brighid

I don’t personally think vegetarians can’t be healthy. I know many vegetarians that aren’t because they don’t understand basic nutritional requirements – just as many meat eaters don’t either. I think because there are those vegetarians that aren’t healthy because they don’t understand those basic requirements that some see vegetarian lifestyles as unhealthy. This is just as wrong when placed on either foot. We can both be equally healthy if we eat balanced meals, drink plenty of water and exercise regularly. I know just as many fat vegetarians as I do fat meat eaters.

I can’t personally imagine not eating meat I don’t eat a lot of it. I cook fish a couple nights a week for my family, and use mainly turkey and chicken for our main sources of protein, along with egg whites, but I definitely incorporate one or two meals of lean red meat into our diets. And I make sure to eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, probably not enough – but I am working on it.

I don’t think you are going to find many in here that will argue against the ethical treatment of animals. But as you have seen, many get really incensed over the same old arguments of it’s immoral for a human to eat meat period. I don’t think it’s a cut and dry issue and it entails much more then the typical PETA arguments. That organization does more to harm the rights of animals and the issues of a vegetarian lifestyle then it does to help – at least in my humble opinion.

From what you have said, I think you are doing what is best for you and that is great. My step-father says he won’t eat anything he can keep as a pet. I respect that and when he visits I make sure to have plenty of vegetarian choices available for him as well. I don’t think it’s a bad choice, but I don’t think it’s the choice for me.

Brighid

SallySmith

I would be a liar if I said I didn't miss it at times (eating meat). I was a pretty big meat-eater so it was a big adjustment. I cut out one thing at a time over a period of several years. Now I am surprised that in fact, it's pretty damn easy. The only thing I hate is that there still aren't that many good vegetarian options in terms of eating out, even in a veg-friendly place like Seattle. It's a hell of a lot better than the midwest, though.

One thing about PETA, I know they annoy the hell out of a lot of people, but they do make great strides for better treatment of animals. They were the reason that McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's, in that order, agreed to adopt higher standards of treatment for the animals they use. I can't remember all of the specifics, but it was things like larger cages for hens, no forced molting (starvation for a period of several weeks to squeeze out more eggs), audits of their suppliers, etc. So even though I am not in agreement with PETA on some of the issues, I do support them as a whole.

bonduca

I opened the can myself. (And I burnt myself taking the bowl out of the microwave. )

spin

scigirl:
----------------------
I'm still waiting for that data that proves that animals suffered as much as humans did during the holocaust.
----------------------

I don't know if the comparison of degrees is useful. Suffering is suffering. Many animals simply suffer all their lives. How do you compare the conscious suffering of a human being with the suffering of an animal which we can see but have no way of evaluating?

The amount of suffering of one or the other is not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is the use of both as guinea pigs for experiments. In my opinion both forms are abhorrent. What is your opinion on the matter? If it is different from mine, why so?

scigirl:
----------------------
The people who suffered during the holocaust did not simply suffer because of the physical cruelty placed upon them. If it was just about the physical cruelty, than why did many holocaust survivors commit suicide after WWII? Huh, spin? Do you have an answer?
----------------------

I don't know what you are arguing this for. Human suffering is human suffering and we can evaluate it. The suffering of the ordinary Cambodian during the reign of Pol Pot was simply atrocious, but daily life in India can be that as well. Imagine parents who cut off both legs of their children to give them an occupation of beggar.

We were not talking principally about human suffering but the wrongs that humans do unthinkingly toward animals, not realising, or stopping to bother to, what they are doing. If people can so thoughtlessly take the lives of animals, is it so strange that they can nearly as thoughtlessly take human lives and cause such suffering?

scigirl:
----------------------
Well I do. It is precicely because humans have empathy for each other, and they are mentally aware of each other's suffering.
----------------------

Let's talk to the southerners of the beginning of the last century to hear about empathy. You can't assume that everyone has the same set of values as you would want them to.

scigirl:
----------------------
After WWII, holocaust survivors had such emotional trauma and anguish from the realization of what had happened, "Why did my fellow man hate me so much?" Thus, the suicides ensued.
----------------------

Holocaust survivors were unfortumately only the most vocal. We hardly heard anything about the holocaust survivors of Rwanda, the holocaust survivors of the Turkish move against the Armenians. And a long list of others. This sort of unfeeling mindlessness is more common than you are talking of.

scigirl:
----------------------
If the holocaust is comparable to animal research, you would expect to see similar suicide rates in mice and cows, right? Well, you don't.
----------------------

I did not compare the holocaust in general with animal research. I talked of Nazi doctors doing research on humans in concentration camps, data which was later used, but one cannot justify the method of obtaining the data, as one cannot justify doing so with animals.

scigirl:
----------------------
Furthermore spin, can I ask YOU a question? Have you ever taken a drug - over the counter or prescrption?
----------------------

No.

scigirl:
----------------------
Have you ever taken a pet to the veterinarian?
----------------------

Yes.

scigirl:
----------------------
If so, you have reaped the benefits of animal research whether you like it or not.
----------------------

And you may have reaped the benefit of Nazi doctors' research. You don't want to justify that. I don't want to justify such research on animals either.

scigirl:
----------------------
So unless you completely avoid all health care - for you AND your pets (that even includes aspirin), than you are a hypocrite. That's right - animal research benefits animals too - ever think of that?
----------------------

You will have to justify each example of what you are talking about, for you cannot assume that all advances in medicine were through cruelty to animals. Vaccinations against smallpox wasn't. Many other things weren't. You are too willing to call someone a hypocrite when you haven't done enough work to allow you to use the word.

scigirl:
----------------------
There are humane and inhumane ways to do animal research. I personally feel that research done on primates is morally tenuous, for the reasons I described above about awareness. But your comparison of all animal researchers with nazis is laughable, and it also shows your complete ignorance of scientists.
----------------------

Talking an animal out of its natural habitat is an act of violence towards the animal. Raising an animal without any thought for its future is an act of violence. Treating animals as guinea pigs is an act of violence. You may condone such acts of violence however you like. It won't change the fact that the animals are victims.

scigirl:
----------------------
I have read several books of nazi survivors, and I have done several experiments on mice and cows. I can assure you, they are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing.
----------------------

And nobody said they were.

However, your comment is not related to what was being talked about. We weren't talking about who suffered more or less, but the fact that in this case animals were suffering at all. I don't think you or anyone else can justify such suffering, let alone the human suffering mentioned.

spin

Macaclypse:
-----------------------------
The vegetarian ethical argument here shows a persistent logical fallacy--two actually.
The first is that because of some similarity between two actions, they must be morally identical. This fallacy is used for arguments such as the "evil aliens".
-----------------------------

This is a misrepresentation. First, I did not talk of "evil" aliens, just ones with superior intelligence which eat humans. This was for an analogy for in this world there is no-one in the position to humans as humans are to animals. But people are not prepared to think of such analogies for they are too busy being put off by aliens, and not able to deal with the simple logic. In short your analysis is miguided.

Macaclypse:
-----------------------------
The second fallacy is declaring that some particular similarity exists, it is morally determinant. This fallacy is either used as an argument from authority ("this similarity is determinant because I said so") or a post hoc fallacy (I am uncomfortable eating animals, I am uncomfortable eating people, therefore any similarity between the two is morally determinant).
-----------------------------

When one uses analogies to reflect on a particular aspect, one is not thinking so much about the content of the analogy but what the analogy represents. Strike 2, Macaclypse.

Macaclypse:
-----------------------------
Throw in a few ad hominems and nonsequiturs, and you have the vegetarian moral argument presented here in its entirety.
-----------------------------

You're waffling here, Macaclypse.

Macaclypse:
-----------------------------
An ethical argument is most persuasive (to me, at least) when the proponent presents him or herself as a moral exemplar.
-----------------------------

The arguments are there. You seem to be too busy looking at the wrong things.

Macaclypse:
-----------------------------
Sadly, the proponents in this debate have displayed simple ethical flaws, such as rudeness, (unjustified) arrogance and sloppy reasoning to the point of intellectual dishonesty.
-----------------------------

Unfortunately, unsupported statements are the sign of no content. Perhaps you have something to say, but you don't because you don't voice them in a representative manner to show that you are talking of anything coherent.

Macalypse:
-----------------------------
Frankly the proponents completely fail to make the emotional case that I want to be like them.
-----------------------------

You don't have to be like them. Do you think it's ok to slaughter animals for peoples' appetites? If so are you prepared to be honest and do the slaughtering yourself? I'd guess you wouldn't, as most people wouldn't.

Aethernaut

Even as a vegetarian I was pretty indifferent toward PETA because I believe that people should be allowed to eat meat and wear leather if they so choose. I thought "let them tout thier cause and more power to them." Then I read <a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/42906.htm" target="_blank">this New York Post story.</a>

Supporting environmentalist causes is tolerable and should be encouraged. Supporting ecoterrorists is counter to thier movement and terribly harmful to people and the environment.

I believe that irreparable harm was done to PETAs reputation and I'm wondering if all of those celebrities who wave the PETA flag will continue to do so in light of these allegations.

-SK

spin

Someone amazingly obtuse said:
----------------------------------
If you want to impose your vegetarianism on me ----------------------------------

Nobody wants to impose anything of the sort. Only you can impose it on yourself.

The same person continued:
----------------------------------
then get the HELL OUT OF MY FACE!
----------------------------------

You didn't have to come and join the conversation. In fact you have decided to intervene for no good reason and be rude. I recommend that you take your own words serious.

Further the same person:
----------------------------------
The only thing worse than a militant vegetarian is a militant fundie.
----------------------------------

You're wrong. A militant idiot is worse.

I would hope in real life that you were a much more serious person than your post indicates. Internet tends to allow people to really hang loose and say things that they wouldn't dare say in real life, because they would be too ashamed to.

Mageth

Supporting environmentalist causes is tolerable and should be encouraged. Supporting ecoterrorists is counter to thier movement and terribly harmful to people and the environment.

Oh no - does that mean when I buy drugs, I may be supporting PETA?

&lt;note to the uninformed: a reference to the recent ads where teens lament supporting terrorism by buying illegal drugs&gt;

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

You're wrong. A militant idiot is worse.

I would hope in real life that you were a much more serious person than your post indicates. Internet tends to allow people to really hang loose and say things that they wouldn't dare say in real life, because they would be too ashamed to.

So, would you refer to someone as a "militant idiot" to their face?

spin

pepperlandgirl:
-------------------------
Finally, I make one simple distinction in deciding what's "ok" to kill for food. Is it a member of Homo sapiens sapiens? No? Well then, it's fair game.
-------------------------

What's wrong with eating human meat?