This is a public discussion and I am at liberty to comment on anything you say here. If you wanted a private one-on-one discussion, then you're doing it wrong.

Also, to address your last comment. Just because there is a bigger market for something, based on the cultural/societal norm, doesn't mean that the market demand is morally acceptable. There was a bigger market for slave trading 300 years ago, but it would be ignorant to say "It's no coincidence that there's a much bigger market for blacks as slaves, and whites as friendly neighbors." — chatterbears

But that doesn't address my comment. My comment was picking up on your faux questioning which is really just rhetorical. You're asking questions which you already know the answer to, which is superficial. You aren't seeking knowledge, you just don't like the answer.

Alternatively, just continue to eat what you feel you should be eating, and let others do the same. — Txastopher

Other people's actions have an impact on the world around us. You don't live in a vacuum, as your actions and beliefs will also affect the lives of other people. Eating animal products causes more harm to the environment (which also affects other people, not just you), rather than eating a plant-based diet. To suggest "Let others live how they feel they should live", is completely ignorant to the harm that can come from that type of mindset.

The problem here is not the vegan diet, the problem is vegan self-righteousness. — Txastopher

The problem here is the meat eater's blatant disregard for the harm that animal products cause. Not just to the environment or the health of humans, but also the animals themselves. Would you call the activists in favor of the prohibition of slavery 200 years ago, an act of self-righteousness? Vegans are trying to minimize the harm and suffering, just as slavery opposition was trying to do the same. If you want to equate that to self-righteousness, that's your problem.

At some point, a vegan on this thread claimed that veganism is the sole logical conclusion of ethical thinking on diet. Well, it's been shown in multiple ways that this is a false claim. — Txastopher

It's a false claim that all the scientific peer reviewed journals point to the same data of a plant-based diet is the least harmful to the environment, our health and the animal's welfare? To state it is a false claim, is to state that scientific evidence is not valid, which it's complete nonsense.

But if you're not referring to the scientific portion, and strictly the philosophical part of animal ethics, you can get to Veganism by logical consistency.

Feel free to take this consistency test I made, and tell me your results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1157oWUs6KYeRAKATUEKisl6LsGvEATYfc_OQeZN87vE/edit?usp=sharing

I'm going to duck out of this thread now. I don't think I have anything more to say on the subject. — Txastopher

Not surprised. See ya.

This is a public discussion and I am at liberty to comment on anything you say here. If you wanted a private one-on-one discussion, then you're doing it wrong. — Sapientia

If you want to comment and jump in to ask about comments I made out of context you don't understand, then you're the one who is doing it wrong.

But that doesn't address my comment. My comment was picking up on your faux questioning which is really just rhetorical. You're asking questions which you already know the answer to, which is superficial. You aren't seeking knowledge, you just don't like the answer. — Sapientia

What exact question [and be specific] is a rhetorical question? And if I already know the answer, is the answer that I know the same answer you know? If not, is the answer that has been presented to me, backed by facts and logic?

All you said was something like, "I can only lead a bear to water." — chatterbears

That's odd. I could have sworn I said more than that. :chin:

So I'd suggest you stop responding to me, unless you're actually willing to answer questions I have asked you over a week ago. — chatterbears

Been there, done that, and I'll continue to respond to you if I so desire.

Do you deny that those questions of yours which I quoted only moments ago and can be easily found were rhetorical? If so, then why were you asking them? I don't see the need to genuinely ask those questions, unless you're so far gone that you can no longer even contemplate matters from a different perspective.

I'm a bit late to this party, but what the heck!

I eat animals.

I don't think I could maintain my health if I did not eat meat...

I have a very VERY low level of body-fat, and if I spend any amount of time under-nourished then it could have serious repercussions for my health.

Here's where someone says "But V, you can get all the nourishment you need from beans and vegetables!".

Mmmmmm, I don't know about that. Gaining fat and weight from beans and greens is extraordinarily difficult, especially for me. I have the metabolism of a humming-bird and almost everything I eat is mysteriously burned away.

Many of my ancestors had to figure out how to survive harsh winters. It was impossible to store enough vegetation to survive a northern winter, and so my ancestors had only the choice of putting on fat and storing meat to make it through the winter. My omnivorous evolutionary past may have caused my gastric system to expect animal fat as a staple (eating a surplus of meat is the only way I've ever been able gain weight and even then it seems impossible to maintain)

"So what if you need to eat more apples and oranges! Your health isn't worth the life of another being"

Isn't it?

We got where we are by exploiting animals (cooking and eating animal meat is likely what permitted some of the evolutionarily recent improvements to homo-sapien brains) and globally we're not quite ready to give them up. We're the dominant crab in the bucket, but we're not over the edge yet. We can step off the lesser crabs but we'll remain trapped in the bucket for longer.

Anyone living an aboriginal way of life eats meat out of necessity; plants don't have the energy/protein density of meat and it's hard as fuck to survive as an indigenous vegan (they all died). There is no argument to be made against meat eating in a traditional way of life....

We also have third world countries who have been dispossessed of their natural environments (with expanded populations generally) and now rely on modern forms of agriculture to feed themselves.

If these third world countries did not utilize animal husbandry they would almost certainly be unable to produce a bountiful and diverse enough vegetable diet to keep their already under-nourished populations healthy. There is a good argument to be made against animal cruelty in the third world, but not against the necessity of meat consumption. Suggesting they spend more money or the same amount of money to have the same amount of nutrition or less nutrition means infant mortality rate, among other things, would rise.

"V, nobody is talking about starving Africans, you know damn well that you can get an adequate vegan diet in Canada". Maybe I could, but it would be at great expense to me and if I'm honest I worry such a radical change to my diet could lead to a radical change in my health.

I didn't actually choose to be a meat eater, I was born with canines, and asking me to change smacks of sacrifice. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is definitely something we need to mitigate in the first world but we just don't know enough about diet and nutrition to eliminate meat from all of our diets. Vegans are guinea pigs.

Furthermore, abstaining from hunting and consuming animals, or raising them, either leads to animal suffering anyway, or animal genocide. Human hunting is a natural part of a balanced ecosystem, and while over-hunting is bad, under-hunting can be just as bad or worse in destroying bio-diversity. Without farms that pay for themselves we must euthanize all those species (cows, pigs, chickens) which can no longer take care of themselves in a natural environment.

All life is locked in competition for energy, and on earth it's a zero sum game. Plants crowd out and kill one-another by seeking the light more greedily (although if they manage to starve everything else, the overall ecosystem becomes less diverse and less robust, cue: the predator), just like animals compete with one another over the consumption of plants, and likewise animals higher up the food chain over the consumption of those lower down.

Without this hierarchy that aggregates solar energy into the consumable meat packages that animals are, humans would not exist. Someone will always be left with or on the short end of the thermodynamic plate. The presence of the deer might mean the vegetation cannot mature, which might bereave other animals of their home (i.e, a rabbit or field mouse). No wabbits means no fox, no coyote, no Tasmanian devil. Killing the deer saves the mouse and gives purpose to the wolf.

But we're not exactly the shepherds of all nature are we? We should try to keep things balanced for our own sake, if anything, but it is not yet our normative duty to ensure the survival of all other forms of life for their own sake (because we're not fit to lead in that respect). Just as the deer competes to the best of their ability, so to should we. It's what keep us healthy and what keeps us thriving. One day if we become masters of biology and technology and can grow hamburgers in a petri dish we can stop eating animals. And then if we ever master the understanding of complex ecosystems and biodiversity, we might gain some normative obligation to make decisions on behalf of all other life on earth about what gets to survive.

TL;DR: nutrition and expense deficits caused by the switch to veganism make it presently too risky. Humans aren't yet obligated to abstain from killing animals, but maybe one day we will be when we can actually pull it off. We would be foolish to think that we have effective decision making power when it comes to what's best for nature; nature destroys and remakes herself constantly, and if we want to continue existing, and to continue thriving, it needs to make room for us. We should leave room for it, but it's not an off-limits resource, it's our hard won inheritance. Also, unnecessary cruelty to living creatures is bad and we should minimize it...

I could restate most of my above position as the following:

When the existence of two beings are at odds with one another (such as in the case of predator and prey), there can be no moral agreement between them due to circumstance alone. Thus what I like to call "a breakdown of morality" occurs, and competition ensues.

Until predator and prey have the means to escape the circumstances that define them as such, their moral justification is basic health and survival.

What exact question [and be specific] is a rhetorical question? And if I already know the answer, is the answer that I know the same answer you know? If not, is the answer that has been presented to me, backed by facts and logic? — chatterbears

Do you deny that those questions of yours which I quoted only moments ago and can be easily found were rhetorical? If so, then why were you asking them? I don't see the need to genuinely ask those questions, unless you're so far gone that you can no longer even contemplate matters from a different perspective. — Sapientia

This is the same problem I've had with you and Txastopher. You never answer questions. I ask you to clarify something, and you just repeat yourself. I asked to clarify what exact question that you are referring to that you claim is rhetorical, and you don't answer. Are you actually incapable of answering other people's questions?

Why can't you find what I was referring to? Just go back to the comments and look at the quotes above them. It isn't difficult. Do you have some kind of disability which would make that unusually difficult for you?

I don't think I could maintain my health if I did not eat meat... — VagabondSpectre

Based on what standard. Have you done the necessary research? Have you talked to a dietician? Have you asked for help from Vegans who have lived healthy for years?

We got where we are by exploiting animals (cooking and eating animal meat is likely what permitted some of the evolutionarily recent improvements to homo-sapien brains) and globally we're not quite ready to give them up. — VagabondSpectre

We can live healthier [for ourselves and the environment] if we adopt a plant-based diet. Whether or not the world is willing to give up a tradition or societal norm, is irrelevant to the facts.

Anyone living an aboriginal way of life eats meat out of necessity; plants don't have the energy/protein density of meat and it's hard as fuck to survive as an indigenous vegan (they all died). There is no argument to be made against meat eating in a traditional way of life.... — VagabondSpectre

Yet you are not in the position of an indigenous tribesman, so there's no need to compare yourself to them. Some Indigenous groups may have to eat meat because it is necessary for survival, but they also lack the education/awareness of animal replacements. You are not in that position, this is an irrelevant point.

If these third world countries did not utilize animal husbandry they would almost certainly be unable to produce a bountiful and diverse enough vegetable diet to keep their already under-nourished populations healthy. — VagabondSpectre

Are you in a third world country? Probably not. But even so, most places "meat" is considered a luxury. Corn, rice, soy, grains, fruits, vegetables are much more accessible than animal products.

Maybe I could, but it would be at great expense to me and if I'm honest I worry such a radical change to my diet could lead to a radical change in my health. — VagabondSpectre

Again, as I intially stated. Have you consulted with a professional? Talked to other Vegans who have been healthy for years? Talked to Vegans who have a similar condition as you do in regards to metabolism? Talked to a dietician?

I didn't actually choose to be a meat eater, I was born with canines, and asking me to change smacks of sacrifice. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is definitely something we need to mitigate in the first world but we just don't know enough about diet and nutrition to eliminate meat from all of our diets. Vegans are guinea pigs. — VagabondSpectre

This is a complete dismissal of the current scientific consensus. We know as much about plant-based diets than we do about evolution by natural selection, or whether or not the earth is flat. I'll post some scientific journals for you in my Google Doc, since you seem to be unaware of the scientific research.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Furthermore, abstaining from hunting and consuming animals, or raising them, either leads to animal suffering anyway, or animal genocide. Human hunting is a natural part of a balanced ecosystem, and while over-hunting is bad, under-hunting can be just as bad or worse in destroying bio-diversity. Without farms that pay for themselves we must euthanize all those species (cows, pigs, chickens) which can no longer take care of themselves in a natural environment. — VagabondSpectre

Here: https://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

Look up Gaverick Matheny's reponse to Steven Davis in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. This idea was refuted back in 2003.

Also. We would stop breeding animals into existence, while selling the majority [that are left over] for food, and keeping the rest in an animal sanctuary.

Killing the deer saves the mouse and gives purpose to the wolf. — VagabondSpectre

Killing deer in the wild is not comparable to breeding animals into existence, torturing them and then slaughtering them. Such as how they do it in factory farms.

We would be foolish to think that we have effective decision making power when it comes to what's best for nature; — VagabondSpectre

But apparently we aren't foolish when we make the effective decision to use our power to breed animals into existence and torture them and kill them by the billions? Not to mention all the harm we do to sea life as well.

Why can't you find what I was referring to? Just go back to the comments and look at the quotes above them. It isn't difficult. Do you have some kind of disability which would make that unusually difficult? — Sapientia

Do you have some kind of disability that makes it unusually difficult to answer a simple question I have asked you? I respond to a vast number of questions and comments constantly, in which I also ask a vast number of questions and make statements in response to other people. I asked you to clarify what question I asked that you deemed as "rhetorical". Answer the question, or go away.

This is also why I told you to debate me over voice chat, because you are continuing to do what I said you do. Which is, ignore questions and clarification statements. I wouldn't let you dodge so easily over voice, which is why you wouldn't dare to debate me outside of text.

Based on what standard. Have you done the necessary research? Have you talked to a dietician? Have you asked for help from Vegans who have lived healthy for years? — chatterbears

I've done research, I've tried various diets, and I've known plenty of successful and failed vegans. If you're going to just refer me to a dietician I'm not sure we can have a discussion.

We can live healthier [for ourselves and the environment] if we adopt a plant-based diet. Whether or not the world is willing to give up a tradition or societal norm, is irrelevant to the facts. — chatterbears

I know vegans who are less healthy than they were on an omnivorous diet. Are they just doing it wrong?

We may consume too much meat, but converting all that pastureland into farmland (and then somehow fertilizing it without cow-shit) is actually likely more expensive than the vegan dieticians let on.

We could shop around for articles about nutrition and the economics of agriculture I suppose. I'm game for this but are you sure the scientific community has concluded in in these matters?

Yet you are not in the position of an indigenous tribesman, so there's no need to compare yourself to them. Some Indigenous groups may have to eat meat because it is necessary for survival, but they also lack the education/awareness of animal replacements. You are not in that position, this is an irrelevant point. — chatterbears

My secondary point in bringing up indigenous tribesman is to point out that from an evolutionary perspective, eating meat is a part of who I am. I'm a part of the food chain; it's why I have incisors. Changing my diet radically is a risk you might not be able to convince me to take and is one evolution has perhaps scarcely prepared me for.

Are you in a third world country? Probably not. But even so, most places "meat" is considered a luxury. Corn, rice, soy, grains, fruits, vegetables are much more accessible than animal products. — chatterbears

So, because vegetables are more ubiquitous in third world countries, they should not eat any meat? If I was under-nourished, meat would indeed be a luxury, one that would improve my health.

Again, as I intially stated. Have you consulted with a professional? Talked to other Vegans who have been healthy for years? Talked to Vegans who have a similar condition as you do in regards to metabolism? Talked to a dietician? — chatterbears

Yes I have, but are you a dietician? Otherwise citing sources is your best bet

I've done research and the claims I make paraphrase the main points which I've seen the evidence for.

I would be happy to offer sources if you expect them.

This is a complete dismissal of the current scientific consensus. We know as much about plant-based diets than we do about evolution by natural selection, or whether or not the earth is flat. I'll post some scientific journals for you in my Google Doc, since you seem to be unaware of the scientific research. — chatterbears

No. We know the earth is an oblate spheroid with mammoth certainty. We also that natural selection is a feature of nature with mammoth certainty, but we don't know all the details of our evolutionary past. We know with mammoth certainty that diet affects health, but we don't know all the details about which diet is best and for whom (hence the last 50 years of gimmick diets, FDA 180's on nutrition, disparity in international standards, and continuous scientific investigation). What's good for you might not be good for me.

And it stands to reason that if my ancestors spent the last 2000 years eating meat on a regular basis, my individual biology is more adapted to a diet that includes some meat.

The staples of most early humans included beans wheat and starchy tubers, some kind of plant, but they didn't dis-include fish and mammals, especially where seasonal periods of reduced vegetation made that impossible. Plant-based diets can yield long-term health benefits but only when they're very well planned, and there isn't enough kale for all of us (the economics of which is a major barrier toward societal/global veganism). Furthermore, being a naturally thin person (maybe that comes with my unique genetic territory), not eating meat could put me at risk of protein/fat deficiency, and gorging myself on beans and peanuts to keep weight might have health detriments of its own.

Here: https://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

Look up Gaverick Matheny's reponse to Steven Davis in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. This idea was refuted back in 2003.

Also. We would stop breeding animals into existence, while selling the majority [that are left over] for food, and keeping the rest in an animal sanctuary. — chatterbears

This does not address the point I made. A pity-sanctuary to keep a few specimens on hand isn't a refutation of the fact that the animals we breed and raise on farms otherwise would not exist. My point about suffering is that in the wild animals suffer too. Is natural suffering fine because it's natural? A cow raised on a farm can lead a much happier life with much better odds than just about anything that can be found in the wild. How we treat them is a matter of concern to me, but I would wager that it would be better to be born, live, and suffer, than to have never been born at all. The position you've taken borders on anti-natialism which could be applied to humans as well. Is that a position you wield?

Killing deer in the wild is not comparable to breeding animals into existence, torturing them and then slaughtering them. Such as how they do it in factory farms. — chatterbears

Torture is wrong, and it tends to spoil the meat anyway. The indoor KFC stacked farming model is bad in every way, and not many people would disagree.

Breeding something into existence that would otherwise never exist seems like a positive to me. That we can only afford to do so if it eventually feeds us is unfortunate.

But apparently we aren't foolish when we make the effective decision to use our power to breed animals into existence and torture them and kill them by the billions? Not to mention all the harm we do to sea life as well. — chatterbears

Life has suffering in it, but there need not be torture. All humans will eventually be killed by something, and we have the exquisite torture of knowing, so should we stop breeding?

Also, polluting the oceans is a bad thing. Fish DO have feelings.

I've done research, I've tried various diets, and I've known plenty of successful and failed vegans. If you're going to just refer me to a dietician I'm not sure we can have a discussion. — VagabondSpectre

You may have done research, but did you do the proper research that would allow you to get the adequate vitamins and levels you need to be healthy? Have you tried to become Vegan for a month or two and then initiated a blood test to check your levels to see if you have any deficiencies? Have you then corrected those deficiencies by eating more of what you need to correct them? Or possibly tried taking supplements?

Also, saying you've known plenty of unsuccessful Vegans is a non sequitur. There more unsuccessful meat eaters than there are unsuccessful Vegans. You act as if people who eat meat are generally healthier and are more successful at planning their diet. That's absurd, and the data shows the opposite. That even the best well-planned diet that includes meat is less healthy than a well-planned diet that only includes plant-based products. But that is also the entire point, the idea of well-planning. You can be entirely unhealthy and unsuccessful as a Vegan if you do not plan correctly and eat the proper foods. French fries and Oreos are Vegan, yet I wouldn't suggest including those into your daily consumption routine.

I know vegans who are less healthy than they were on an omnivorous diet. Are they just doing it wrong? — VagabondSpectre

Yes. This is the equivalent of saying, "I've known non-smokers who were less healthy than they were when they were smoking. Are they just doing it wrong?" - It is a known fact that eating a plant-based diet is more healthy than an omnivorous diet. Here are a few points of reference:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/ - We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity.

https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179 - British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals/meal-planning-for-vegetarians/ - People with diabetes can choose to follow this type of vegetarian diet (VEGAN)

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/100/suppl_1/496S/4576707 - The former prejudices that vegetarianism leads to malnutrition were replaced by scientific evidence showing that vegetarian nutrition reduces the risk of most contemporary diseases.

We may consume too much meat, but converting all that pastureland into farmland (and then somehow fertilizing it without cow-shit) is actually likely more expensive than the vegan dieticians let on. — VagabondSpectre

Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food. To produce a day’s food for one meat-eater takes over 4,000 gallons; for a lacto-ovo vegetarian, only 1200 gallons; for a vegan, only 300 gallons.

And regarding crops, using land to grow crops for animals is vastly inefficient. It takes almost 20 times less land to feed someone on a plant-based (vegan) diet than it does to feed a meat-eater since the crops are consumed directly instead of being used to feed animals. According to the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, it takes up to 10 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and in the United States alone, 56 million acres of land are used to grow feed for animals, while only 4 million acres are producing plants for humans to eat.

We could shop around for articles about nutrition and the economics of agriculture I suppose. I'm game for this but are you sure the scientific community has concluded in in these matters? — VagabondSpectre

Most of the research is in my Google Doc, which I already linked you in my past response. Feel free to do your own research, because it is out there, just as the evidence for evolution is out there.

eating meat is a part of who I am. I'm a part of the food chain; it's why I have incisors. — VagabondSpectre

The Hippo and Gorilla have incisors/fangs. Does this make them meat eaters? No, because they are Herbivores.

If I was under-nourished, meat would indeed be a luxury, one that would improve my health. — VagabondSpectre

Meat isn't some magical pill that fixes people who are malnourished. Again, look up the studies yourself, or you can refer to the ones I have posted for you.

I would be happy to offer sources if you expect them. — VagabondSpectre

Yes please.

Plant-based diets can yield long-term health benefits but only when they're very well planned, and there isn't enough kale for all of us — VagabondSpectre

As I said before, all diets (including omnivorous ones) need to be well-planned. And saying there isn't enough kale for all of us, is completely irrelevant and inaccurate.

Is natural suffering fine because it's natural? — VagabondSpectre

It's not "fine", but it is better. Would you rather suffer from a disease (that is possibly curable), or have someone factory farm you, torture you, and then slit your throat?

I would wager that it would be better to be born, live, and suffer, than to have never been born at all. — VagabondSpectre

So you're telling me that it is better to be born into torture and slaughter, than to not be born at all? That's just ridiculous, and you fundamentally know it. If you were given the choice to live again after this life, and the choice was to live as a factory farmed animal or not live at all, to say you would choose the factory farmed animal life is dishonest and absurd.

All humans will eventually be killed by something, and we have the exquisite torture of knowing, so should we stop breeding? — VagabondSpectre

This is irrelevant. I am referring to causing unnecessary pain. We are all going to die some day by something, but in the meantime, it would be best to avoid causing each other (and other animals) unnecessary harm. Such as, going around and raping people. By your logic, we are all going to die any way, so should we all be okay with rape?

So, let me get this straight. The first time around, you were so hasty in responding to my comments about your questions - which I quoted in my original reply, and can easily be found with minimal effort - that you paid little attention to what I was referring to, and now you're too lazy to go back and check, so instead of doing that, you're telling me that I must go back and quote to you those same questions of yours from before, yet again, and, if I refuse, then I should go away?

Seriously?

We're obviously talking about cows, pigs, chickens and other animals that are most commonly eaten--animals which have been proven to be highly intelligent and capable of feeling physical and emotional pain — NKBJ

I just want you guys to be clear about wich exact group of animals you are talking about. Just referring to them as 'animals' while you seem to mean only mammals seems quite disingenious. It's still not even clear if you just mean vertebrates, or just vertebrates humans sympathize with, or just cows, pigs, chickens and two specific other animals. Please clearly define the group you are discussing so we all know what you are talking about.

I mainly want to know because I feel like "sentient beings are a no-no line of argument" to be very exclusive and does not respect life as much as it should. We are the arbiters of who lives and who dies. The plant says, "I'm alive too!" and gets shut down because it isn't "sentient" enough. — yatagarasu

You clearly demonstrated to have understood my critisism correctly. Where exaclty do we draw the line between 'sentient' and 'not sentient' when considering animals? clearly somewhere between single celled sessille animals without a nervous system and mammals, but where exactly? As long as that is not clearly defined it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it. Since it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about anything as long it's not clear what exactly is discussed.

I never claimed that all animals can feel pain. I stated that all sentient animals can feel pain, which is what the science supports. And the science all supports the idea that a life-form such as a plant or microorganism [such as bacteria], does not have a central-nervous system or a brain to process pain. If you want to state that you don't need a brain or a nervous system to process pain, then you need to provide scientific evidence to support that ridiculous claim. — chatterbears

Nonsense, in your first post you stated 'animals' not 'sentient animals'. Secondly it's still unclear where you draw the line. Are animals that have a central nervous system but no brain sentient?

Suggesting that I want to state that 'you don't need a brain or nervous system to process pain' is a disingenious strawman at best. I am pointing out you are making generalizations where you clearly intended to be more specific. And instead of becoming more specific by clearly stating where you draw the line between sentient and non sentient animals, you attempt to strawman my position by suggesting things I 'want' to say without me having said anything that could possibly validate that conclusion.

Again, as I said to Tomseltje, if you believe that plants can feel pain, please provide the scientific research to support that. — chatterbears

And this is the strawman. I never even suggested that, I stated that several animals don't differ from your description on plants, so if you claim for that reason plants can be eaten without moral objections, why can't those animals without nervous systems be eaten without moral objections? You may be able to see the direction the needle on the compas is pointing, but you confuse north with south.

You cannot prove that the plant "wants" either in the same way you can't prove that the animal "wants". You are adding on to it your human feelings to justify why animals deserve to live and plants do not. I said nothing about their pain. I don't care about that. What I care about is why you put their right to live at their sentience. I read your paragraph about why, but it stops in the same place. Why does sentience give you the right to live and not just the fact that you are living?

Rocks do not reproduce. Plants, fungi, bacteria, animals all do. They are different. Plant and animal destruction for our livelihood can be avoided. Fungi and bacteria are nearly impossible to avoid. I consider all of those organisms to be worthy of life. By their existence they affirm their wanting of life. That is how I judge their right to live. Not by their sentience. Not by the possible pain they exhibit. But by the fact that they are living beings. If we could avoid killing all of them that would be nice. But fungi and Bacteria are practically impossible to avoid in order to live, so their consideration is impossible to accommodate. Animals and plants are not. That was my point. It is not pseudoscience. It is philosophy. I based it on philosophy, not on their ability to feel pain relative to each other (science). Or their sentience, relative to one another ( again a scientific claim).

And contrary to what I'm typing I am not a fruitarian. I am, hypocritically enough, an omnivore who eats meat rarely, that argues for fruitarianism because it seems to be the proper conclusion to any argument about living beings having the right to live. Not the Vegan: All living things should be respected, EXCEPT plants. Or Pescetarian diets that also modify their definitions to their liking. The extreme of that is not eating anything, not doing anything. Obviously that isn't possible and no one can live that way. The next best is fruitarianism. Where all living organisms are respected as much as humanely possible while still allowing for a normal life. (sorry to the Fungi and Bacteria : /)

I said nothing about the positive ends of veganism because I thought they were self evident. I agree that people should practice it as I see it as part of the path towards a fruit based life style. I just don't see why plants get left out.

Plant- Living (can avoid)
Animal- Living (can avoid)
Fungi- Living (can't avoid killing if I want to live a normal life)
Bacteria- Living (can't avoid killing if I want to live a normal life)
Rock- Not living=irrelevant

If it lives, it's wrong to kill it. That's it. I don't care if it is sentient or feels pain.

Plant and animal destruction for our livelihood can be avoided — yatagarasu

Not really, there are many single celled plants and animals that are undetectable with the naked human eye. Perhaps you meant to restrict it to plants and animals with a body mass over 100 gram orso. Otherwise how are you going to prevent a bug from flying in your mouth when you yawn while riding your bike?

Not really, there are many single celled plants and animals that are undetectable with the naked human eye. Perhaps you meant to restrict it to plants and animals with a body mass over 100 gram orso. Otherwise how are you going to prevent a bug from flying in your mouth when you yawn while riding your bike? — Tomseltje

Well first of all, it would have to be intentional. So that example wouldn't be. XD But, yeah. I meant it in a general sense. You can avoid eating plants or animals but still survive if you wanted to. : )

Edit: Mmmmmmmm, bugs in my mouth. :razz:

@chatterbears

So, I've read through the "evidence" you keep quoting. I can't find a single source which supports any of the claims you're trying to make. Perhaps you could guide me to the one in particular you think best supports your claim that eating meat from hunting wild animals, scrap-fed and year-round open pasture fed animals is more harmful to ourselves and the environment.

Ive found an awful lot of papers which support the claim that vegan diet "can" be more healthy than "some" or "most" omnivorous diets. I've found a lot of support for the idea that farming vegetables "can" cause less environmental damage than "some" or "most" forms of animal rearing.

What I have not found is where you are getting your claim that all forms of meat-eating are more harmful than vegan diets.

I'm also getting very confused about your claim, reading your response to @VagabondSpectre. You seem to be making two claims at different times.

1. That all unnecessary harm is unethical, meat-eating causes unnecessary harm (to the animal, ourselves, or the environment) and is therefore unethical.

2. That all unnecessary killing of sentient creatures (or those with the potential for sentience) is unethical, meat-eating requires the killing of an animal and is therefore unethical.

The problem I'm having understanding this is that 1) is clearly a subset of 2). I don't understand why you're spending so much time defending 1) if you actually think 2) is defensible. Conversely, I don't understand why you would keep referring to 2) if you do not think it is defensible.

To put it another way, if you think it is logically inevitable from any consistent ethics that killing a sentient creature is morally wrong, then why are you even arguing about the harm issue? Just lay out your inviolable argument that killing another sentient creature is unethical and that should be an end to it.

If, however, that argument at 2) is not inviolable, then your argument at 1) only applies in so far as harm can be demonstrated and agreed. A wild animal suffers no harm (in this second, weaker sense) from being hunted, there's clearly no impact on the environment (all authors agree that management of grazing is essential to a healthy ecosystem), and you've provided no evidence that lean, wild meat is a harmful addition to the diet.

If you think you can argue 2), then argue 2), 1) is entirely superfluous if 2) can be demonstrated to be the case. If 2) cannot be demonstrated to be the case, then how does your argument at 1) alone cover hunting wild animals?

You may have done research, but did you do the proper research that would allow you to get the adequate vitamins and levels you need to be healthy? Have you tried to become Vegan for a month or two and then initiated a blood test to check your levels to see if you have any deficiencies? Have you then corrected those deficiencies by eating more of what you need to correct them? Or possibly tried taking supplements? — chatterbears

I've tried eating little to no meat, and I lost weight. I tried eating a variety of nuts and beans, as I indicated, but it wasn't enough. I'm not presently willing to experiment further. As I have indicated, I'm skinny enough and losing weight is a health concern of mine.

I am not in a position to hire a team of doctors and dieticians.

And regarding crops, using land to grow crops for animals is vastly inefficient. It takes almost 20 times less land to feed someone on a plant-based (vegan) diet than it does to feed a meat-eater since the crops are consumed directly instead of being used to feed animals. According to the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, it takes up to 10 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and in the United States alone, 56 million acres of land are used to grow feed for animals, while only 4 million acres are producing plants for humans to eat. — chatterbears

Those 56 million acres aren't suitable for growing vegetables, you're aware of that right?

Livestock turn un-farmable pastureland and low quality fields into nutrient dense meat and milk. This is how farms tend to work where I live: we feed our cows hay in the winter and graze them in the summer.

They're not actually taking food out of our mouths, they're putting food into them.

So, the efficiency with which we can capitalize on low quality land by either by cheaply growing feed on it (which can grow where things like corn and tomatoes cannot) or grazing animals on it actually nets us more food in the long run. The fertilizer and other animal by-products we get from them are additional economic boons.

Granted, America consumes too much beef, I'm not denying that. The fact that they have to mass farm cattle feed to sustain their ultra-massive cattle farms is a waste of water at the extreme end. But it would be a waste of water not to graze animals on pastureland. The delusion that this 56 million acres suddenly start producing veg is silly to anyone who understands how farms work.

Here's an article that touches on some of the facts: http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=278268&File=1e30d1bf7a7156ce24b3154cc313b587d97bTR

a few quotes from the abstract:

• Global animal agriculture provides safe, affordable, nutrient-dense foodstuffs that support human health and well-being as part of a balanced diet in addition to manifold by-products that have significant contributions to society. These include but are not limited to edible and inedible components, medicines, lubricants, manufactured goods, and other industrial uses. By-product utilization also enhances sustainable practices while lowering the industry’s environmental footprint.
  
• Livestock production is important in the economic and social sustainability of developed and developing countries, and it supplies considerable draft power within smallholder operations that make up the majority of global food production.
  
• Large areas of land are incapable of supporting the production of human food crops. Terrain, soil type, and climate render the majority of land currently used for grazing unsuitable for cultivation for the production of vegetable-based foods for human consumption, yet forages can be sustainably converted by ruminant animals into meat and milk products.
  
• The gains made by “recycling” safe, yet otherwise valueless, by-products from human food and fiber production lessen competition between humans and animals for crops that can equally be used for feed or food, maximize land use efficiency, and decrease the environmental impact of food production.
  
• Improved communication is required between livestock production stakeholders and the consumer to further a better understanding of the economic, environmental, nutritional, and social advantages conferred by animal agriculture on a regional and global basis.

There's a reason animal husbandry is a part of our agricultural traditions, and it's not just because we like the taste of meat. Free range chickens lead happy lives eating insects and such; they give us eggs, meat, and nitrogen rich fertilizer ingredient. Free range cows lead happy lives chewing grass, and they give us quite a bit of milk and meat along with more fertilizer ingredient. Pigs basically turn waste into meat, and while I personally would not farm pigs to eat them, on certain kinds of farms they can be useful (Permaculture).

Having too many animals just for extra meat is inefficient. Having no animals is also quite inefficient though, and I don't think we can afford it.

Most of the research is in my Google Doc, which I already linked you in my past response. Feel free to do your own research, because it is out there, just as the evidence for evolution is out there. — chatterbears

Of the articles which address the issue in question, they all seem to openly state that eliminating animal products altogether carries the risk of certain nutritional deficiencies.

Vegans tend to be thinner, have lower serum cholesterol, and lower blood pressure, reducing their risk of heart disease. However, eliminating all animal products from the diet increases the risk of certain nutritional deficiencies. Micronutrients of special concern for the vegan include vitamins B-12 and D, calcium, and long-chain n-3 (omega-3) fatty acids. Unless vegans regularly consume foods that are fortified with these nutrients, appropriate supplements should be consumed. In some cases, iron and zinc status of vegans may also be of concern because of the limited bioavailability of these minerals. — Winston J Craig

I've been very open with you from the get go about my own health concerns. "Thinner" for me would mean "unhealthier". I would consider for moral reasons not eating any meat if it didn't seem so risky, and the societal/global economics of not eating meat altogether is another story (a very complicated one).

There are clearly benefits to our society increasing the amount of fruit and vegetables it consumes, but eliminating animal products entirely is seldom the object of dietary study (they tend to look at the benefits of increasing plant consumption or reducing meat consumption, not eliminating animal products entirely).

Thank you for leading by example though, and for doing this experimentation on yourself. I say un-facetiously that it's akin to the poison squad. When the results are in and I can be reliably told what will work for me, I may become a vegan.

The Hippo and Gorilla have incisors/fangs. Does this make them meat eaters? No, because they are Herbivores. — chatterbears

Hippos occasionally nibble on dead flesh, but they have elongated canines for show. While it's true almost all mammals have canines, (and eating meat at some point during our evolutionary past does not make us omnivores today automatically), humans have functional canines which aren't for show. They're sharp and great for tearing meat. Every other primate has longer incisors than humans, which makes me speculate that having them such as they are in humans is somehow useful (speaking and chewing).

Meat isn't some magical pill that fixes people who are malnourished. Again, look up the studies yourself, or you can refer to the ones I have posted for you. — chatterbears

I'm talking about starvation. A pound of meat is far more fat, protein, and energy rich than any vegetable. My point here applies to the third world and many developing countries with hungry children.

Yes please[[i]provide sources[/i]]. — chatterbears

Before we do get into the article scavenger hunt, we should come to specific agreement about what it is we're disagreeing about.

a) I'm contending that going completely animal free will be expensive, which will either translate into less nourishment for children or less investment elsewhere (even in the first world).

My second point of contention, which applies to me and people like me, is that for whatever reason b) my biology is ill-suited to going completely meat free. I do know that different people can do better or worse on different kinds of diets. It may very well be the case that the presence or absence of digestive/metabolizing enzymes or other bacteria in my gut are in fact oriented toward omnivorous diets (or something equally obscure and unknown to me). I don't know why I do so poorly without meat, but until something changes in me or our knowledge of individual nutritional needs, I won't risk it.

You're free to name me ignorant and refer me to an army of dieticians who will happily prescribe and proscribe according to their understanding, I just happen to already know the success rate isn't where they want it to be.

As I said before, all diets (including omnivorous ones) need to be well-planned. And saying there isn't enough kale for all of us, is completely irrelevant and inaccurate. — chatterbears

It makes me wonder if studies contrasting vegetarians and omnivores can properly control for the fact that vegetarians are generally concerned with having well-planned diets in the first place. It may be that whatever nutritional benefits animal products can provide do not outweigh the health implications of well rounded plant consumption, and so if omnivores started eating better varieties of vegetables they would see these same health benefits. Perhaps a well planned diet that does include some animal products with good nutrients (fats, calcium, b12) and an adequate variety of vegetables is actually superior?

It's not "fine", but it is better. Would you rather suffer from a disease (that is possibly curable), or have someone factory farm you, torture you, and then slit your throat? — chatterbears

So you're telling me that it is better to be born into torture and slaughter, than to not be born at all? That's just ridiculous, and you fundamentally know it. If you were given the choice to live again after this life, and the choice was to live as a factory farmed animal or not live at all, to say you would choose the factory farmed animal life is dishonest and absurd. — chatterbears

This is irrelevant. I am referring to causing unnecessary pain. We are all going to die some day by something, but in the meantime, it would be best to avoid causing each other (and other animals) unnecessary harm. Such as, going around and raping people. By your logic, we are all going to die any way, so should we all be okay with rape? — chatterbears

This is really something. I've already made it clear that factory farming is wrong, torture is wrong, and causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong.

Somehow you've managed to draw moral equivalence between raising a free-range chicken and rape.
If my life as a farmed animal contained some moments of joy and contentment in addition to the torture (so, pleasure in addition to pain) then yes I would choose to be born as a farm animal over non-existence.

Let me ask you in return, would you rather exist as a free-range pig or goat or cow or cease to exist?

The ending of a farm animal's life, if done humanely, is itself the only "unnecessary" suffering that a healthy and ethically raised farm animal endures. And for us to afford to bring these animals into existence in the first place, we must inevitably take this action. The animal gets to live a life and our life gets to continue. Win win in my opinion.

I'm not saying just because we are all going to die: anything goes. This is a ramification of the way you equate the life and existence of an ethically raised farm animal to being endlessly tortured and raped. It's not endless torture and rape. Ever see a happy cow? Here's a small group of cows returning to the field after a winter of being pent up in a barn (gif).



I'm pretty sure these cows might be on the "grass is half green side of the fence" about life. (Famous cow expressions).

If merely dying one day (at the hands of someone or something else) makes life not worth living for an ethically raised farm animal, then what makes life worth living for humans?

I'll say it again, it's better to exist and have suffered than to never have existed at all.

It is nonsensical to compare qualitatively non existence to existence. There is no individual for whom it is better or worse that he or she does not exist, because there exist no non existent individuals.

Nonsensical is a bit strong don't you think?

Is life worth living? Might be a better way to put it.

Well first of all, it would have to be intentional. So that example wouldn't be. XD But, yeah. I meant it in a general sense. You can avoid eating plants or animals but still survive if you wanted to. — yatagarasu

So, if i accidently run over a deer with my car and then eat it, and since the killing wasn't intentional it's ok?
I doubt humans can survive on eating funghi and bacteria solely as you seem to be claiming, while not accidently eating plants and/or animals.

"Nonsensical" is the only way to describe something that makes no sense. Talking about what is better or worse for non-existing entities makes no sense.

And whether life is worth living is not really the question--the question is whether we have the right to cause suffering and to end that living. Your statements imply that you agree that animals like cows, pigs, and chickens have lives which have worth to them. In order to justify taking these from them, we would have to have something more important to gain. But if you look at what we gain, it is merely a momentary sensory pleasure which is easily both nutritionally and aesthetically (taste being an aesthetic value) replicated by plant-based foods.

You claim to have some sort of medical issue that makes meat-eating a necessity--I am sympathetic to the fact that you may even actually believe this. However, there are no documented cases of medical conditions that I am aware of that absolutely necessitate the consumption of meat for optimal health. Until there is science to show that what you are claiming is true, I'm afraid for the purposes of this discussion, it can only be seen as anecdotal, which just doesn't count for much.

Ah I see. But the question still stands as to whether a painless animal kill is equivalent to a plant or insect kill. Which removes the variable of an animal's capacity to feel pain. Do we now determine what to consume based on intellectual capacity?

So, if i accidently run over a deer with my car and then eat it, and since the killing wasn't intentional it's ok?
I doubt humans can survive on eating funghi and bacteria solely as you seem to be claiming, while not accidently eating plants and/or animals. — Tomseltje

No, because eating the deer is intentional making it wrong. The killing was accidental, just like the insect flying in your mouth was.

I never claimed that. I said humans can survive on fruit.

"Nonsensical" is the only way to describe something that makes no sense. Talking about what is better or worse for non-existing entities makes no sense — NKBJ

While I can relate to your pedantic attitude, calling the straw-man version of my question nonsense and dodging the actual question by saying "that's not really the question" is quite unsatisfying. In any case, the question was meant for the OP who basically declared that the life of a farm animal is not worth living.

As I have previously indicated, thermodynamically speaking, we need to justify expending the resources to breed and raise farm animals.

The resources we dispense in the raising of the animals must be recuperated, else we cannot affords to raise the animals. You've already tacitly agreed that farm animal lives are worth living even if at some point they must be consumed, so we could either not breed farm animals whose lives are worth living in order to avoid having to kill them, or we could continue breeding them and ethically raise and slaughter them.

If I've decided killing animals to eat their meat is wrong, what must I do with my hypothetical chickens?

I might not be able to afford to keep them, so should I turn them loose (so the cats and coyotes can devour them like so many tendies) or do I euthanize them?

What's the difference between euthanasia + cremation and euthanasia + consumption?

anecdotal — NKBJ

Well I AM the anecdote, so it's not quite fallacious. If I was trying to establish that we all needed meat for optimal health you would have a point, but what I've reported is that if I do not eat meat, I lose weight. I can honestly and reliably report that I've tried to put on weight since adolescence and it really doesn't come easy for me. I don't know why...

What's the difference between euthanasia + cremation and euthanasia + consumption? — VagabondSpectre

Well, if you look at human and ask that question it should be clear what the difference is.

For the other parts of your comment I would suggest we just not raise animals then? I think that would be the proper thing if we really didn't want them to be killed by our hands. You can just let them go. : )