The AntiChris

No disagreement here.

Anyone who makes decisions based exclusively on empathic feelings is unlikely to survive in any society.

Chris

tronvillain

SirenSpeak:
Well, that seems like a pretty good reason to me, as it is essentially the primary reason I give: the pleasure I derive from eating meat outweighs the empathy I feel for the animals who are raised and killed to provide that meat. Now, I do not expect you to consider this a good reason as you apparently feel more empathy, but I do expect you to understand that it is a good reason for me.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

tronvillain

Kip:
The existence of an overwhelming number of arguments for the superiority of the vegetarian diet says nothing about whether the vegetarian diet is actually superior. I am a reasonable and informed person, and I am not converted - it is not at all clear that correlations in the areas you mention are the result of direct causation.

CuriosityKills

Brigid,

1)You had asked for stats on mehtane produced by cows. Please check out this link. Its from a reliable source.

<a href="http://www.epa.gov/rlep/sustain.htm" target="_blank">http://www.epa.gov/rlep/sustain.htm</a>

2)We don't have to eat refined sugar or refined grains.

3)I happen to like tofu. The are other sources of protein that are available such as gluten, beans and grains. I do eat dairy and free range eggs as well. I am not a vegan. If you were to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian, you don't have to eat soy.

Its funny how the meat eaters on this forum are acting as "fundamentalist" as they claim vegans are. As far as I know, no one has requested that anyone make any serious lifestyle changes. Its all too easy to throw other peoples ideas out and cling to your own.

cymbalina

I'd like to jump in and make a few comments here-- sorry if you've heard all this before.
1) The label "carnivore" for those who eat meat. Humans who subsist entirely on animal products may exist, but I don't know too many of them. Okay, make that any of them. It's "omnivore," thank you very much. Pass the larvae.

2) Bad personal experiences with vegans-- I never met one who wasn't a dogmatic jerk until college. In fact, my best friend and I were pressured out of the high school environmental club for not being vegans-- we weren't considered committed enough to the earth. Non-vegans who tried to be club officers were publicly ridiculed. So much for "every little bit helps."

That said, the first vegan I met in college was one of the sweetest, most loving girls in our dorm. I even screened her couscous for her once to make sure it didn't contain chicken broth-- she no longer remembered the taste of it.

3) What do people think of the "Beyond Veg" site-- <a href="http://www.beyondveg.com?" target="_blank">www.beyondveg.com?</a> I found it very enlightening, personally, as far as the scientific basis for veganism goes.

That's it for now,
Cymbalina

Feather

What about empathy for the poor dead plants?

The whole "empathy" argument has always struck me as being hypocritical. It's extremely anthropomorphic.

No, I'm not suggesting that plants can "feel" in the way animals can (I wouldn't know, having never tested the hypothesis and having seen nothing scientific supporting it). But to claim one is empathetic because he kills and eats things out of Kingdom Plantae only and not Kingdom Animalia is just stupid.

They're both kinds of living things. How is choosing to kill one group exclusively somehow more empathetic or moral than killing from each group indiscriminantly?

Rusting Car Bumper

It doesn't give enough information to judge the argument.

I read an counter-argument a few years ago comparing the estimated number of living bovines to the estimated number in the past. According to the argument, at this point in history, we have fewer bovines on the planet than any time in natural history. If that's the case then the original argument doesn't carry much weight.

DC

brighid

Thanks for the link. The link does not address a vegetarian position but recommends better management of herds, the environment and the diet of dairy and meat herds. So, I am not sure how this relates to a vegetarian position as these 1.2 billion ruminant livestock will still exist globally and continue to reproduce multiplying the methane gas production with each new herd member. If these animals are producing so much methane gas, thereby contributing to the effects of global warming it could be argued that they should indeed be used for their meat and other products in an attempt to curb and control these populations.

I have been incapable of maintaining the level of lean body mass I desire when maintaining a strictly vegetarian diet. That and I don’t find the data on health to be credible for those omnivorous people who also maintain active and healthy lifestyles, especially if those people purchase and eat free-range animal products that have the appropriate omega balance not found in grain fed animals. For those people who are sedentary I would encourage a primarily vegetarian lifestyle and encourage everyone to eliminate refined foods from their diet, but from a health stand point I find no compelling argument that active omnivores do not and cannot maintain a health body and ward off disease because include animal products in their diet.

I have yet to come across any statistical data that people who choose a vegetarian lifestyle have any different IQ then any one else. A vegetarian lifestyle may be good for some, but it is not viable for all people – such as those who have allergies to nuts, eggs, dairy and gluten. They are simply unable to tolerate and maintain physical health by eating as a vegetarian or vegan, and an individuals diet should not be evaluated generally. It, as in all things, should be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account the relevant issues unique to the individual.

I am no less intelligent because I eat meat and furthermore you aren’t aware of my specific health issues or needs to make any sort of value judgment upon my choice of lifestyle. Nor are you in a position to evaluate and compare the IQ’s of individuals without actually testing those things even if you suspect one way or another. The vegetarian lifestyle may be the right choice for you, for health and ethical reasons but it is not, nor should it be championed as the universally correct choice or superior by design. It is not, even if it is beneficial to some or many. The vegetarian lifestyle has not been proved to be better then an omnivorous diet rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes and containing essential vitamins and nutrients. An unbalanced diet, either vegetarian, vegan or that of an omnivore have all been proved to be detrimental to different aspects of health and vitality.

Brighid


Beyond Veg is a very good site, at least in my very subjective opinion.

The AntiChris

DigitalChicken

Ok, let's backtrack. My original question:

To which you replied:

In what sense do either of these statements indicate that you have any empathy whatsoever for non-human animals? Or are you saying you just don't know?

Of couse not, but empathy will certainly affect human behaviour. Humans who display a lack of empathy range from the antisocial through to the psychopathic.

If by this you mean animals are assigned certain "rights" but no moral responsibility, then this isn't altogether without precedent - we do the same for infants and mentally deficient adults.

Ok. If you genuinely can't see the difference between a plant reacting to stimuli and a sentient creature displaying emotion then I suppose any defense of animal welfare must appear irrational to you.

Maybe they just believe that a balanced meat-free diet is genuinely healthier?

I have no sympathy for extreme and irrational vegans. However, your dismissal of all vegans as irrational fundies and your highly individual take on empathy for non-human species seems equally extreme to me.

Chris

CuriosityKills

If we didn't eat as much meat, we wouldn't need so many cows. Less cows = Less methane.

If there is more demand for beef, it makes sense that more ranchers will cultivate larger heards. They will allocate more of their land to beef production and breed more cows. More cows equals more methane production.

It is ridiculous to say that if we reduce our consumption of meat that the livestock animal population will grow out of control and overwhelm the earth. Has it not occurred to you that our demand for meat is what INCREASES production.

These are not wild animals. They are CULTIVATED. I'm not reccomending this, but if we all of the sudden just stopped eating beef, the cow popluation would probably die out. They wouldn't be taken care of. Cows no longer have any natural instinct. It has been bred out of them. therefore, they cannot live in the "wild".

High quality protein is essential to build muscle mass. But meat is not. Professional body builders mainly rely on large doses of SOY protein.

Carbs. are more essential for a high activity lifestyle than protien is. Do athletes eat a side of beef before performances? No, they eat a big plate of pasta.

I think a steak every once in a while is O.K. But we must beware of extremes such as the ZONE diet. Again, I'm not saying that eating meat is wrong, but we have to keep everything in balance.