Who's a vegetarian?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MattinSTL said:
Wow... I hope it's a coincidence that you quoted me and then used hypocracy in the same context I used "logic".

My posts are intended to convey understanding for the vegetarian attitude while everybody else was making a joke out of killing animals. I'm not really a black and white kind of guy... I'm sorry if understanding more then one perspective makes me a hypocrite in your opinion.

As long as it's a joke I could care less... but I've never been one to join the mob mentality. There are a lot of DVXuser members who have expressed what they feel are moral views on this issue... including entries from past fests.

While a thread gets closed because we're talking about an A-List celebrity attempting suicide "out of respect" for that person... I found it ironic that everybody was so eager to gang up on a few of our members. I'm sure some of those guys have read this thread and chose to keep quiet... even though they probably feel alienated from the forum while reading this thread. Excuse me for speaking up on their behalf...
Click to expand...

thankyou mattin, yes i felt a bit nauseated & disappointed by some of the replies here. was hoping for an interesting & informative discussion but having read through i'm hearing the same tired 'jokes' dismissing what is a sensitive subject for many, i think we should all respect each others beliefs on this. i'm not vegetarian anymore but was for 17 years, no one should be made to feel guilty for choosing to eat meat or ridiculed for chosing not to, we all draw our own lines on what we feel is right, but i think it's an important issue regarding health as well as animal welfare, seems many people here could learn something, in particular the need to get a better balance in their diet (even if not in their views)
sorry, starting to sound a bit earnest now, but it is an emotive subject to many people, it's also an interesting topic with real health implications. maybe the uk has embraced this more than most countries cause i get the same reaction & attitude when asking for vegetarian food in most of europe as well as the u.s.
anyway enough from me, beginning to bore myself :thumbsup:
 
Ultimately, it is each persons choice like the car they drive, the type of underwear they wear, whatever. If you are strong in your convictions, it shouldn't matter.
 
It's usually the "animal welfare" argument that people take issue with. It's the one that does it for me. I don't object to the hollier than thou tone, I object to the total ignorance of agricultural methods. You can't grow vegtables without fertilizer. If you use 'natural' fertilizer that means you're more than likely using animal dung from animals who's destiny is the slaughterhouse. If you're using chemical fertilizers you have to consider what this does to the ground water and streams. But all you really need to know is that they're highly toxic and kill all kinds of things. Fields need to be plowed, discked and harrowed which kills and displaces a whole lot of field critters. Don't believe me? Plow a few acres and see what you turn up and chase out. I've never ever heard of anyone that stores grain that doesn't implement some sort of rodent control that is deadly. If you eat you kill, something, and not only the specific vegetable that you are eating.
 
Last edited:
That's all a good argument, but... People are dying left and right, from wars, drugs, and disease. Animals are killed daily in animal shelters, on the streets, and in fighting pits. And somebody wants to complain about an animal that actually serves it's destiny? I have a problem with that.
 
...i'm hearing the same tired 'jokes' dismissing what is a sensitive subject for many...
Click to expand...

1189518223.jpg

HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!


But, when in Rome...



veg·e·tar·i·an [vej-i-tair-ee-uhn] –noun
1. Ancient American Indian word for "Bad Hunter"​
 
rsbush said:
It's usually the "animal welfare" argument that people take issue with. It's the one that does it for me. I don't object to the hollier than thou tone, I object to the total ignorance of agricultural methods. You can't grow vegtables without fertilizer. If you use 'natural' fertilizer that means you're more than likely using animal dung from animals who's destiny is the slaughterhouse. If you're using chemical fertilizers you have to consider what this does to the ground water and streams. But all you really need to know is that they're highly toxic and kill all kinds of things. Fields need to be plowed, discked and harrowed which kills and displaces a whole lot of field critters. Don't believe me? Plow a few acres and see what you turn up and chase out. I've never ever heard of anyone that stores grain that doesn't implement some sort of rodent control that isn't deadly. If you eat you kill, something, and not only the specific vegetable that you are eating.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, sure, if you start actually *thinking* about what's involved, it all gets more complicated.

Which is why most people, don't.

Eventually we'll come up with some kind of DNA-transcription therapy that turns mammals into photosynthetic organisms. Then folks who are squeamish can absorb their energy directly from sunlight, and remove a whole layer of morally discomfiting biology.
 
Sad Max said:
Eventually we'll come up with some kind of DNA-transcription therapy that turns mammals into photosynthetic organisms.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's what is covertly being done with hot dogs. A recent study (who the hell knows by whom) suggests that they actually alter your DNA.
 
TimurCivan said:
What ever happened to preference, why are choices becoming moral issues lately.....
Click to expand...
It's a moral issue because it has an impact on another living creature.

If you have two pairs of pants in your closet, and you are going to choose blue jeans or dockers, that's a simple choice -- no morals involved. If your preference is for t-shirts over polo shirts, that's a preference and not a moral choice.

But if your choice is: what shall I have for lunch today, the lobster or the salad, and you decide "y'know what? I shall forego my desire for the flavor of shellfish so that this particular lobster may continue to live; It's not necessary that an animal die to sate my appetite", then that's a moral choice by the person making the choice. Not saying that anyone has to agree with that, I'm not saying it's "the right choice", but that's why it's a moral choice.

If someone decides to buy a Ford Focus because it's manufactured in Texas, vs. buying a Nazzul Zoomedyzoom car because it's made by child slavery in Nepal, even though the zoomedyzoom is less expensive, then that's a moral choice. That person is making a choice based on their particular moral values.

If you forego something you want such that you avoid damaging someone or something else, then you're making a moral choice. That's why the decision to steal is a moral choice -- in stealing you damage someone else. That's why a decision on whether to attend a dogfight is a moral choice -- if you support the sport, you are enabling and empowering those who commit that cruelty. Attending a boxing match might be a moral choice for some, but I think most people recognize that adults (unlike animals and children) do have the right and ability to make their own choices, so while buying a ticket might induce them to make a choice to participate in boxing, at least it's their choice. The animals, the slave laborers, etc. do not get that choice -- what happens to them is largely determined by our choices in the marketplace, etc.

(someone could as easily argue that Dockers are made in one certain country with slave labor and Jeans are made in another country without slave labor, and that you're making a moral choice there too... it really never ends).

Also, if someone chose a vegetarian diet because it's "healthier" (in their opinion), that wouldn't be a moral choice -- their determining factor wasn't how it impacts other living beings, their determining factor was on the perceived health benefits they'd receive. So in that case it'd be a simple preference, rather than a moral choice.

People's morals are their own to decide. It really doesn't seem all that relevant to DVXUser though, and it does seem like it's skirted with our verboten topics, so I don't know how much longer this thread can stay alive.
 
Last edited:
Omnivorism vs. vegetarianism has an aspect that's absent from choosing jeans vs. dockers, or a Focus vs. a Zoomedyzoom car.

There's no biological predisposition toward choosing one or another car, or item of clothing. There *is* a biological predisposition, for human beings to augment their diet with meat. We have the dentition, the digestive capacity, plus all the other evolutionary fittings, to make us hunters as well as gatherers or farmers.

So whatever 'moral' choice an individual chooses to make - and of course it's their choice, to make - can either be in conformity with our biological destiny, or in conflict with it.
 
But that's exactly the point. They're making a choice based not on convenience or anything else, but on what they perceive to be the morals of it. Which is why, for some, vegetarianism is a moral choice. And for others, it isn't.
 
One can perceive whatever one pleases, as to the rightness-or-wrongness of eating meat.

But no matter what one's personal perception, it remains a fact that - in a biological sense - humans are meant to consume a certain quantity of meat. If you want an example of a creature that isn't, you're reduced to counting herbivores, who are easily distinguished from us, by their physiologies.

On the other hand, one may perceive whatever one likes, regarding the purchase of clothing or automobiles - and there is zero biological or evolutionary evidence, to say otherwise.
 
If you assume that eating an animal is a bad thing, then it might be a moral desicion, but it is not. Animals eat animals. That is life. It happens every day. Just because some time ago we got the ability to think, doesnt change the situation. It is still the same. It is not bad. It is nature.
 
Nomis said:
If you assume that eating an animal is a bad thing, then it might be a moral desicion, but it is not. Animals eat animals. That is life. It happens every day. Just because some time ago we got the ability to think, doesnt change the situation. It is still the same. It is not bad. It is nature.
Click to expand...

Is it?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but I think some people would tell you that 'just because we got the ability to think' makes all the difference in the world.

You wouldn't fault a child for doing something that an adult might be reprimanded for.
Why? Because the child doesn't know any better.

Animals don't have a choice - they live off instinct.
An animal doesn't 'choose' to eat another animal.
An animal also can't run down to the grocery store and pick up what it needs for the week.
Animals do what they must to survive.
Humans choose to do what they want to do.
We have the option, and overwhelmingly we choose to eat other animals.

Some don't see it as a moral choice - I personally do see it as a moral choice.
I have a hard time seeing how you can't.
But, I don't have any problem eating meat.
I eat quite alot of meat in fact.
But I am very clear in my mind that I choose to do it.

To take your argument to the extreme one could say - animals kill animals all the time - it's not bad, it's just nature.
Man is no different. Therefore, we should allow murder.

It's a slippery slope if you want to remain logically consistent, I think.
 
Last edited:
Sad Max said:
But no matter what one's personal perception, it remains a fact that - in a biological sense - humans are meant to consume a certain quantity of meat.
Click to expand...

I think you might be overreaching just a little by using the word "meant."

I think its more than fair to say that humans have the ability to eat meat.
But to give any sort of intention to evolutionary adaptations seems a bit strong.

We may have evolved with the adaptation to eat meat for survival, but that does not necessarily mean we are 'meant' to eat meat today.
It just means we have it as an option - not an absolute, not a necessity.


Wow - never thought I'd be debating vegetarianism on DVXUser....
As a quick sidenote - my family comes from Argentina.
So yeah, we're massive meat eaters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top