Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
would vegetarians be massive hypocrites?
or central nervousness
you have it. A carrot doesn't.
Send me my PhD now plz.
because not all veggies are so because animals feel pain. Me being one of them.
and that's why people who eat fish but call themselves vegetarians are MASSIVE HYPOCRITES
and everyone is pretty hypocritical in many ways so i guess it all balances out...
when i was peeling a carrot the other day, im sure i heard it go 'Eep'
i actually meant potato
not never at all, no
where trees have evolved into comunicative beings....
also trees have sappy blood, and they got creeky sounds and i think they are big
but whatever, yes
soley for the reason that they don't want to inflict unecessary pain.
Vegetables don't feel pain. Many fruit and vegetables have evolved to be eaten for seed dispersal etc (cue HILARIOUS response , "animals have evolved for meat, haha"). Needless consumption of meat is responsible for a ludicrus amount of man made CO2 emmisions (let's say 28%) and habbitat damage, so even if veg did feel pain, veggies would still be morally superior.
^ still thinks they're superior to everyone because they went to uni.
For starters, 40% of the population go to uni, so it hardly seperates the wheat from the chaff.
Shouldn't you be revising some multiple choice question/answers or something?
But I don't see what school has to do with vegetarians being hypothetically better, in a sort of absolute morality, not really true, way.
Please feel free to come back when you are old enough to have thought up something to defend your hilariously witty opening gambit.
and it doesn't
and seeing as everyone has to live on the same planet, I think it's possible to say that there can be absolute 'right' and 'wrong' actions in people's behaviour that affect it.
Obviously dependent on factors like the economy, location etc, but truths nonetheless.
It'd probably be easiest to formulate it as some sort of Kantian 'duty'-based moral theory, ie. that everyone has a moral duty to act in a way which benefits the environment in which they live.
but seeing as those absolute 'right' actions can very easily include ethically sourced meat and hypothetical absolute 'wrong' actions can very easily include unethically sourced vegetables, vegetariansim and morality don't necessarily have anything to do with each other
but if you were going to take the most "virtuous" path in both, vegetarianism will probably work out as being the most beneficial for the environment (on a mass scale especially).
I think it's reasonable to call that the most moral choice.
i agree that it doesn't allow vegetarians to automatically take the moral highground, which I think is at least part of your point.
And I can't really be arsed to get into the semantics of it.
semantics are annoying because they can undermine arguments in ways which have nothing to do with the crux of the argument.
the area of agricultural land required to feed the entire planet would be about 5-20% of what it currently is today.
It essentailly works something like this.
At every stage of the food chain, only about 10% of the energy is is carried over to the next step. This is why there are far more Wilderbeest than big cats.
In agricultural terms this means a field of wheat eaten by man might feed 100 people. The same field of wheat used to feed cattle which are then used to feed people would only feed 5-10 humans.
There should be lot's of information available via google, not just pro veggie properganda, this is taught at GCSE and A level biology.
but somebody with a dubious moral code would say that.
but someone with a grasp of cultural relativity and without a superiority complex might
as it's a constant between all cultures that we inhabit the same earth.
that any one person can accurately call an imagined group of people morally superior to another imagined group, not the importance of environmental issues
Meat eaters are ruining the planet.
Its quite obvious that people are ruining the planet. Coming up with such ridiculous and divisive groups is ridiculous.
and instead argue like commandercool.
It is undeniable that meat eaters do far more damage to the planet than vegetarians.
but it is clearly the case too that it isn't the act of eating meat initself that is responsible, but rather the wanton disregard for the environment displayed in the practices of most industries.
Are we good now? The more time you spend responding to me, the less time there is for you to hilariously chastise other people.
lions are not the major cause of global warming, and I wouldn't tell African tribes that they were destroying the planet by hunting wild game. Assuming they are not upsetting the balance by taking too much, they are part of nature.
The wester worls isn't part of nature anymore. Our retarded meat production methods are just wrong on so many levels. Free range could maybe be acceptable but only if people cut back how much meant they eat drastically.
I don't think western meat eaters can be absolved of any responsibility of maet industry practice.
isn't really helping Mother Earth all that much in terms of agriculture though, is it? Mass farming depletes soil nutrients and has often lead to the destruction of habitats animals need to survive, both within the Western world and further afield. Not to mention the abject poverty that a lack of fair trade within the global fruit and veg market has left many people in developing countries in.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the damage the meat industry causes to the environment. I'm disagreeing with you over the idea that one group of people can be labelled as morally superior to another, particularly when neither of this groups actually exist as such.
I think veggies are also more likely to buy local, fair trade and seasonal food, than meat eaters.
I am not trying to claim that the veg industry is perfect by any means, but it is not on a par with the meat industry.
Whilst you say "Mass farming depletes soil nutrients and has often lead to the destruction of habitats animals need to survive", I agree, but people only consume a fraction of what is grown. If, say, meat farming was banned, there would be less agricultural land used to grow crops, not more.
would become available, right? Otherwise I'm confused.
I'm labouring a point here so I'll stop it now, but I honestly believe you can't label people or make assumptions regarding their morality, especially in an age of high inflation, relatively low wages and rising food prices. Changes to industry and not sweeping generalisations of their clientbase is what is needed if we are going to get ourselves out the hole we are rapidly digging.
And I don't have a high opinion of the human race. It's too easy to say the general public are blameless and that the industry needs to change. Esentially, it is greed on the level of industry AND the public that has lead to this massive demand for cheap meat that is one of the major causes of damage to the planet.
Secondly, I agree the price of these products can be prohibitive.
I have a looser definition of local, which is really actually seasonal, ie it can be grown soemwhere reasonabley close at the time of years. No apples from New Zealand for example, or plums from Chile. This tends to mean local (or seasonal) is cheaper, watch the price of courgettes come down in the next couple of months.
I have absolutely no evidence to say more veggies but local et al than meat eaters, it's just an assumption as veggies tend to care more about what they eat.
absolute your morality
we can say its 5% if you like, then weve got room for about 6times as much meat consumption
We should be aiming for 28%.
we can just pretend that it is already! its the mans way
skillfully hidden in my post. I've disguised my points as words in a sentence.
I just couln't understand what you were saying there ;)
Surely they can't feed them vegetables too...that's not right for the poor animal.
And, if they do feed them meat. Doesn't that make them enablers?
Oh that note, should vegetarians be keeping pets?
I mean isn't that infringing on the pet's freedom to roam?
but lots of the mass-produced ones (especially non-cloudy beers and lagers) aren't technically suitable for vegetarians.
I say "technically" because there isn't animal products in beer, it's just used to filter the ingredients.
It all depends on the individual's ideas of vegetarianism I think, it's a tough call.
see here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geraint.bevan/Vegetarian_beers.html
A dog (for example) has a stomach/digestive system which is built to digest and process meat. It's whole body has developed to work around the nutrients that it gets from specific types of food (ie mainly meat).
Whilst it's possible to give a dog or cat a vegetarian diet, it can often do more harm than good.
Humans, on the other hand, are omnivores, meaning we can easily digest most animal and vegetable matter easily. We also have the intelligence to make a rational choice about our diet and the implications that it has on our body and the impact it has on other animals and the environment.
cats less so.
What is more bizarre is that naturally herbivourous animals end up being fed large amounts of meat and fish, and they are then ate by humans who now consume far far more large herbivours than they ever would naturally
who have fed their dog on carrots and potatoes. The dog was fine and lived to a ripe old age.
i have two cats.
they eat meat, because they are carnivores. In fact, when i tried to give them tofu, they turned around, showed me their arses and walked away in disgust. so technically, yes, i'm an enabler. but if it means they love me more, then that's fine.
(i don't impinge on my cat's freedom to roam, btw. they just keep coming back for the food and to sleep on my face)
think how it reflects on you, you basically acknowledge that vegetables dont feel pain, implying that you think animals do.
So consider your proposition, you are trying to make vegetarians appear foolish by postulating a hypothesis that we are pretty certain is false, whereas the flip side is that you acknowledge animals do yet you are what? a hypocrit, a sadist? what? Its confusing and unclear.
If vegetables could feel pain then i am sure that rights activists will seek their revenge and help various vegetables ....large marrows, akwardly shaped jerusalem artichokes inflict revenge pain on their human tormentors.
Actually what you should have asked about wasnt just the ability to feel pain, but the ability to feel emotions.
PS I know of vegetrians who dont eat meat but enjoy hurting animals.
I also know of meat eaters who do not enjoy hurting animals.
hurting animals? IMPOSSIBLE!
Every single one of them started out hurting animals.
This is a fact.
Why the fuck would anyone *want* to kill an animal?
you know exactly what I meant. Look at the context.
almost as a fundamental right.
People expect to be able to eat meat, people expect to have a working sewerage system, people expect cheap clothes.
How many people would kill the animal, get in the sewer or work in the sweat shop?
We've all seen meat eaters break down and cry when faced with having to kill an animal and, frankly, it is pathetic.
I simply meant that most people do not enjoy the prospect of killing anything or actively want to do it. In a life-or-death situation or a similar set of circumstances governed by necessity, such a preference wouldn't count for shit
with eating meat but not jumping for joy at the prospect of killing an animal. And if we are going to start reminding people of where meat comes from, we may as well make everyone wear nametags and label shoes 'left' or 'right'
and some people are (willfully?) ignorant and choose to forget.
see also;rape the,
but you have to understand that they are 'broken' human animals. Society does that to people, along with false ideas of machismo and meat eating and 'men are hunter preditors'
The thing that makes you feel like this that Jack el biscuit hasnt factored in is that there is a vocal section of meat eaters who often talk about being 'top of the food chain' whereas we are not necessarily that, what we are are animals subserviant to a technological heirarchical society which denigrates human animals as well as other animals. Most advocates of 'hunting' and humans being preditors in this country are very innacurate but are sold this idea by spin.
most od them could not hunt the things they do without much organising and technological aid......of course natural humans can be prime hunters, yet this society that seems to revel in this concept actually pisses all over those human animal values.
I think it is an interesting idea to consider how a fox hunter would fair, if stripped naked and deprived of tools and put in a locked room with an ordinary fox, and only let out after they'd killed it.
Most human males would be able to do this, but only after abandoning human societorial ideas of decorum, they would be forced to abandon some logicaql thought and just 'be an animal themselves'........my point here being that that which is crowed about is not actually really being 'the top animal' Humans tend to bullshit about this without the real 'dirty' business of blood and guts.
Mostly it is conceited 'we are the top animals' (but we dont want to behave like them (apart from sex.....which is interestingly the only activity where we are expected to be more animal ....probably because we dont recieve mannerly instruction in it....which is good......I hate things like porn cos it might have a slight tendancy to start to create an accepted norm)
Humans want to be 'top animals' whilst behaving not like animals, they want the position but not to be one.
FFS if you want to be a hunter to feel primevil then take yer clothes off.
Anyway.....most meat eaters arn't into evangelising about how it is 'Mans god given right' but there are a few of them and it is these that makes kiefallen feel like saying this (probably)...it certainly made me want to be more vocal. The same also applies to why meat eaters overreact to vegetarians.
The truth is more like I tried to say at the end of my first post in this thread.
it's good shi'
Read it idiots.
might not have raised stuff about hunting or whatever......we are all aware of the argument threads that lead us to these sort of issues. I am merely commenting about the subject and try to put into relation keifallens reaction ^ to jackelbiscuits reaction \/
because I dont feel that they are as different as they might feel, there are extremists who simplify things on both sides and I suspect that these are the sort of people that encourage us all to have more generalised views about people who appear to be on another side
don't overdo it.
and would need rights groups and possibly the vote. fuck having a potato primeminister
I am vegan and I am also a massive hypocrite. I am well aware of this, thanx.
I don't think this discussion is really necessary as it's not going to change peoples' opinions on either side, but instead appears childish and alienating.
snore. bored. /thread
Its something to do on a slow day.
Basically some people, regardless of their diet = shit
noteable absense of mental stimulation in this banal office, but the veggie thing is more recurring than Diana's face on the Daily Express front page.
It gets awfully tedious and is always as follows:
someone who's veggie/vegan is awfully narrow minded.
others argue back but use the term 'veggie' or 'vegan'
other omnivores get pissed with being tarred with the same brush
some class clown says something 'profound' like "KILL ALL CATTLE"
Most people on here are intelligent enough to recognise that people have differing opinions, particularly with what they eat. Furthermore, the majority of posters have enough brain cells, i'm sure, to recognise the source of their meat/animal products and assess themselves whether or not they choose to opt for purchasing organic products and what have you.
for tough guys to show just how tough they are "I eet meet and I dont care! veggys r gay"
And the ever-controversial statements like 'Mmm, let's eat all the vegans' are more tired than the debut Razorlight album.
If people want to have this pointless, cyclical debate in future can you please just re-read one of the past 3,119 threads instead?
Thank you for your time.
From the Oxford Dictionary: Internet message board.
A place where people can talk about what the fuck they want. One beauty of it is that people who may be bored by the subject do not even have to read, let alone post at least three times on it.
from reading his responses, or he can just excuse himself from reading your responses to his responses etc etc etc
develop amnesia? This same thread happens so frequently, and always the same points are put forth, they're argued in an identical manner and the whole thing ends up with - shock - people remaining with the same opinion they had before they began reading.
And the title of this one is redundant anyway, because not everyone is vegetarian because of the pain caused to animals.
but not everybody plans their life by this site so some people may not have had the debate here before.
I can't remember it coming up in the last month at least.
I have provided new information to at least one person through this dabate today.
Now go post somewhere worthwhile instead, like "Do pigeons ever get full?".
much like this one should have, otherwise i might have.
Why not let people decied for themselves what they want to read and reply to and stop complaining.
Or am I getting confused with sonething else.
I'm trying to remember from my dinosaur liking days.
then go cower away from a muscular man in the pub, then round off your day by fucking a bus stop.