Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Question for vegetarians

vegatarian meat free run animals vegan

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:47 PM

So I personally agree that the way animals are generally raised today for our consuption is wrong and I understand why some people choose to be vegetarians.

What about free run animals which are treated well their whole life? How do you vegetarians feel about the idea of eating them?

Is it still "wrong" in your opinons to eat such animals? Keep in mind most of animals farmed like that would have never been born if not for the need to farm them.

So the philisophical question I have here is, Is it better to have lived a good life with the destiny of one day being killed and consumed or to not have experianced life to begin with?


#2    Ever Learning

Ever Learning

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plato's Cave

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:30 AM

excluding the vegetarians who don't eat meat because of the taste.
the question posed puts vegetarians in a position where there is only 2 wrong answers.  if I choose answer 1 'Is it better to have lived a good life with the destiny of one day being killed and consumed?', I would be allowing life but only shortly, a good life would be assumed to be long, a lamb is killed in its first year. a sheep's name in its second year is a hogget and in its third a sheep. we could eat mutton but its not as nice to eat and more cost effective for lambs to be killed.

answer 2 'to not have experienced life to begin with?', at first could make a vegetarian feel bad but animals they would survive in the wild if mans influence hadn't domesticated them. yes there would be predators who would kill the slow and the weak, but this doesn't compare to the mass production of lambs that die for our consumption. what about all the possible lambs who could of been born if were able to reach adolescence and make their own little lambs.       

vegetarians promote life by not eating meat, but life is still extinguished by other consumers who don't hold the same view. is it silly to stick to your views when every one acts to the contrary?, maybe, but not every one wants to be sheeple ;)

p.s im a meat eater and this message is going to make me feel even more guilty when eating my favourite choice of meat 'lamb', thanks for the philosophical questions made me think.

Edited by Armchair Educated, 15 May 2013 - 12:33 AM.

www.paranormaltales.boards.net

#3    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:32 AM

View Posttrancelikestate, on 14 May 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

So I personally agree that the way animals are generally raised today for our consuption is wrong and I understand why some people choose to be vegetarians.

Glad to hear that.

Quote

What about free run animals which are treated well their whole life? How do you vegetarians feel about the idea of eating them?

You mean "happy meat"? Male chicks are still killed, whether individually on a small hobby farm or in an industrial grinder in a factory farm.

Quote

Is it still "wrong" in your opinons to eat such animals? Keep in mind most of animals farmed like that would have never been born if not for the need to farm them.

So the philisophical question I have here is, Is it better to have lived a good life with the destiny of one day being killed and consumed or to not have experianced life to begin with?

Let me quote an excerpt from Gary Francione, law professor and philosopher, from his FAQ;

"No. The fact that we are in some sense responsible for the existence of a being does not give us the right to treat that being as our resource. Were that so, then we could treat our children as resources. After all, they would not exist were it not for our actions–from decisions to conceive to decisions not to abort"

Here's one of his articles on happy meat.

Edited by redhen, 15 May 2013 - 12:47 AM.


#4    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:46 AM

View PostArmchair Educated, on 15 May 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

vegetarians promote life by not eating meat, but life is still extinguished by other consumers who don't hold the same view. is it silly to stick to your views when every one acts to the contrary?, maybe, but not every one wants to be sheeple ;)

argumentum ad populum

Quote

p.s im a meat eater and this message is going to make me feel even more guilty when eating my favourite choice of meat 'lamb', thanks for the philosophical questions made me think.

Emotions of guilt? Good, that means something does not jive with your moral beliefs. This essay than should prove to you The immorality of eating meat, using no new arguments, just the beliefs that you already hold.

And for someone who lives in Plato's cave, the logic should be inescapable. So the question is, how much cognitive dissonance can you live with?


#5    shrooma

shrooma

    Needs an exorcist, not a shrink....

  • Member
  • 3,327 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:18 AM

View Postredhen, on 15 May 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:



argumentum ad populum



Emotions of guilt? Good.
.
does a lion feel guilt when it eats a gazelle?
does a fox feel self-loathing when it eats a chicken?
does a rabbit feel immoral when it eats a lettuce?
no. because that is the natural order of things. there is a reason why it's called a 'food chain', and a reason why we're at the top.
what you fail to realise, is that being a vegetarian is a choice. eating meat is a choice. but yet you somehow claim your choice is more valid than ours? why is that? worse than that, you villify us for our choice, and call us immoral. why is that? do you feel guilt when you deprive a tomato of its existence? and if not, why not? showing contempt for another's choice, when it's the same choice as yours but just the other side of the coin is the lowest form of hypocrisy.
you don't mourn for your food, so why should we?
.

the question is, how much cognitive dissonance can you live with?
.
for a bacon sandwich?
I would feel nothing at all.

"well we've ruined all the good bits, and cut down all the trees, and dumped the radiation into the deep blue seas.
we've ploughed up so much country just to get from A to B, just to move that little bit faster, in our five-speed luxuries-
just to move that little bit closer, to the world on your tv's."
-Culture Shock-

#6    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:23 AM

View Postshrooma, on 15 May 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

.
for a bacon sandwich?
I would feel nothing at all.

Behold the power of L-glutamate receptors!

see Umami


#7    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:44 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 May 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:



"No. The fact that we are in some sense responsible for the existence of a being does not give us the right to treat that being as our resource. Were that so, then we could treat our children as resources. After all, they would not exist were it not for our actions–from decisions to conceive to decisions not to abort"

Here's one of his articles on happy meat.

One mans opinion I guess.

I personally would have rather lived an enjoyable life even if it meant I had a time of death predetermined for whatever means that may be. Wouldn't you?

Edited by trancelikestate, 15 May 2013 - 10:46 PM.


#8    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:50 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 May 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:




You mean "happy meat"? Male chicks are still killed, whether individually on a small hobby farm or in an industrial grinder in a factory farm.



False. I grew up on a "hobby farm" and yes roosters were usually the first consumed, but no we didn't kill male chicks. This is the type of farm I'm referring to, not one which does or the factory farms. As I originally stated I agree those are pretty screwed up.


#9    shrooma

shrooma

    Needs an exorcist, not a shrink....

  • Member
  • 3,327 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:04 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 May 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:



Behold the power of L-glutamate receptors!

see Umami
.
nothing wrong with umami red hen!
I don't care for sweet things much, being more of a savoury kinda guy, and i'd much rather have a samosa than a bar of chocolate any day of the week!!
:-)

"well we've ruined all the good bits, and cut down all the trees, and dumped the radiation into the deep blue seas.
we've ploughed up so much country just to get from A to B, just to move that little bit faster, in our five-speed luxuries-
just to move that little bit closer, to the world on your tv's."
-Culture Shock-

#10    shrooma

shrooma

    Needs an exorcist, not a shrink....

  • Member
  • 3,327 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:10 PM

View Posttrancelikestate, on 15 May 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:



False. I grew up on a "hobby farm" and yes roosters were usually the first consumed, but no we didn't kill male chicks. This is the type of farm I'm referring to, not one which does or the factory farms. As I originally stated I agree those are pretty screwed up.
.
where I live TLS, i'm surrounded by farms, so I get to see the living conditions of the animals, and only buy my meat from farms that do their own butchery as opposed to buying from supermarkets where you've no idea where the meat is sourced from, so my conscience is pretty clear when I eat a sausage!
:-)

"well we've ruined all the good bits, and cut down all the trees, and dumped the radiation into the deep blue seas.
we've ploughed up so much country just to get from A to B, just to move that little bit faster, in our five-speed luxuries-
just to move that little bit closer, to the world on your tv's."
-Culture Shock-

#11    Perfection

Perfection

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Oz

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:43 PM

animals are dangerous.


#12    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:46 PM

View Posttrancelikestate, on 15 May 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

I personally would have rather lived an enjoyable life even if it meant I had a time of death predetermined for whatever means that may be. Wouldn't you?

I think this is a categorical error. It's one thing for you to voluntarily submit to slaughter and being consumed, it's quite another matter when it's applied to animals that weren't asked their for their opinion.


Quote

False. I grew up on a "hobby farm" and yes roosters were usually the first consumed, but no we didn't kill male chicks. This is the type of farm I'm referring to, not one which does or the factory farms. As I originally stated I agree those are pretty screwed up.

Yes, I agree, small family farms are much more ethical than factory farms. I wish we could go back in time when this was the norm.


#13    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:54 PM

View PostPerfection, on 15 May 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

animals are dangerous.

Are you trying to make an argument? If so, you need at least one more premise, which can also be your main conclusion, i.e.

animals are dangerous.

thus, it is morally ok to kill and eat them.

Is that your argument?


#14    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 May 2013 - 12:14 AM

View Postredhen, on 15 May 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

Are you trying to make an argument? If so, you need at least one more premise, which can also be your main conclusion, i.e.

animals are dangerous.

thus, it is morally ok to kill and eat them.

Is that your argument?

haha I hope not, thats a terrible argument. By that logic we should turn to cannabalism because humans are the most dangerous animals of them all.


#15    trancelikestate

trancelikestate

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 May 2013 - 12:18 AM

View Postredhen, on 15 May 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

I think this is a categorical error. It's one thing for you to voluntarily submit to slaughter and being consumed, it's quite another matter when it's applied to animals that weren't asked their for their opinion.




Yes, I agree, small family farms are much more ethical than factory farms. I wish we could go back in time when this was the norm.

No I mean even if it wasnt my choice, the exact same situation as any animal,  I'd rather be born and eaten than not be born at all. but thats just another mans opinion.

and ya, there should be more family farms but unfortunalty theres too much money to be made and many people nowadays are to urbanized and wouldnt know where to begin if they resettled out of the city anyway





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users