Good Anti-Vegan arguments?

[LaCroix]

That thing about meat eaters getting defensive is that "I'm a vegan" always carries the notion of "I think eating meat is ethically wrong", which translates into an accusation of no-vegans being immoral. It's a reflex to defend yourself.

But I believe this new religion of veganism (it's mostly driven by morality, so to me, it's a religion) is something where ethics has gone too far, because people try to be holier than others. Killing something to eat it is natural. Eting something that's alive is a basic thing - everyone except plants is doing it. Even herbivores are killing a lot of the plants they eat, we just don't notice because the surving nearby plants conquer the new spot and grow over it. I agree that we shouldn't cause unnatural suffering to animals we eat, but given how predators in the wild act, we are pretty much above and beyond that standard, if we discount the worst offenders in food factory business.

There is a simple thought experiment (ad absurdum) about this vegan logic:
1. Killing something, even to eat it, is immoral.
2. We can now substitute meat and its nutritients by synthetic means.
3. incarceration in a relatively good environment to prevent someone to kill somebody else is ethical.
Therefore, utilitarian logic would demand to stop lions from eating animals and keep them in a big reservation devoid of other animals, and feed them Erzsatz-meat.

On a tangent: Vegans are pretty quick to rationalize that they aren't harming anyone by eating plants. Maybe I'm alone with that opinion, but I personally have an ethical problem with declaring one kind of life more worthy than others, just because you can't communicate with it. The more people research into plants, the more they realize that they aren't that different from animals, just waaaaay slower in their reaction. There are even some "even better vegans than others", called fruitarians, who only eat fruit (and take care to not harm the seeds) to avoid harming plants. They are about as rare now as vegans were a couple decades ago, but who knows, they might become mainstream in a ew more decades. How do you people feel about that?

[Broomstick]

I've met both fanatic meat-eaters and fanatic vegans. They're both annoying.

They also all tend to be under 30, full of themselves, and mostly male.

Recently heard an interesting statistic: 84% of vegans don't stick to such a diet indefinitely. Some of this is no doubt cultural influence, but I think some of it is just that we evolved to like animal foods.

I do think the US South is less friendly to vegetarians. I've encountered some odd food bigotry down there. It's not universal but it does exist. For that matter, there are some interesting biases where I live, even with the proximity to a major urban center like Chicago where being vegetarian is relatively easy.

[salm]

That thing about meat eaters getting defensive is that "I'm a vegan" always carries the notion of "I think eating meat is ethically wrong", which translates into an accusation of no-vegans bein immoral. It's a reflex to defend yourself.

But I believe this new religion of veganism (it's mostly driven my morality, so to me, it's a religion) is something where ethics has gone too far, because people try to be holier than others.

So, how do you propose that people who don´t eat meat act? It seems you are saying that as soon as you don´t eat meat you try to be hollier than others. Is it in your opinion not possible to not eat meat out of a personal, moral issue witout condemning meat eaters?
The vegans aren´t the active part. The only thing they do is not doing something. Some meat eaters then assume a load of nonsense about vegans and project this "holier than you" thing onto them. Presumably because they have some sort of inferiority complex.

Killing something to eat it is natural. Eting something that's alive is a basic thing - everyone except plants is doing it. Even herbivores are killing a lot of the plants they eat, we just don't notice because the surving nearby plants conquer the new spot and grow over it. I agree that we shouldn't cause unnatural suffering to animals we eat, but given how predators in the wild act, we are pretty much above and beyond that standard, if we discount the worst offenders in food factory business.

Who cares if it is natural? Rape is perfectly natural.
Also, it is not only the worst offenders in food factories who are doing a pretty brutal job. The vast majority of meat is produced in a pretty awful way. Breaking the allready very lax rules on cattle farming is increadibly common. I´d argue that I´d rather be free roaming animal who gets violently torn to death by a predator than a pig raised in a cage only marginally larger than itself without the means to move at all for 6 months and then be slaughtered in a "humane" way. As a farm pig your life starts with getting you dick legally ripped out without anesthesia. It´s absurd.

There is a simple thought experiment (ad absurdum) about this vegan logic:
1. Killing something, even to eat it, is immoral.
2. We can now substitute meat and its nutritients by synthetic means.
3. incarceration in a relatively good environment to prevent someone to kill somebody else is ethical.
Therefore, utilitarian logic would demand to stop lions from eating animals and keep them in a big reservation devoid of other animals, and feed them Erzsatz-meat.

So what does that have to do with real vegans? Most vegans don´t eat meat due to personal moral issues but leave other people alone and don´t bug them.

On a tangent: Vegans are pretty quick to rationalize that they aren't harming anyone by eating plants. Maybe I'm alone with that opinion, but I personally have an ethical problem with declaring one kind of life more worthy than others, just because you can't communicate with it. The more people research into plants, the more they realize that they aren't that different from animals, just waaaaay slower in their reaction. There are even some "even better vegans than others", called fruitarians, who only eat fruit (and take care to not harm the seeds) to avoid harming plants. They are about as rare now as vegans were a couple decades ago, but who knows, they might become mainstream in a ew more decades. How do you people feel about that?

You are pretty alone with that opinion. Most people categorize life in one or the other way usually involving the brains complexity in one way or the other.
Who cares if fruitarians become mainstream? Why should I care about what other poeple avoid eating?

[Borgholio]

Who cares if it is natural? Rape is perfectly natural.

What...the...fuck?

[FireNexus]

Who cares if it is natural? Rape is perfectly natural.

What...the...fuck?

Were you under the impression that our ancestors (or even other animals) had a particular care for consent? It isn't pretty, but it's pretty clear that rape is very common. You could even see a lot of what would be rape if it were humans throughout the animal kingdom. Much like consumption of meat to gain scarce nutrients, it is a viable survival strategy that prioritizes one's own survival or reproduction over the wellness of others.

In that, the comparison is pretty apt. Though I don't think anyone was saying that rape and meat-eating are equivalent. Just that the "natural" or "evolutionary" defense of meat-eating applies equally to rape, and the only way that meat-eating is defensible and rape is not is if you are totally unconcerned about the suffering of non-human animals. Predation, as broomstick pointed out, is probably better for populations on a whole than the suffering it causes, of course. But that's really only probably because the predator-prey relationship has existed for so long that the balance is thrown without it.

[Borgholio]

Eating meat was a daily part of our existence since before we even fully evolved. Every member of our society had to eat meat to live. We did not have to rape to live. The comparison does not work out at all.

[salm]

I didn´t say rape and meat eating are the same thing.
I want to show how "it is natural therefore it must be good" is a bad argument. If you want to use the "it is good because it is natural" and don´t want to be logically incostistent you have to accept that things like rape and murder are also "good because they are natural". This is obviously not the case, at least not in the ethical systems normal people live by.
Having allways done things a certain way doesn´t justify doing them. At least not in my opinion.

[Borgholio]

Ok fair enough, I get what you're saying. But I think using rape as an example is a bit too extreme. Eating meat raw is natural but for humans it's hardly a good thing. My perspective is that eating meat is natural *FOR US*. We have eaten meat for a million years as part of our diet and if there are issues with the way we treat animals we consume, we should fix THAT part of the issue...not simply stop eating meat.

[FireNexus]

Regardless, neither argument has any bearing on whether a modern human's decision to eat meat is moral. And that was the point of the statement. The "evolution" or "natural" argument doesn't apply to you. You are not under any requirement to eat meat to survive. As a result, your decision to eat meat is a lot closer to rape than your ancestor's was. They had to do it to live. You decide to do it because you enjoy to. Pointing out their need in an effort to justify your desire does nothing but make you look foolish. This is exactly what I meant earlier when I said that most reports of "fanatical vegans" are from people who are uncomfortable with the implications of their arguments.

Again, nobody is saying rape and meat-eating are equivalent, but the comparison is a lot more apt than you're willing to accept.

[salm]

Hmm... since I am not saying that rape and meat eating are equivalent and only the mechanism of justifying it is the same I can not see how it is extreme.
I mean, I have no problem with eating meat but a big one with rape.
Eating meat is natural but that is not a fact that makes eating meat more ehical or less ethical.
Stuff being natural has absolutely no relevance to the question of it being ethical or not.
That is why we can define things like rape and murder as unethical even though they are perfectly natural.

The ethical questions of meat factories are a related but different issue that. You can obviously be a meat eater and still be against animal cruelty.

[Borgholio]

Again, nobody is saying rape and meat-eating are equivalent, but the comparison is a lot more apt than you're willing to accept.

Both of you have basically said that meat and rape are "natural" and thus implying that they are in the same category. It would be better if you simply drop that analogy. As I said before, you NEED to eat but you don't NEED to rape. I don't need to discuss what is wrong with rape, but the only unethical thing about eating meat is the cruel condition in which many food animals are kept. I agree that needs to change, but that doesn't affect the fact that eating meat is part of a typical human diet and has been for a very very long time. That's what most people mean when they say it's natural. They don't want to give up what tastes good and is a normal part of our diet.

[salm]

Both of you have basically said that meat and rape are "natural" and thus implying that they are in the same category. It would be better if you simply drop that analogy.

They are in a same category. It´s just that this category isn´t relevant to ethics.
Hitler and you and me are in a same category as well. The category "human". That doesn´t make us as evil as everyones favorite Nazi because the category "human" has no relevance to the question if somebody is evil.

As I said before, you NEED to eat but you don't NEED to rape. I don't need to discuss what is wrong with rape, but the only unethical thing about eating meat is the cruel condition in which many food animals are kept. I agree that needs to change, but that doesn't affect the fact that eating meat is part of a typical human diet and has been for a very very long time. That's what most people mean when they say it's natural. They don't want to give up what tastes good and is a normal part of our diet.

Now, we might agree on the fact that eating meat in iteself isn´t unethical but the vegan will disagree because he follows a different ethical mindset. Therefore simply stating that eating meat is not unethical is not a good argument against a vegan and that is what this thread is about. You´ll have to provide reasons why it isn´t bad and like mentioned before this is rather dificult when discussing questions of ethics because anybody can pretty much make them up for themselves.

[Borgholio]

Well let's say that animals are treated humanely and in reasonably good living conditions. What at that point would be considered bad?

[salm]

Well let's say that animals are treated humanely and in reasonably good living conditions. What at that point would be considered bad?

For the vegan? Well, killing it of course.
For us? Nothing. Or at least not sufficiently bad to keep us from doing it.
I mean it is clear that animal farming has its negative aspects such as CO2 production, animals dying and food waste but these aspects are not strong enough for us. For the vegan on the other hand they are.

[FireNexus]

Both of you have basically said that meat and rape are "natural" and thus implying that they are in the same category. It would be better if you simply drop that analogy. As I said before, you NEED to eat but you don't NEED to rape. I don't need to discuss what is wrong with rape, but the only unethical thing about eating meat is the cruel condition in which many food animals are kept. I agree that needs to change, but that doesn't affect the fact that eating meat is part of a typical human diet and has been for a very very long time. That's what most people mean when they say it's natural. They don't want to give up what tastes good and is a normal part of our diet.

Both of us are pointing out that the justifications being provided for meat consumption apply to rape in the modern world. Natural, we evolved doing it, etc. You keep talking about the "need" to consume meat, but it's a red herring. Your ancestors needed to. You do not need to. We live in a society where it is totally optional and you keep ignoring that point. To say nothing of the fact that "need to to survive" as an ethical justification is shaky at best.

You're using a very basic appeal to tradition here, and tradition is not an ethical justification elsewhere, so why here?

Well let's say that animals are treated humanely and in reasonably good living conditions. What at that point would be considered bad?

If I were to give you a wonderful apartment with fabulous meals and an unending supply of willing sexual partners but, at a time of my choosing, you were taken into a room and shot in the back of the head without warning and I then cooked and ate your flesh. At what point would that be considered wrong?

[Borgholio]

For the vegan? Well, killing it of course.
For us? Nothing. Or at least not sufficiently bad to keep us from doing it.
I mean it is clear that animal farming has its negative aspects such as CO2 production, animals dying and food waste but these aspects are not strong enough for us. For the vegan on the other hand they are

Sure, I think we can both agree that the environmental aspects of animal farming can be an issue, but if the ONLY issue vegans have with animals is their death, then that actually comes off as being a bit squeamish. In nature, animals kill other animals for food all the time. We just are able to farm our food so it's a more steady supply than hunting for days without luck. I suppose that a vegan could argue that the human race has advanced beyond that, but is that really the case?

We live in a society where it is totally optional and you keep ignoring that point.

No the only thing I'm trying to ignore is how you continue to bring up rape as an example of things that are supposedly natural but that we ethically shouldn't do. You have no justification for ceasing the consumption of meat except for the idea that animals are suffering, which I've already stated repeatedly is something we need to change.

If I were to give you a wonderful apartment with fabulous meals and an unending supply of willing sexual partners but, at a time of my choosing, you were taken into a room and shot in the back of the head without warning and I then cooked and ate your flesh. At what point would that be considered wrong?

Well if I was a prey animal that had been on your menu for an eon, then that really wouldn't be wrong. I live comfortably, then you kill me for food. At no point am I suffering, and you killed me for a good reason instead of just for sport or to watch me suffer.

[FireNexus]

No the only thing I'm trying to ignore is how you continue to bring up rape as an example of things that are supposedly natural but that we ethically shouldn't do.

So you concede that consumption of meat is unnecessary for your survival. Excellent.

You have no justification for ceasing the consumption of meat except for the idea that animals are suffering, which I've already stated repeatedly is something we need to change.

So killing something with a will and desire to live does not count as causing suffering? Because if the animal is given any concept of your intentions, it would certainly act very unhappy about it.

Well if I was a prey animal that had been on your menu for an eon, then that really wouldn't be wrong. I live comfortably, then you kill me for food. At no point am I suffering, and you killed me for a good reason instead of just for sport or to watch me suffer.

And we're back to the appeal to tradition again. You're becoming a broken record with this. Of course, you still also imply that consumption of meat is necessary here ("a good reason") rather than entirely for your own entertainment.

How is what is being described here meaningfully different from killing for sport? It is unnecessary and done only because you enjoy the experience of eating meat. The fact that your pleasure comes a few days after the death rather than in the moments leading up to or during the death itself isn't really creating a distinction.

Say it with me: "I do not need to eat meat to survive. The fact that my ancestors did need to do so does not grant my choice the moral weight that life or death necessity does. The fact that something is tradition, furthermore, does not immediately grant it legitimacy. This is regardless of the age of the tradition."

[Borgholio]

So you concede that consumption of meat is unnecessary for your survival. Excellent.

I never said it wasn't, so there's nothing to concede. I said it was part of our diet, but the nutritional aspect has been done to death already.

So killing something with a will and desire to live does not count as causing suffering?

Instant painless death is not suffering. It's simply death.

And we're back to the appeal to tradition again. You're becoming a broken record with this.

What part of "Biologically designed to consume meat as part of our diet" do you fail to understand? Would you consider it tradition for a dog to eat mainly meat rather than feeding them kibble out of a bag? They can survive on kibble, right? The fact that you can substitute lentil beans for a steak doesn't mean that the steak is biologically useless and unable to provide necessary nutrients to you. If you have a moral objection to killing animals, then that's fine. But don't try to argue that we shouldn't eat meat just because "we don't need to anymore and it's just tradition". That's the dumbest argument you could make and doesn't provide any incentive to actually go along with it.

[FireNexus]

I never said it wasn't, so there's nothing to concede. I said it was part of our diet, but the nutritional aspect has been done to death already.

You've said "you need to eat but not to rape", "it's not natural for us to be complete herbivores", and that killing an animal for meat is a "good reason", all clearly implying that eating meat is a need. You may have come up shy of saying the actual words, but you're strongly implying suboptimal functioning of humans without meat.

Instant painless death is not suffering. It's simply death.

I'd say that the stupidity of this statement speaks for itself.

What part of "Biologically designed to consume meat as part of our diet" do you fail to understand?

The part where you use it as an ethical justification for your behavior. Pointing out that your ancestors do something and deciding that therefore it's ok for you to is the very definition of an appeal to tradition. That you couch it in biological window-dressing doesn't change the fundamental nature of the argument you're making.

Also the part where it implies that a strictly herbivorous diet is unhealthy.

Would you consider it tradition for a dog to eat mainly meat rather than feeding them kibble out of a bag? They can survive on kibble, right?

Dogs aren't trying to justify the morality of their diets. If they were, and such a diet wasn't necessary for their health and survival (I'm not terribly clear on dog nutrition, but they're much more carnivorous than humans, so I would suspect they wouldn't do as well as we would) then I would call it an appeal to tradition. I doubt I'll be having any conversation with any dogs, let alone that one.

The fact that you can substitute lentil beans for a steak doesn't mean that the steak is biologically useless and unable to provide necessary nutrients to you.

I neither made nor implied any such claim. I stated that eating meat is unnecessary, because it being necessary or somehow optimal for health is behind a lot of these evolutionary justifications for it, including yours. Anything you can get from meat can be gotten elsewhere, and not with great difficulty, so continuing to bring that up when you imply that it is necessary or optimal to support your position undermines it.

If you have a moral objection to killing animals, then that's fine. But don't try to argue that we shouldn't eat meat just because "we don't need to anymore and it's just tradition".

I had thought a moral objection to unnecessarily killing animals was an obvious prerequisite for this conversation. But more importantly, my whole point has been that your moral justifications for eating meat , what you suggested as "good anti-vegan arguments", are weak. They are: It's natural, we evolved to do it and our ancestors needed to do it.

The first one is meaningless. The other two, absent any indication we must sacrifice our health for the decision not to do it in the modern age, are appeals to tradition. And those are the only justifications you've repeated ad nauseum. If the subject were any action that you weren't invested in being moral, you'd be in the "You're fucking stupid" brigade with me. This is what I mean about the "fanatic vegans". They exist, but most of them are only in the mind of people who eat meat and don't like the idea that it might be selfish, wrong or even cruel.

That's the dumbest argument you could make and doesn't provide any incentive to actually go along with it.

If that was the entirety of the argument, maybe. But I'd say "doing something is not immoral because we've always done it" is way up there on the list of stupid fucking notions.

[Borgholio]

You've said "you need to eat but not to rape", "it's not natural for us to be complete herbivores", and that killing an animal for meat is a "good reason", all clearly implying that eating meat is a need. You may have come up shy of saying the actual words, but you're strongly implying suboptimal functioning of humans without meat.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I said we need to EAT. I said it's not natural (normal) for us to complete herbivores, not that we NEED meat. I said that killing an animal for food is a good reason (compared to hunting for a trophy or random murderous bloodlust). The only implications here are the ones you are projecting onto what I say. Stop trying to read between the lines.

I'd say that the stupidity of this statement speaks for itself.

You honestly think that you can continue to suffer after you're dead? I'd love to hear this one.

That you couch it in biological window-dressing doesn't change the fundamental nature of the argument you're making.

Oh yes it most certainly does change things. When there's a biological need or desire for something, that makes it quite distinguishable from worshiping your parent's gods or wearing their style of clothing. Only now that we have the luxury of artificially supplementing our diets can we even THINK about considering meat to be a mere tradition. If you go back even a century, it goes right back to being a need.

Also the part where it implies that a strictly herbivorous diet is unhealthy.

It is. Miss the part where we can't absorb certain vitamins from plants? Without care and a bit of planning, we will get sick.

Dogs aren't trying to justify the morality of their diets.

And it's a good thing too. Ever see a pack of wolves take down a bison or an elk? Or see a boa kill a rabbit? Killing a cow with a pneumatic hammer is a damn sight better than ripping it to shreds and letting it bleed out on a snowpack or suffocating it slowly for half an hour. So if you want to discuss morality, consider that we're already a damn sight better than true carnivores.

I neither made nor implied any such claim. I stated that eating meat is unnecessary, because it being necessary or somehow optimal for health is behind a lot of these evolutionary justifications for it, including yours. Anything you can get from meat can be gotten elsewhere, and not with great difficulty, so continuing to bring that up when you imply that it is necessary or optimal to support your position undermines it.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth. I never said it was necessary for our diet. I freely admit that we can get what we need from non-animal sources. What I DID say is that eating meat is normal. That's all I said. If you want to appeal to a higher morality by getting rid of meat from your diet? You're free to do so if you can find the appropriate alternatives. But yet again, you are projecting your own bias on what I'm saying and you pretend that I'm saying things that I'm really not.

I had thought a moral objection to unnecessarily killing animals was an obvious prerequisite for this conversation.

No, your moral objection to killing animals PERIOD is what started this conversation. You do not agree that killing an animal for food is a better use than killing them for a trophy. For you, killing an animal to feed your family as just as bad as shooting an animal so you can mount it's head on your wall. That's your problem. You think that because becoming vegetarian is an option, it is the ONLY option and the alternative is simply evil. Thing is that if you are to live, SOMETHING has to die, even if you're a vegetarian. Question is, what do you choose to kill?

But I'd say "doing something is not immoral because we've always done it" is way up there on the list of stupid fucking notions.

Yeah if you just blindly keep doing something then you're right, it is pretty stupid. That's why there was talk earlier in the thread about buying meat from farmers who don't run those "meat factories". Whether you agree or not about killing for meat, can you really say that moving from the current system to a more "free range" system is a bad thing? Changing how we treat the animals we're going to eat is a moral improvement, yes?

[FireNexus]

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I said we need to EAT. I said it's not natural (normal) for us to complete herbivores, not that we NEED meat. I said that killing an animal for food is a good reason (compared to hunting for a trophy or random murderous bloodlust). The only implications here are the ones you are projecting onto what I say. Stop trying to read between the lines.

I'll do so as soon as you stop trying to backpedal on the point only to immediately fall back into the implication the moment it becomes convenient.

You honestly think that you can continue to suffer after you're dead? I'd love to hear this one.

No, I'd classify death as a form of suffering of its own. And if you don't agree with that, you must be ok with the prospect of possibly being shot in the back of the head and ended at any moment.

Oh yes it most certainly does change things. When there's a biological need or desire for something, that makes it quite distinguishable from worshiping your parent's gods or wearing their style of clothing. Only now that we have the luxury of artificially supplementing our diets can we even THINK about considering meat to be a mere tradition. If you go back even a century, it goes right back to being a need.

We're having this discussion today. The fact that it was once a need is irrelevant. How fucking hard is it for you to grasp that? Maybe if I yell. THE FACT THAT IT USED TO BE A NEED DOES NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE MORALITY OF THE DECISION AFTER IT HAS CEASED TO BE A NEED. You can claim that it changes things a million times, but it will never actually make sense.

This is why it's no different than worshipping your parents' gods. You are appealing to tradition, and trying to differentiate it by appealing to a no-longer-present need to do it. You seem to think that the distinction is self-evident, but it is not. You have yet to respond to the criticism except to repeat the statement and expound upon it.

It is. Miss the part where we can't absorb certain vitamins from plants? Without care and a bit of planning, we will get sick.

So it's not unhealthy at all, but you're going to claim it is because of a minimal level of awareness one needs to exercise in order to do it. Awesome. News flash, shit-for-brains, without care and a little bit of planning, you're going to have trouble from your diet no matter what you eat. That you have to take different kinds of care and plan for different things doesn't make it any more undesirable.

And it's a good thing too. Ever see a pack of wolves take down a bison or an elk? Or see a boa kill a rabbit? Killing a cow with a pneumatic hammer is a damn sight better than ripping it to shreds and letting it bleed out on a snowpack or suffocating it slowly for half an hour. So if you want to discuss morality, consider that we're already a damn sight better than true carnivores.

Oh, so the way we do it isn't as bad as how x does it, therefore it is moral. You might have a point for the purposes of hunting wild animals that might otherwise get killed by predators, but that is not what you're advocating. So please don't compare animals raised specifically to be killed to a wild animal that just happens to be on the business end of a wolf. It does not support your failing moral justification even slightly.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth. I never said it was necessary for our diet. I freely admit that we can get what we need from non-animal sources. What I DID say is that eating meat is normal. That's all I said. If you want to appeal to a higher morality by getting rid of meat from your diet? You're free to do so if you can find the appropriate alternatives. But yet again, you are projecting your own bias on what I'm saying and you pretend that I'm saying things that I'm really not.

You said it was acceptable morally. You continue to imply that its necessity is the moral justification for it, even once you've stated it is not required.

No, your moral objection to killing animals PERIOD is what started this conversation.

Who's putting words in whose mouth now? I never expressed that belief. In fact, when Broomstick brought up that hunting in many places serves an important ecological purpose, I conceded the point. Animal farming, however, serves no ecological purpose and even at best isn't great for biodiversity or the environment as a whole. It is based solely on the desires of humans to eat meat. Once more, you don't need to eat meat, and your ancestors need to eat meat doesn't count.

Again, and exclusively, the moral objection in question here is to unnecessary killing. You can ignore it when you think it helps your argument and strawman when that's been exposed if you want to, but I've been consistent.

You do not agree that killing an animal for food is a better use than killing them for a trophy.

Correct. Because both actions are needlessly killing for personal pleasure. You can attempt to justify it with past needs that have faded if you want, but that still hasn't become relevant to the question.

For you, killing an animal to feed your family as just as bad as shooting an animal so you can mount it's head on your wall.

Again the implication ("feed your family") of a necessity or choice between starvation and meat. You are correct that I contend that the two activities are equivalent, since both are killing an animal solely for entertainment. You have yet to create a meaningful distinction, and instead have once again retreated to derisively describing my position as if its faults are self-evident.

That's your problem. You think that because becoming vegetarian is an option, it is the ONLY option and the alternative is simply evil. Thing is that if you are to live, SOMETHING has to die, even if you're a vegetarian.

No. My problem is that I'm arguing with a moron who can't accept that his moral justifications for an activity are hollow. You have made no effort to contend that the value of an animal life is outweighed by your desire for it to be in your stomach. At least then there would be a subjective argument that isn't totally illogical. You insist on making and defending (which is nothing but endlessly repeating and expounding upon, it appears) arguments that it "is natural" (meaningless), that it has been previously necessary and done for a long time (meaningless and appeal to tradition), and the continuous use of language that suggests continuing necessity despite explicit claims to be resting on no such ideas (dishonesty or stupidity).

Question is, what do you choose to kill?

It most certainly is not. The question is whether your justifications for eating meat are valid. And they are not only invalid, they're seriously fucking stupid.

Yeah if you just blindly keep doing something then you're right, it is pretty stupid. That's why there was talk earlier in the thread about buying meat from farmers who don't run those "meat factories". Whether you agree or not about killing for meat, can you really say that moving from the current system to a more "free range" system is a bad thing? Changing how we treat the animals we're going to eat is a moral improvement, yes?

We can certainly agree that it is a moral improvement. But only in the same way that lethal injection is a moral improvement over an electric chair.

And if your justifications for eating meat thus far have rested on anything other than just blindly continuing to do something, we wouldn't be discussing this anymore.

[Jaepheth]

On the anecdotal side:

I have a friend who was a vegan until they developed allergies to both soy and gluten; making it difficult, nearly impossible, to maintain a healthy diet without eating meat.

[Broomstick]

That's why it was brought up much earlier in the thread that some people do suffer from medical conditions that make getting sufficient nutrients from a non-animal diet nearly impossible. Granted, that's a small percentage, but for those people eating some sort of animal-derived food becomes a need.

Plants can be problematic because a lot of them contain toxins and the like to discourage animals from eating them, including us. Substances like nicotine, theobromine, caffeine, capcasin, and so on, even if enjoyed by humans in small amounts, originally evolved to discourage herbivores from munching on said plants. Not everyone is equally tolerate of these toxins.

Likewise, I think FireNexus would be willing to acknowledge that in a survival situation eating meat could be justified if the choice really was between starving and eating meat. Pretty rare circumstances, but again, it can and has happened. For that matter, eating one's fellow humans might become a matter of survival if things are truly desperate.

But we aren't really talking about outliers like that, we're talking about daily life in the modern world.

[Jaepheth]

My thoughts on this current morality debate (Disclaimer: I'm not well versed in philosophy):

* Might makes right
* We have the power and desire to eat meat; therefore eating meat is ok.
* Some people have the power and desire to rape; making rape ok to them
* Most of us are against rape, so we collectively make rape not ok for anyone (see point 1)
* Therefore eating meat is ok, but rape is not ok.

Generalized: We collectively define morality as not causing suffering to other members of the collective. The question in regards to what you can or can't hurt or take advantage of then becomes a question of who is a member of this collective. Other humans usually qualify, although that seems to fluctuate over history and geography. Companion animals are illegal to eat in some countries because a large segment of the population see them as part of their collective. If the greater collective is less united in its views, the morality is up for grabs by smaller sub-sets (e.g. countries, religions, political parties, households).

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well let's say that animals are treated humanely and in reasonably good living conditions. What at that point would be considered bad?

The fact that you're still bringing the animal into the world for the sole purpose of, one day, killing it for its meaty goodness. All trying to make the animal slightly more comfortable in the meantime really does is make you feel better about killing and eating it.

Getting away from the animal's emotional well-being, committing to bring an animal into the world just to kill it for meat means you've committed yourself to spend four to twenty pounds of feedstock per pound of edible meat, along with all the water (we're talking hundreds of gallons per pound of meat here,) chemicals, and greenhouse gas emissions required to produce all that feedstock, get it into the animal, get the waste products away from the animal, get the animal to where it needs to be, and process out all the useful bits of the animal after it is slaughtered; plus the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the animal over its lifetime.

One may accuse me of confusing economics for ethics. But is it ethical to force the environment to bear the cost of your cheeseburger? Well, maybe the cost of your single personal cheeseburger isn't so bad. Well, how about the ~240-250 cheeseburgers (assuming a quarter-pound of beef is used per burger. Really, as we all well know, there are far more ways to prepare beef than just cheeseburgers,) consumed by the average American in a year? Multiplied by the number of Americans? Working to actively screw over the environment isn't a very ethical position to hold.