Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMeat eater, vegetarian or vegan?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Poll Question: Which are you?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
34 [77.27%]
9 [20.45%]
1 [2.27%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:23
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:


Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

I eat meat. I eat good quality meat and free range stuff if I can. We pay far too little for our meat and put animals through disgusting lives to do that. If I want to eat meat I should pay for it.
I agree with you although some would argue that causing prices to go up would hurt lower income people....sort of making meat a luxury for the well off....more than it already is.  Same with veggies....the prices are artificially low because of the very low wages paid to farm workers.  If we insist on more environmental standard for meat and veggies, have more regulation of labor, min wages, etc, you and I are willing to pay more the good things this brings about.  But do we price poor people out of quality food choices? 

The poor are already priced out of quality food choices. Unethical intensive factory farming is not to feed the poor, it is not a welfare system - it is to feed all of us and make a fat profit for the retailers, we all reap the benefits of lower prices but it is time to realise the cost of <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;">low value </span><span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;">is too high.</span>
High volume farming does not have to be intensive factory farming, it does not have to be unethical and inhumane, it does not have to be stressful and unpleasant for the animals, similarly it does not have to be chemically enhanced with pesticides, herbicides and inorganic fertilisers for vegetable production. Deep sea fishing also fails - fish deemed unsaleable are discarded at sea, fishing quotas exacerbate this so even saleable fish are discarded -  all these fish are dead when they are returned to the sea. There is little that is ethical in mass production of food. Food production is currently dictated by the retailers, not the consumers - we never asked for chickens to be sold at five bucks each having spent the 6 miserable weeks of their lives in cramped broiler sheds choking on ammonia fumes. Moreover, ethical food does not have to be expensive - currently it is sold at artificially higher prices because those who "care" are prepared to pay for it and the retailers exploit that.
In the west we are incredibly wasteful of the food we buy, whether we buy a chicken for 5 bucks or 10 we waste most of that animal. We are even more wasteful of the food that retailers buy and do not sell. This is where we should start the solution to the problem - it is apolitical, it bypasses the economists and the regulators and will ultimately force the retailers to re-think their purchasing strategies - eat everything you buy. It is that simple - buy whole chickens and portion them yourselves to create three or four meals instead of one - each chicken yields two breasts, two wings, two drumsticks, two thighs and a bones and trimmings for making a stock that can form the base for a soup or stew - augment that with more vegetables and producing three substantial meals of a family is a doddle. Reducing the portion size that gets put on each plate reduces waste, makes the food go further, it is cheaper and it will reduce obesity - just taking one slice of meat off your plate and saving it for a sandwich the next day's lunch saves you money and improves your health. <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;">That is how I can afford to buy ethically produced free-range organic chicken - each meal costs me far less than the one meal made from a $5 battery broiler. </span>
<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;">And again, this is also true of vegetables - we buy more than we need because we buy it pre-packed, and we waste more than we should because it spoils before we can consume it all. Spending a few more pennies on quality veg in the quantity I need means I throw less away, the net result is a gain - it's cheaper.</span>
<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;">These are skills that our parents knew but we've never learnt so we are failing to pass them on to our children. My mother would be mortified by the food we waste, her mother would have been outraged.</span>



Agree with every word of this. I would add that retailers should stop the BOGOF and similar offers on meat or veg that will go off and get wasted. Just put the price down if you want to put stuff on offer. Also eat less meat (you do say smaller portions though) but a meal doesn't have to include meat every time. Variety is the spice...

Then we can save money eat better and stop animals being treated like sh*t.
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:50
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade.
Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine.

Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:29
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

I eat meat. I eat good quality meat and free range stuff if I can. We pay far too little for our meat and put animals through disgusting lives to do that. If I want to eat meat I should pay for it.


I agree with you although some would argue that causing prices to go up would hurt lower income people....sort of making meat a luxury for the well off....more than it already is. 

Same with veggies....the prices are artificially low because of the very low wages paid to farm workers. 

If we insist on more environmental standard for meat and veggies, have more regulation of labor, min wages, etc, you and I are willing to pay more the good things this brings about.  But do we price poor people out of quality food choices? 
The poor are already priced out of quality food choices. Unethical intensive factory farming is not to feed the poor, it is not a welfare system - it is to feed all of us and make a fat profit for the retailers, we all reap the benefits of lower prices but it is time to realise the cost of low value is too high.

High volume farming does not have to be intensive factory farming, it does not have to be unethical and inhumane, it does not have to be stressful and unpleasant for the animals, similarly it does not have to be chemically enhanced with pesticides, herbicides and inorganic fertilisers for vegetable production. Deep sea fishing also fails - fish deemed unsaleable are discarded at sea, fishing quotas exacerbate this so even saleable fish are discarded -  all these fish are dead when they are returned to the sea. There is little that is ethical in mass production of food. Food production is currently dictated by the retailers, not the consumers - we never asked for chickens to be sold at five bucks each having spent the 6 miserable weeks of their lives in cramped broiler sheds choking on ammonia fumes. Moreover, ethical food does not have to be expensive - currently it is sold at artificially higher prices because those who "care" are prepared to pay for it and the retailers exploit that.

In the west we are incredibly wasteful of the food we buy, whether we buy a chicken for 5 bucks or 10 we waste most of that animal. We are even more wasteful of the food that retailers buy and do not sell. This is where we should start the solution to the problem - it is apolitical, it bypasses the economists and the regulators and will ultimately force the retailers to re-think their purchasing strategies - eat everything you buy. It is that simple - buy whole chickens and portion them yourselves to create three or four meals instead of one - each chicken yields two breasts, two wings, two drumsticks, two thighs and a bones and trimmings for making a stock that can form the base for a soup or stew - augment that with more vegetables and producing three substantial meals of a family is a doddle. Reducing the portion size that gets put on each plate reduces waste, makes the food go further, it is cheaper and it will reduce obesity - just taking one slice of meat off your plate and saving it for a sandwich the next day's lunch saves you money and improves your health. That is how I can afford to buy ethically produced free-range organic chicken - each meal costs me far less than the one meal made from a $5 battery broiler. 

And again, this is also true of vegetables - we buy more than we need because we buy it pre-packed, and we waste more than we should because it spoils before we can consume it all. Spending a few more pennies on quality veg in the quantity I need means I throw less away, the net result is a gain - it's cheaper.

These are skills that our parents knew but we've never learnt so we are failing to pass them on to our children. My mother would be mortified by the food we waste, her mother would have been outraged.

What?
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:08
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:



I think we're just arguing semantics here, which never really resolves so let's move on... I'll change the option to omnivorous due to the fact that it may upset some people. rest assured though, the term was not meant to segregate anyone in any way.
Claiming "arguing semantics" is not an intellectual "get out of jail free" card. If I say I dislike the term "meat eater" it is because it is inaccurate and incorrect, not because the semantic meaning is ambiguous or is a matter of interpretation. Even though we are discussing the meaning of a phrase, it is not an argument of semantics.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


Why exactly is the post nutty? Morality does combat natural behaviour. I'm open to arguments that counter that assumption however.
Because your list of "crimes" are not equivalent, nor are they natural urges as you say they are - I have no natural urge to indulge in sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder or rape. You are creating a strawman argument.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


I'm not saying that anyone who eats meat is immoral at all. I do think it's the more moral option, which is why I have made that decision, but that does not mean that not being vegetarian would make a person immoral. Morality is big web of decision making that is so complicated I wouldn't agreeing with labeling any one person entirely immoral, but I would say that supporting the meat industry is an immoral act as it is killing innocent creatures that don't need to be killed. I can understand doing that if you have to eat meat because of a certain condition (I know a sax player like this), but most of us just eat meat because we like it. Is the systematic breeding and slaughter of a chicken really worth a nice taste? I personally don't think so. Some people think it is, and while I would disagree, I didn't make this poll to berate folks that eat meat, more for healthy debate on the issue.
 
Unfortunately you are being judgemental, (not a criticism, just an observation) because you are claiming a moral superiority (the more moral option). By claiming it is more moral you are saying that eating meat is less moral by default. You are making an emotional argument and claiming it is a moral one. There is nothing wrong with not eating meat for emotional reasons, but that is not morality, practically every decision we make is an emotional one - like and dislike, love and hate - even after we've weighed up the logical and empirical pros and cons the ultimate decision will be a choice based upon emotion - and that's what makes us human, but that is not morality even if it feels like it should be.

Yes, intensive "farming" is bad - whether it is immoral is another question - it is not farming it is an industrial process and it should be stopped. We as consumers have the power to change it, and yes, boycotting meat is a way of doing that, so is only buying from ethical sources.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Yes, most food groups we could probably do away with. But only the food groups under meat and fish require the slaughter of a sentient being, which is why I choose to leave them out of my diet.
There is a diet that does not involve the killing any living thing, sentient or not, this excludes the eating of any plant matter that is still connected to a living plant at the time of harvest such as fruit, tubers and leaves - this is a philosophical choice so those who practice this are called Fruitarian (as opposed to Frugivore). By extension there is also a diet that extends this to carrion. When making a philosophical choice you have made a philosophical decision on what constitutes sentience since you have chosen between vegetarianism and vegan-ism. 
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 I don't really see why this is a problem.
 
It is not a problem. I never said it was a problem. You are making it into a problem all by yourself. I have not condemned anyone for being a vegetarian nor defended anyone who eats meat, I have proffered no judgemental or emotional opinions, merely stated the biological case. All I have stated is that omnivore is natural, vegetarianism is man-made. I have not claimed that either are unhealthy diets or that either are healthy diets - diets are only healthy when they are balanced and consumed in moderation. You are claiming the moral argument and I simply refute that it is about morality.



Okay fair enough, I guess I don't see anything wrong with the term.

How exactly is it a strawman argument? You only need to look towards some of the more primitive human civilisations and most animal civilisations to see that rape and murder as natural urges. Just because you, and most people in the West, don't have that urge, does not mean it isn't a natural one. We don't have that urge because we live in first world countries with far developed moral structures and at an educated guess I'd say that you were brought up to understand that rape and murder are heinous. This is no argument against these things being natural urges though because we've conditioned ourselves against our own nature through thought. I can give you a list as long as my arm of points in history and current groups of people that see rape as an okay thing. Why would these exist in such mass numbers if it isn't part of the natural human psyche?

I wasn't aware of a dichotomy between emotion and morality. Morals stem from thought do they not? And aren't emotions just thoughts really? I'm not seeing any real proof in your post that emotion and morality can't be of the same. That's not to say you don't have proof, which I'm sure you do. And I am being judgmental, but not in a way that I intend to be confrontational.

And yes I am making a judgement on what is okay to kill and what is not, but only as a transitional process. If I were to go vegan straight away I would most likely become ill (this happened to a friend of mine). I intend to turn vegan in the future. Regarding Fruitarianism... I'm well aware of it. However the problem I have with killing animals is that you are killing a conscious being. A potato is not conscious.

As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade.
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
HemispheresOfXanadu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 28 2012
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4339
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 19:25
Meat eater, though I admire the intentions of vegetarians and vegans.
@ProgFollower on Twitter. Tweet me muzak.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17250
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 18:16
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

I eat meat. I eat good quality meat and free range stuff if I can. We pay far too little for our meat and put animals through disgusting lives to do that. If I want to eat meat I should pay for it.


I agree with you although some would argue that causing prices to go up would hurt lower income people....sort of making meat a luxury for the well off....more than it already is. 

Same with veggies....the prices are artificially low because of the very low wages paid to farm workers. 

If we insist on more environmental standard for meat and veggies, have more regulation of labor, min wages, etc, you and I are willing to pay more the good things this brings about.  But do we price poor people out of quality food choices? 
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 17:29
I eat meat. I eat good quality meat and free range stuff if I can. We pay far too little for our meat and put animals through disgusting lives to do that. If I want to eat meat I should pay for it.
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
Jared View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 06 2005
Location: Hereford, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 16:59
I'm a vegetarian and have been for 16 years now, although 3 years ago, I went back to eating fish.

A meat free diet is right for me, but I've never been a Veggie who tells everyone else that they also should be.

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 16:24
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:



I think we're just arguing semantics here, which never really resolves so let's move on... I'll change the option to omnivorous due to the fact that it may upset some people. rest assured though, the term was not meant to segregate anyone in any way.
Claiming "arguing semantics" is not an intellectual "get out of jail free" card. If I say I dislike the term "meat eater" it is because it is inaccurate and incorrect, not because the semantic meaning is ambiguous or is a matter of interpretation. Even though we are discussing the meaning of a phrase, it is not an argument of semantics.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


Why exactly is the post nutty? Morality does combat natural behaviour. I'm open to arguments that counter that assumption however.
Because your list of "crimes" are not equivalent, nor are they natural urges as you say they are - I have no natural urge to indulge in sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder or rape. You are creating a strawman argument.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


I'm not saying that anyone who eats meat is immoral at all. I do think it's the more moral option, which is why I have made that decision, but that does not mean that not being vegetarian would make a person immoral. Morality is big web of decision making that is so complicated I wouldn't agreeing with labeling any one person entirely immoral, but I would say that supporting the meat industry is an immoral act as it is killing innocent creatures that don't need to be killed. I can understand doing that if you have to eat meat because of a certain condition (I know a sax player like this), but most of us just eat meat because we like it. Is the systematic breeding and slaughter of a chicken really worth a nice taste? I personally don't think so. Some people think it is, and while I would disagree, I didn't make this poll to berate folks that eat meat, more for healthy debate on the issue.
 
Unfortunately you are being judgemental, (not a criticism, just an observation) because you are claiming a moral superiority (the more moral option). By claiming it is more moral you are saying that eating meat is less moral by default. You are making an emotional argument and claiming it is a moral one. There is nothing wrong with not eating meat for emotional reasons, but that is not morality, practically every decision we make is an emotional one - like and dislike, love and hate - even after we've weighed up the logical and empirical pros and cons the ultimate decision will be a choice based upon emotion - and that's what makes us human, but that is not morality even if it feels like it should be.

Yes, intensive "farming" is bad - whether it is immoral is another question - it is not farming it is an industrial process and it should be stopped. We as consumers have the power to change it, and yes, boycotting meat is a way of doing that, so is only buying from ethical sources.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Yes, most food groups we could probably do away with. But only the food groups under meat and fish require the slaughter of a sentient being, which is why I choose to leave them out of my diet.
There is a diet that does not involve the killing any living thing, sentient or not, this excludes the eating of any plant matter that is still connected to a living plant at the time of harvest such as fruit, tubers and leaves - this is a philosophical choice so those who practice this are called Fruitarian (as opposed to Frugivore). By extension there is also a diet that extends this to carrion. When making a philosophical choice you have made a philosophical decision on what constitutes sentience since you have chosen between vegetarianism and vegan-ism. 
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 I don't really see why this is a problem.
 
It is not a problem. I never said it was a problem. You are making it into a problem all by yourself. I have not condemned anyone for being a vegetarian nor defended anyone who eats meat, I have proffered no judgemental or emotional opinions, merely stated the biological case. All I have stated is that omnivore is natural, vegetarianism is man-made. I have not claimed that either are unhealthy diets or that either are healthy diets - diets are only healthy when they are balanced and consumed in moderation. You are claiming the moral argument and I simply refute that it is about morality.

What?
Back to Top
Andy Webb View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: June 04 2010
Location: Terria
Status: Offline
Points: 13298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 14:31
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

As for the poll: I only eat endangered species. Panda sweet breads are my fave along with ring tailed lemur cooked as Osso Buco.

LOL
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 13:29
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Carrots have feelings too.
Quite.
What?
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 13:09
Carrots have feelings too.
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 12:59
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Dean, what exactly is wrong with the word "meat eater"? Surely it just means someone who eats meat? It's not necessarily a term that labels you as exclusively eating meat. I'm a whiskey drinker, but whiskey sure as hell isn't the only thing I drink 
I kinda thought I'd made that pretty clear in my post that the term "meat eater" is synonymous with carnivore (carn ~ meat; vore ~ devour) - when we call a lion a meat eater we mean it is a carnivore. Drinking whiskey is a matter of taste, abstaining from alcohol is not, the converse of whiskey drinker is not a teetotaller, your poll essentially polls whiskey drinkers with teetotallers, not with gin drinkers, tea drinkers and soda drinkers.

However, you can piss about playing with words as much as you like, you did not put an omnivore option in this poll but offered two non-meat lifestyle diet options, therefore you have given the phrase an implied negative connotation. (Why is this implied? because you made it so in the OP by inviting discussion on morality.

Argue as much as you like, carnivore, omnivore and herbivore are natural diets, vegetarianism and vegan-ism are not. (and your reply to Brian is just plain nutty btw)

I think we're just arguing semantics here, which never really resolves so let's move on... I'll change the option to omnivorous due to the fact that it may upset some people. rest assured though, the term was not meant to segregate anyone in any way.

Why exactly is the post nutty? Morality does combat natural behaviour. I'm open to arguments that counter that assumption however.


Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


Let me just clarify why I'm a vegetarian:

There are living examples everywhere of the fact that we don't have to eat meat to survive. From this we can deduce that as a race, we kill animals unnecessarily, and while I don't have a problem with other people consuming meat, I don't particularly want any part in it. It's not a boycott either, it's a moral decision, the same sort of decision that I make when I don't read The Daily Mail or watch Fox News.
It is not a moral decision. I am not immoral nor am I amoral for eating meat, you are not morally any different from me for deciding to survive on a diet of vegetation, no better no worse. It is a decision of conscience perhaps but that does not always mean it is question of morality. 

Yes we can survive without eating meat - there are lots of food groups we do not need to eat to survive - chocolate, fruit, ice cream, potatoes, legumes, brassicas, mushrooms - remove any of them from your diet and you will survive. From this we can deduce that fermenting fruit sugars using a specific strain of fungi to produce intoxication liquor is unnecessary, though I don't have a problem with other people getting blotto on vino collapso... (the parody runs out here, I do partake of alcoholic beverages in moderation so I cannot claim that I don't particularly want any part in it, though I have no desire to get blotto).

I'm not saying that anyone who eats meat is immoral at all. I do think it's the more moral option, which is why I have made that decision, but that does not mean that not being vegetarian would make a person immoral. Morality is big web of decision making that is so complicated I wouldn't agreeing with labeling any one person entirely immoral, but I would say that supporting the meat industry is an immoral act as it is killing innocent creatures that don't need to be killed. I can understand doing that if you have to eat meat because of a certain condition (I know a sax player like this), but most of us just eat meat because we like it. Is the systematic breeding and slaughter of a chicken really worth a nice taste? I personally don't think so. Some people think it is, and while I would disagree, I didn't make this poll to berate folks that eat meat, more for healthy debate on the issue.

Yes, most food groups we could probably do away with. But only the food groups under meat and fish require the slaughter of a sentient being, which is why I choose to leave them out of my diet. I don't really see why this is a problem.

"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 12:38
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Dean, what exactly is wrong with the word "meat eater"? Surely it just means someone who eats meat? It's not necessarily a term that labels you as exclusively eating meat. I'm a whiskey drinker, but whiskey sure as hell isn't the only thing I drink 
I kinda thought I'd made that pretty clear in my post that the term "meat eater" is synonymous with carnivore (carn ~ meat; vore ~ devour) - when we call a lion a meat eater we mean it is a carnivore. Drinking whiskey is a matter of taste, abstaining from alcohol is not, the converse of whiskey drinker is not a teetotaller, your poll essentially polls whiskey drinkers with teetotallers, not with gin drinkers, tea drinkers and soda drinkers.

However, you can piss about playing with words as much as you like, you did not put an omnivore option in this poll but offered two non-meat lifestyle diet options, therefore you have given the phrase an implied negative connotation. (Why is this implied? because you made it so in the OP by inviting discussion on morality.

Argue as much as you like, carnivore, omnivore and herbivore are natural diets, vegetarianism and vegan-ism are not. (and your reply to Brian is just plain nutty btw)


Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


Let me just clarify why I'm a vegetarian:

There are living examples everywhere of the fact that we don't have to eat meat to survive. From this we can deduce that as a race, we kill animals unnecessarily, and while I don't have a problem with other people consuming meat, I don't particularly want any part in it. It's not a boycott either, it's a moral decision, the same sort of decision that I make when I don't read The Daily Mail or watch Fox News.
It is not a moral decision. I am not immoral nor am I amoral for eating meat, you are not morally any different from me for deciding to survive on a diet of vegetation, no better no worse. It is a decision of conscience perhaps but that does not always mean it is question of morality. 

Yes we can survive without eating meat - there are lots of food groups we do not need to eat to survive - chocolate, fruit, ice cream, potatoes, legumes, brassicas, mushrooms - remove any of them from your diet and you will survive. From this we can deduce that fermenting fruit sugars using a specific strain of fungi to produce intoxication liquor is unnecessary, though I don't have a problem with other people getting blotto on vino collapso... (the parody runs out here, I do partake of alcoholic beverages in moderation so I cannot claim that I don't particularly want any part in it, though I have no desire to get blotto). 


Edited by Dean - January 11 2014 at 12:40
What?
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 11:48
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Omnivorian.  It is our nature.


This isn't really an argument. So are sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder and rape. Morality fights the natural urge in almost all cases.
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 11:47
Dean, what exactly is wrong with the word "meat eater"? Surely it just means someone who eats meat? It's not necessarily a term that labels you as exclusively eating meat. I'm a whiskey drinker, but whiskey sure as hell isn't the only thing I drink

Let me just clarify why I'm a vegetarian:

There are living examples everywhere of the fact that we don't have to eat meat to survive. From this we can deduce that as a race, we kill animals unnecessarily, and while I don't have a problem with other people consuming meat, I don't particularly want any part in it. It's not a boycott either, it's a moral decision, the same sort of decision that I make when I don't read The Daily Mail or watch Fox News.
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:58
Omnivorian.  It is our nature.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20654
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:53
Meat....but I prefer fish and chicken over beef and pork.
But as someone said above everything in moderation is an excellent policy.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
yam yam View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Crossover Team

Joined: June 16 2011
Location: Kerberos
Status: Online
Points: 7029
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:33
Omnivorous diet is best - just follow the Chinese example. As the Duke of Edingurgh once famously said at a World Wildlife Fund meeting back in 1986: "If it swims, and it's not a boat or a submarine...if it flies, and it's not an aeroplane or a helicopter...if it has legs, and it's not a table or a chair - then the Cantonese will eat it! LOL
Back to Top
Metalmarsh89 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 15 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2673
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:20
Vegetarian here, though mainly due to habit, not choice.
Want to play mafia? Visit here.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.332 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.