Is anyone a vegetarian or vegan?

Are you a vegetarian or a vegan?

  • I am a vegetarian or vegan

    Votes: 43 27.0%
  • I am not a vegetarian or vegan

    Votes: 116 73.0%

  • Total voters
    159
I have no problems with anybody eating what they prefer. We are all free to choose..
Its not my business and I dont expect anybody to justify their choices for me.

What irks me is when people have an attitude of superiority over it, despite being unwilling and uninterested in any counter arguements or opposing science..
Thats your choice if thats how you want to live, but lets not sit on a high horse about it.
Either way, yes it appears the discussion has reached its end.
I'm in total agreement
 
A pig's life is just as important as a human's life or a dog's life because pigs have emotions and can feel pain and suffering just like humans and dogs (they are also sentient just like humans and dogs). The same is true for cows, goats, and many other animals.

Thank you. Your explanation reminds me of a famous quote from Jeremy Bentham:

“The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the whims of a tormentor. Perhaps it will some day be recognised that the number of legs, the hairiness of the skin, or the possession of a tail, are equally insufficient reasons for abandoning to the same fate a creature that can feel? What else could be used to draw the line? Is it the faculty of reason or the possession of language? But a full-grown horse or dog is incomparably more rational and conversable than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month old. Even if that were not so, what difference would that make? The question is not Can they reason? or Can they talk? but Can they suffer?” – An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 17

Bentham, however, is discussing the question of torment. He says that we should not torment animals that have the capacity to suffer, similarly to how we accept that humans should not be tormented, since we consider the suffering to be wrong. I can follow that, I see the connection between tormenting and suffering and I believe that some other animals do not suffer less than we humans would.

But why do emotions, especially the capacity to suffer, determine a being's worth in general? For example, why doesn't the capacity to reason or to act moral play into a being's worth? Why would suffering still be the decisive criterion when you take the tormenting out of the equation by buying meat from animals that had a good life and were killed with minimum suffering, for example an unforeseen shot to the head? I certainly accept your position as a legitimate opinion, but it don't understand yet why you see it as a fact.
 
Well I don't think you need a reason to be a Vegetarian as I see so many trying to explain their reason. If you are you are, if you're not then you're not. There is no right or wrong - there is only what is right for you.

This sounds good and helpful for getting along peacefully in a forum. Generally speaking, I'm convinced that there is right and wrong though. For example, one stone is definitely less stones than two stones. Opinions may differ and that's okay, but they can be certainly wrong or right in the case of the stones.

I find it interesting to investigate if there is also right or wrong concerning eating animals. I don't know the answer, but I don't feel like giving up too quickly. As a matter of life and death it's not the most unimportant question.

I also understand that people who are convinced that a great wrong is being done there can be a bit dogged sometimes. Even wars were fought over questions like slavery, and most of us agree today that those who condemned it were right. But at the time, the proponents of slavery also had good arguments like thousands of years of successful slavery which proved that it works, religious arguments and in some cases where slaves and slaveholders descended from different parts of the world also biological arguments.
 
my personal view on this, not posting this to stir up an argument, or say one side is right or wrong just a thought: a cow requires food, water, air, sunlight to thrive and grow and be healthy.....a carrot requires food, water, air, sunlight to grow and be healthy. Both a cow and a carrot are capable of growth, sickness, death, reproduction (one via seeds one via sex), in neither case do you ask permission to kill and eat either one. Im sorry but never have i seen someone bend down in a garden and ask a carrot is it ok if i rip you from your home, peel wash and cook you so i can devour you for dinner). Both are living entities. eat whatever you please for whatever reason you choose. and to answer the original question no i am not vegan/vegetarian.
 
But why do emotions, especially the capacity to suffer, determine a being's worth in general? For example, why doesn't the capacity to reason or to act moral play into a being's worth? Why would suffering still be the decisive criterion when you take the tormenting out of the equation by buying meat from animals that had a good life and were killed with minimum suffering, for example an unforeseen shot to the head? I certainly accept your position as a legitimate opinion, but it don't understand yet why you see it as a fact.

A being's life is valuable in and of itself -- this is why it is illegal (in most cases) to kill certain animals, such as dogs and humans. Beings such as pigs and cows should be afforded that same protection -- they should not be killed because killing a being (in and of itself) is unethical. (It is unethical to treat an animal as an exploitable object, which is done in slaughter / hunting). People value human lives -- and people should value pig / cow lives also.

my personal view on this, not posting this to stir up an argument, or say one side is right or wrong just a thought: a cow requires food, water, air, sunlight to thrive and grow and be healthy.....a carrot requires food, water, air, sunlight to grow and be healthy. Both a cow and a carrot are capable of growth, sickness, death, reproduction (one via seeds one via sex), in neither case do you ask permission to kill and eat either one. Im sorry but never have i seen someone bend down in a garden and ask a carrot is it ok if i rip you from your home, peel wash and cook you so i can devour you for dinner). Both are living entities. eat whatever you please for whatever reason you choose. and to answer the original question no i am not vegan/vegetarian.

It is idiotic to say that the life of a carrot and the life of a cow are equal. The lives of animals such as cows, pigs, humans, etc, are more valuable than plants -- as stated earlier, animals can feel pain, suffering, emotion, etc -- a carrot cannot do this. Animals such as pigs are sentient and conscious -- a carrot is not. And even if one were to value the lives of plants, consider the fact that entire forests are destroyed in order to make the farmland used for raising animals for slaughter. So, from an ethical and environmental perspective, eating meat is immoral.
 
Agricultural crop production is the largest contributer to tropical deforestation. Soy and palm oil.
But I guess we wont talk about that..

I was responding to Tailo, not you.

Read this article:


It says, "Eighteen vegans could get by on the same amount of resources demanded by just one meat-eater. You might already know that feeding massive amounts of grain and water to animals and then killing them and processing, transporting, and storing their flesh isn’t environmentally friendly. But did you know that entire forests—which absorb greenhouse gases—are cut down in order to supply pastureland and grow crops for animals on farms? Talk about not plant-friendly."

Regarding the clearing of forests for soy, 85% of the world's soy is used as animal feed (for animals that are used for dairy / slaughter). Eliminating the animal aspect of agriculture (and adopting a vegan diet) would therefore reduce the number of forests cleared.

Also, animals like cows require far more land than soy -- meaning the number of forests destroyed is higher with cows than it is with growing soy.

(Source for the 85% fact: https://www.oilseedandgrain.com/soy-facts )
 

Attachments

  • bgt1gfrl9go21.png
    bgt1gfrl9go21.png
    321.4 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
I was responding to Tailo, not you.

Read this article:


It says, "Eighteen vegans could get by on the same amount of resources demanded by just one meat-eater. You might already know that feeding massive amounts of grain and water to animals and then killing them and processing, transporting, and storing their flesh isn’t environmentally friendly. But did you know that entire forests—which absorb greenhouse gases—are cut down in order to supply pastureland and grow crops for animals on farms? Talk about not plant-friendly."

Regarding the clearing of forests for soy, 85% of the world's soy is used as animal feed (for animals that are used for dairy / slaughter). Eliminating the animal aspect of agriculture would therefore reduce the number of forests cleared.

Youve already stated you care more about your feelings than your health or facts, Im not interested in your dietary opinions or selective science.
 
Youve already stated you care more about your feelings than your health or facts, Im not interested in your dietary opinions or selective science.

You're just saying that because you don't have a good argument for your unethical, cruel, speciesist, meat-eating practices.
 
Being that you dont care about facts...im not here to debate you.

Then why did you respond by laughing at me, and then replying to me, when I wasn't even responding to you recently (I was responding to Tailo)?

Also, stop saying that I don't care about facts. You're the one who doesn't care about facts (with the nonsense you keep spreading to justify meat-eating). Animal agriculture is far more resource-intensive than non-animal agriculture. You completely ignore this fact.

By the way, I assume that your "laughing at me" reaction was meant to be an insult.
 
Last edited:
I love how the meat-eater just shows the first Google search result without even looking into it for a second, then the vegan has more facts, a more carefully selected infographic and lots more to say, and you both just say "he doesn't care about facts"

Trying to justify eating meat is such an exercise in ignorance :LOL:
If you actually cared enough to look into it, you'd find the right answer is veganism quickly enough.
Even if it's not possible in your situation for whatever reason, it's always best to strive for it as much as you can for your health, the environment and the animals.
 
Just wondering how many other zoos are vegetarian or vegan.

I am a vegetarian -- I do not eat meat because I think it is morally wrong (I don't think animals should be viewed as mere objects to be consumed). Animals should be treated as equal to humans, and that means not eating them.

I also know that the current conditions of factory farms and slaughterhouses in the U.S. and elsewhere are horrific (they are basically animal torture places).

Also, I think things like "if you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a pig?" (Pigs, by the way, can be sexual lovers just like dogs).

There does seem to be some overlap of zoos and vegetarians/vegans.
]


I have many "Vagitarian" friends, do they count? (giggle)
 
Agricultural crop production is the largest contributer to tropical deforestation. Soy and palm oil.

This is a very good argument. I also think that continued deforestation has a bad impact. In my opinion, we should preserve the natural diversity and it is especially abundant in rain forests. Apparently that is a point that meat eaters and vegetarians can easily agree on.

So how can we improve this with our nutrition? It seems that you meant to imply that eating meat instead of soy products like tofu would be a good means here. I can see why you would think that. When I go to the shops in Germany and see "soy" printed on a product, it is usually a product that is offered as an alternative for traditional animal products. Could be different in East Asia, I don't know. @Zoo50 challenged the idea by pointing out that most of the soy production is used as animal feed – or in other words, meat is often processed soy, too. I see that you do not trust Zoo50's sources. I could add additional sources such as by the Food and Agricultural association of the United Nations, but instead …

I'd like to encourage you to research this for yourself. I think that you have the motivation in you to check this, if you do care about the rain forest, if you are serious about your own argument.

So, what if soy indeed goes into both meat and tofu production? Does it matter for the rain forest, which of both products we choose? Well, if we need to feed more soy to the animal to produce enough meat than we would need if we ate the soy ourselves, then eating tofu is better for the rain forest than eating meat. And indeed, this is often the case. Anyone can research this and it shouldn't really be a surprise when one applies one's knowledge about thermodynamics: Energy is not magically created in the animal. We can only take from it what has gone in. But the animal also loses some of its intake in form of body heat, for movement and so on. If the animal only ate stuff that our human bodies can't process*, then that energy loss in the animal wouldn't matter so much. But in case of soy, which we can process ourselves, it does matter.

The energy balance isn't the same for every animal. Cows are quite bad in that respect, whereas chicken preserve more of the energy input in their flesh. Eating human-consumable plants is in principle more efficient than feeding the plants to animals and eating the animals.

I think we are so close ⇥ ⇤ to this thread having an actual positive impact on tropical forests due to your argument. :) It would be sad to see it go down the gutter because of some mistrust.

Both you and @SamSmith have hinted at buying local reducing negative impact. I think that is a valid point, but be aware that your local animals may still be fed with imported soy. So buying local alone isn't a guarantee. You can choose to buy products from farmers who are committed to the local concept and other things like the well-being of the animals while they live though. It is possible, but let us not be satisfied with the possibility as an argument in a discussion. Let's actually do this! I pledge to pay more attention to where my dog's animal food comes from than I have in the past.

___
*My village is located at the rim of a valley where some, though not much, cattle is grazing. I could not eat the grass that they eat. Growing crops there would not be good for the environment either there, as it would reduce diversity in this protected area. The cattle is there to keep the meadows open for white storks and many other birds, insects and plants that need open areas. If the cows would not keep the valley open, it would grow a forest like in surrounding areas, reducing diversity. This is eco-friendly cattle-farming, but this is not how most meat is produced. The amount of meat that can be made this way is small and the meat is going to be expensive.
 
A being's life is valuable in and of itself -- this is why it is illegal (in most cases) to kill certain animals, such as dogs and humans. Beings such as pigs and cows should be afforded that same protection -- they should not be killed because killing a being (in and of itself) is unethical. (It is unethical to treat an animal as an exploitable object, which is done in slaughter / hunting). People value human lives -- and people should value pig / cow lives also.

While I do agree with the gist of your words on an emotional level, I'm not really convinced by it. That is I feel similar, but my feelings are not facts. Other people feel different and my feelings are not truer than theirs.

I actually think that feelings and opinions alone can drive change. If some people stop eating animals products because they feel like it and are apparently happier then and also healthy, then other people may be inclined to also try this without being convinced by sound arguments yet. Especially if these people are not as happy, they may just give vegetarian nutrition a try to see if it could help. And maybe they stay with that. Trying doesn't cost anything except for some pride in case they were highly ideological about eating meat before, which many people aren't. For many it's just normal, because they were raised eating meat.

But I would also love facts. I think there are facts that speak against the meat industry as it is now and against the amount of meat that it is eaten. There is the suffering we already discussed and there is the fact that we do not live sustainably on this planet today. We ruin it, at least partly. It's not just meat consumption, but the extent of meat consumption is one driving factor among others. These points are important practical ones. They count. Yet they are not fundamental enough to satisfy my philosophical interest. Theoretically, meat could be produced with very low suffering (some suffering is also created in agriculture, we won't get to zero) and eaten seldom enough to not affect out planet too much.

I think the key point in your statement where I am not convinced yet is the one concerning the inherent value of beings (which is big enough that killing them can't be justified).

Where does that inherent value come from?

I would agree that self-conscious beings who value their own life have, thereby, some value in and of themselves, but I am no sure that this is what you mean …? Otherwise I usually experience value as something that is attributed or created by others. Stuff that is necessary, loved, useful or desired is valuable. How much varies.

And how do I know when the inherent value is big enough that I may not kill? Is there an absolute limit or some grey area we can define reasonably?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I do agree with the gist of your words on an emotional level, I'm not really convinced by it. That is I feel similar, but my feelings are not facts. Other people feel different and my feelings are not truer than theirs.

I actually think that feelings and opinions alone can drive change. If some people stop eating animals products because they feel like it and are apparently happier then and also healthy, then other people may be inclined to also try this without being convinced by sound arguments yet. Especially if these people are not as happy, they may just give vegetarian nutrition a try to see if it could help. And maybe they stay with that. Trying doesn't cost anything except for some pride in case they were highly ideological about eating meat before, which many people aren't. For many it's just normal, because they were raised eating meat.

But I would also love facts. I think there are facts that speak against the meat industry as it is now and against the amount of meat that it is eaten. There is the suffering we already discussed and there is the fact that we do not live sustainably on this planet today. We ruin it, at least partly. It's not just meat consumption, but the extent of meat consumption is one driving factor among others. These points are important practical ones. They count. Yet they are not fundamental enough to satisfy my philosophical interest. Theoretically, meat could be produced with very low suffering (some suffering is also created in agriculture, we won't get to zero) and eaten seldom enough to not affect out planet too much.

I think the key point in your statement where I am not convinced yet is the one concerning the inherent value of beings (which is big enough that killing them can't be justified).

Where does that inherent value come from?

I would agree that self-conscious beings who value their own life have, thereby, some value in and of themselves, but I am no sure that this is what you mean …? Otherwise I usually experience value as something that is attributed or created by others. Stuff that is necessary, loved, useful or desired is valuable. How much varies.

And how do I know when the inherent value is big enough that I may not kill? Is there an absolute limit or some grey area we can define reasonably?
The value of a life is inherent because that living being wants to stay living. You can find it out by interacting with them, or assume it by virtue of them being a member of a species that exists because it evolved to successfully survive. So I guess you could say, the value of the life of a cow comes from herself. Whether or not a person has a different opinion doesn't matter, her life is what's at stake so she should have the final say.

By extension, it doesn't matter how much we can "reduce" the suffering of farmed animals, in the end they are still raised as product, exploited and murdered. By virtue of that inherent value, that action of ending their life cannot be justified and therefore can never be ethical.
Crop farming, however, can be made more and more ethical. There is no suffering required for the product to be created and consumed, the only suffering is at the ends of reckless protective measures like insecticide, hunting pests, and unsustainable energy consumption.
 
Only vegans at my house are my puppies. For now.

If vegans drink milk. Hell if I know?
You uh, clearly don't even know what the definition of "vegan" is, then. Although obviously it doesn't count for milk from your own species that is willingly given.

I actually come across this a lot, like, just today I was asked "what my opinion on fish is", and I'm just like, "what?"

Like, I would've thought by now that the idea was at least widespread and talked about enough that most people would at least know what it means.
 
You uh, clearly don't even know what the definition of "vegan" is, then. Although obviously it doesn't count for milk from your own species that is willingly given.

I actually come across this a lot, like, just today I was asked "what my opinion on fish is", and I'm just like, "what?"

Like, I would've thought by now that the idea was at least widespread and talked about enough that most people would at least know what it means.
Well I tend to know the the slightest about thing I care nothing about.

So yea you are not wrong! I know nothing john snow!
 
Back
Top