be honest with themselves too. Don't pretend you aren't killing an animal just because you can't personally see it die. Look at what goes into everything you use first.
I am a veggie, so I'll try and explain my point of view. I can't speak for all veggies, as we are all different and have different reasons, but this is my personal perspective.
I don't think it makes any difference who directly slaughters the animal. By buying the meat you are endorsing and funding the industry. It is the equivalent of hiring an assassin on a human being; sure the assassin takes some responsibility, but so does the person who paid for the hit. By buying the meat, you are indirectly the killer. That is the way I see it.
I agree that a vague, arbitrary arguement about morality as a fellow animal is unreasonable.
It is a difficult feeling to express at why I choose to draw the line at plants, but I'll do my best. The reason I draw the line at plants is because plants are not considered to have senses, at least not in the way that we can understand them. They have nothing comparable to a brain. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that's why I draw it at plants. I will not eat an insect for this reason. I would eat an animal without a brain or senses, such as a jellyfish if they were not poisonous.
I would protest against the killing of all animals, but you should understand that for me it is still a "sliding scale". Insects are less intelligent, less "aware of their senses", so they should be more readily sacrificed than, say, a cow. Even though the death of an insect is, of course, a horrible thing, it is not approaching as bad as the death of a larger, "more self-aware" animal.
That is just my personal perspective. I hope it makes some sense to you.
The only thing I was really protesting was the idea that meat-eaters are of a lesser moral fiber. Abstention is what I call "convenient activism". It requires minimal effort and makes minimal difference (arguably none). I understand that I'm complicit in a lot of disgusting business practices - this is impossible to avoid considering all industries are dominated by mega-entities that hardly answer to anyone. But to give oneself a moral throne for what essentially amounts to flicking a pebble at a city wall is bizarre to me (I'm not suggesting you're doing this). Now, if someone were to build a trebuchet, they'd certainly earn respect.
Regarding your last paragraph - I think it might be better not to protest the KILLING of all animals, but rather the HARM. Like I said, it is impossible to not kill. If we didn't, we wouldn't eat, wouldn't live, and life would perish. The curse of human consciousness is that we wince when we kill - but arbitrary lines aside, it's a necessary thing. It's a part of life. It IS life.
The thing about "convenient activism" is that if there was more effort, the difference made may be less, due to the number of people alienated. Like the Jehovah's Wittness's that knock on doors; they alienate far more people than they would recruit by doing nothing at all, despite the increased effort. I'll explain further:
The arguement of many veggies would be that if far more people were veggies then impact *would* be made, but it would need to start with a small number of people to spread it. That is why so many veggies are passionate about converting people; because they know their cause is almost worthless unless more join their ranks. They are trying to build a "trebuchet", as you poetically put it, but doing so alienates a great many people and is quite possibly counter-productive. So all that can be done is flick pebbles, because all attempts to built trebuchets invariably produce negative results regardless of effort.
Maybe not to protest against killing totally, but the protest to *minimalise* the killing as far as possible. I accept that some animals will always be killed; as you say, it is a fact of life. And the less harm the better.
I couldn't agree more, that's exactly the reason I'm a veggie too, so you definitely make sense:) Although I don't eat fish, I kind of consider myself a pescetarian because I don't believe that fish are self aware enough to feel guilty for killing them, I mean the only reason I don't eat them is because they disgust me so muchD:! Anywhoooooo, I agree:P
You don't know that. You have genuinely NO CLUE what other species feel/think, and humans are only now admitting that and acknowledging it. All this time, it's been assumptions made by humans, that is all. Remember that.
And, humans biology doesn't require the eating of meat at all. In fact, it's not in our nutritional advantage to eat it, regardless of what the animal-industries have told societies through advertising. It's always been done as a sign of conspicuous consumption and dominance, and that doesn't "justify" any human behaviours.
Then there are the environmental consequences of both "hunting" and farming other species: humans always select the opposite of what naturally-evolved predators select. Humans want the biggest and strongest, which hurts the population, while natural predators take the old, weak, and sick. Factory farming causes diseases, pollution, deforestation, waste of huge volumes of water, misuse of plant crops, and in the end it produces a much smaller amount of "food" for a smaller group of humans.
There are many more reasons, but suffice it to say that when one sits in a privileged position, the perspective you expressed isn't surprising at all. But just because we as humans *can* do something doesn't mean we should be doing it, that it's a good thing for all involved, and that there aren't consequences.
Again, I completely agree that factory and farm conditions are horrific and should be completely overhauled, and animals should be treated humanely. But abstaining from meat is the easiest form of 'convenient activism' that has somehow led you to believe that you are of a better moral fortitude than the rest of us. You specifically said that people who eat meat are the "lowest of the low" in response to a question asking about people who "don't deserve love". I'd agree that that's unnecessary and extreme.
Take a trip into the wild and see if any predator will hesitate to devour you with no regard for your safety and health, and then tell me that they "might say otherwise". Better yet, take the fight to the regulatory oversight and make a difference that way. But don't patronize just because you chose the salad bar.
Have you ever walked the bushveld, alone, without a weapon? You immediately understand how small and alone a human really is, and that we're not all there is out there. Looking into the eyes of a lion that is just a few paces away from you and calculating how fast you can make it back to the Jeep will give you a new sense of appreciation for other species.
But the point is that a lion evolved to be a carnivore, and humans did not.
Is it normal that in my opinion some people don't deserve love?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I don't think meat eaters should be included in that list. Thats a bit unnecessary and extreme.
--
Saggists_DntWorry1204
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
You know what scratch that...not even a 'bit' - it IS unnecessary and extreme.
--
MahBoi24
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-4
-4
Agreed. People who eat meat generally don't kill them, unless you hunt. There's a REASON humans have canines.
It depends on whose perspective you take. If it were other species, they might say otherwise.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
5
5
No, they wouldn't, because they'd be too busy chewing on the carcasses of weaker organisms.
I take no issue with vegetarians/vegans, but I've never quite understood this particular argument. If you don't like the taste of meat - fine. If you just don't like the idea of eating meat - that's okay too. If you object to the treatment animals receive in farms or for slaughter - absolutely, and I agree. But to revert it to some patronizing sermon on the morality of being animal is insane to me. Living things subsist on other living things because if we ate rocks, we'd have run out of rocks by now. That's what life is. The fuel which consumes itself.
What's the line anyway? Are plants not also living beings? Is baby corn not mercilessly slaughtered in the fields every day? Or are we only protesting treatment of things that can make cutesy-wutesy eyes at you.
Maybe you can explain in it a way I can understand, and I'm willing to listen, but in the meantime don't equate me with an animal abuser because I've eaten a chicken wing.
--
Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Not to mention, when you harvest vegetables the animals that live in the crop fields get caught up in the machines.
so even eating veggies only... can cause the deaths of animals.
the only difference is that you don't SEE the dead animals afterwards cos they get thrown away.
--
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We already know this. It's a matter of using/changing to technologies that reduce this risk. But in any case, you "reason" is just a red herring to distract away from the real underlying premise. Nice try, no dice.
--
Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
See More Comments =>
my point is that if you eat veggies to spare animal life ... and your actions still end up with dead animals... what's the difference?
if anything it just brings to light what i really feel - people automatically assume if they can't actually see the dead animal then it's not an issue.
Like cows. It's a known fact that dead cows are processed and used for many things, including most of our hygiene supplies. (like tooth paste, after shave, etc). Many so-called vegans still use these products because... they can't see the dead cow so it's not an issue.
I mean don't get me wrong. I won't force vegans to eat meat but... I do believe people should be honest with themselves too. Don't pretend you aren't killing an animal just because you can't personally see it die. Look at what goes into everything you use first.
I am a veggie, so I'll try and explain my point of view. I can't speak for all veggies, as we are all different and have different reasons, but this is my personal perspective.
I don't think it makes any difference who directly slaughters the animal. By buying the meat you are endorsing and funding the industry. It is the equivalent of hiring an assassin on a human being; sure the assassin takes some responsibility, but so does the person who paid for the hit. By buying the meat, you are indirectly the killer. That is the way I see it.
I agree that a vague, arbitrary arguement about morality as a fellow animal is unreasonable.
It is a difficult feeling to express at why I choose to draw the line at plants, but I'll do my best. The reason I draw the line at plants is because plants are not considered to have senses, at least not in the way that we can understand them. They have nothing comparable to a brain. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that's why I draw it at plants. I will not eat an insect for this reason. I would eat an animal without a brain or senses, such as a jellyfish if they were not poisonous.
I would protest against the killing of all animals, but you should understand that for me it is still a "sliding scale". Insects are less intelligent, less "aware of their senses", so they should be more readily sacrificed than, say, a cow. Even though the death of an insect is, of course, a horrible thing, it is not approaching as bad as the death of a larger, "more self-aware" animal.
That is just my personal perspective. I hope it makes some sense to you.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Makes sense to me.
The only thing I was really protesting was the idea that meat-eaters are of a lesser moral fiber. Abstention is what I call "convenient activism". It requires minimal effort and makes minimal difference (arguably none). I understand that I'm complicit in a lot of disgusting business practices - this is impossible to avoid considering all industries are dominated by mega-entities that hardly answer to anyone. But to give oneself a moral throne for what essentially amounts to flicking a pebble at a city wall is bizarre to me (I'm not suggesting you're doing this). Now, if someone were to build a trebuchet, they'd certainly earn respect.
Regarding your last paragraph - I think it might be better not to protest the KILLING of all animals, but rather the HARM. Like I said, it is impossible to not kill. If we didn't, we wouldn't eat, wouldn't live, and life would perish. The curse of human consciousness is that we wince when we kill - but arbitrary lines aside, it's a necessary thing. It's a part of life. It IS life.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
The thing about "convenient activism" is that if there was more effort, the difference made may be less, due to the number of people alienated. Like the Jehovah's Wittness's that knock on doors; they alienate far more people than they would recruit by doing nothing at all, despite the increased effort. I'll explain further:
The arguement of many veggies would be that if far more people were veggies then impact *would* be made, but it would need to start with a small number of people to spread it. That is why so many veggies are passionate about converting people; because they know their cause is almost worthless unless more join their ranks. They are trying to build a "trebuchet", as you poetically put it, but doing so alienates a great many people and is quite possibly counter-productive. So all that can be done is flick pebbles, because all attempts to built trebuchets invariably produce negative results regardless of effort.
Maybe not to protest against killing totally, but the protest to *minimalise* the killing as far as possible. I accept that some animals will always be killed; as you say, it is a fact of life. And the less harm the better.
I couldn't agree more, that's exactly the reason I'm a veggie too, so you definitely make sense:) Although I don't eat fish, I kind of consider myself a pescetarian because I don't believe that fish are self aware enough to feel guilty for killing them, I mean the only reason I don't eat them is because they disgust me so muchD:! Anywhoooooo, I agree:P
You don't know that. You have genuinely NO CLUE what other species feel/think, and humans are only now admitting that and acknowledging it. All this time, it's been assumptions made by humans, that is all. Remember that.
And, humans biology doesn't require the eating of meat at all. In fact, it's not in our nutritional advantage to eat it, regardless of what the animal-industries have told societies through advertising. It's always been done as a sign of conspicuous consumption and dominance, and that doesn't "justify" any human behaviours.
Then there are the environmental consequences of both "hunting" and farming other species: humans always select the opposite of what naturally-evolved predators select. Humans want the biggest and strongest, which hurts the population, while natural predators take the old, weak, and sick. Factory farming causes diseases, pollution, deforestation, waste of huge volumes of water, misuse of plant crops, and in the end it produces a much smaller amount of "food" for a smaller group of humans.
There are many more reasons, but suffice it to say that when one sits in a privileged position, the perspective you expressed isn't surprising at all. But just because we as humans *can* do something doesn't mean we should be doing it, that it's a good thing for all involved, and that there aren't consequences.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Again, I completely agree that factory and farm conditions are horrific and should be completely overhauled, and animals should be treated humanely. But abstaining from meat is the easiest form of 'convenient activism' that has somehow led you to believe that you are of a better moral fortitude than the rest of us. You specifically said that people who eat meat are the "lowest of the low" in response to a question asking about people who "don't deserve love". I'd agree that that's unnecessary and extreme.
Take a trip into the wild and see if any predator will hesitate to devour you with no regard for your safety and health, and then tell me that they "might say otherwise". Better yet, take the fight to the regulatory oversight and make a difference that way. But don't patronize just because you chose the salad bar.
--
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Have you ever walked the bushveld, alone, without a weapon? You immediately understand how small and alone a human really is, and that we're not all there is out there. Looking into the eyes of a lion that is just a few paces away from you and calculating how fast you can make it back to the Jeep will give you a new sense of appreciation for other species.
But the point is that a lion evolved to be a carnivore, and humans did not.
This is now way off topic, but I've also never understood the argument that we have no clue what animals think.
Technically, we have no clue what ANYONE thinks. That doesn't mean we can't infer.