Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Taste is an ethic.
A good strong taste ethic.
eating meat is to provide protein, which the human body needs, and, yeah, while it's available in other foods, not a great number.
whereas, in contrast, technology has advanced to a stage that you really don't need to wear fur to stay warm, there's plenty of other materials.
eating meat is more like a necessity than a luxury (though obviously it can still be a luxury), whereas wearing fur is definitely a luxury
if you ate the meat and didn't use the fur, thats a bit of a waste...
but it's a valid point.
and own leather shoes, so... i'm using most of the cow.
i've eaten duck, i have duck feather filled pillows....
i understand the complaints that people have about certain animals being used just for their fur, thats a bit shit, eat it as well!!
theres not really an item of a pig that can be turned into clothing, is there? (please correct me if i'm wrong :) )
learn something new everyday!
people need to start eating chinchillas and foxes.
VEGGIES R GAY
but then, if something has been killed already, might as well use its skin to make some sick buttless chaps. It's a minefield.
i was being COMPARATIVE, fuckstick. in terms of ease of access, availability, affordability (meat can be expensive but it can be well cheap too innit), meat sources outstrip the likes of vegetarian protein sources. okay, vegan sources really, i was kinda including eggs and cheese in the meat sources in my head.
but whatever, i get the impression you wouldn't be willing to listen to other sides of the argument anyway, i don't know why i bother
more veg rpotein could be grown on equivalent land, and could be cheaper than the cow meat option
so I don't do either... I suppose I'd argue that animals appear to suffer when they're slaughtered/skinned, that hazy as I am about animal awareness/etc. IMO neither meat nor fur would improve my life given climate/circumstance in such a way that I couldn't settle for an 'ethical' alternative, so I settle for the 'ethical' alternatives. mm.
If you're Vegan, what do you feed your pets? If you don't have pets do you think it is right for other Vegans to feed naturally carnivorous animals vegetables? Surely that's cruel, but then if you do feed them meet wouldn't that go against your Vegan beliefs?
who ate seedy things and, eventually, his brother. Perhaps an argument against Vegan pets. ANYway...
I wouldn't get a pet atm, probably partly for this reason (and I wouldn't be great at handling raw meat). On the one hand, it's cruel to starve a pet who naturally needs meaty protein in their diet. On the other hand, looking after shelter pets is a whole animal-welfare cause, and there are people who raise healthy, energetic dogs on vegetarian diets. I'd probably see how the pet reacted to a veggie diet; if it was obviously unhappy I'd switch to whatever made it happiest - to do anything else would be irresponsible?
As to cats, they need meat I think but then what the hell IS in IAMS?
by her doctor because she wasn't able to get the nutrients she needed from a veggie diet.
certainly not without going to huge lengths and inconvenience.
whereas in some countries where there is much vegetarianism there is.
This country (on the whole) until more recently despised vegetarians, mocked insulted, acted as if sad towards them, and merely offered the accompanyments to meat without the meat to them.
Many shops do not stock a lot of stuff.
When I finally went vegetarian i might have been lucky living in an area of birmingham with a large population of people with asian backgrounds. Thus I have never had to consider changing from a vegetarian diet due to lack of nutrients....I have a background and large number if vegetarian influences.
It is sad that perhaps many of you who have tried have not had this grounding
as an animal from killing and eating something. However my non meat eating argument would be agaisnt 'the presentation as the norm that most humans are hunters and would naturally eat meat 3 times a day' and that this helps support an established industrial scale process of increasing meat production for people when (strategically) more people could be fed if much of the land used for this were used for crop production. (or if grain used as fodder went to feed humans)
(or indeed if all the fish that the herbivores ate were used for humans)
with a drip.
and whether that in turn really matters.
in india I think that many people without expensive educations are aware of the nutritional value of lentils. many subsist in hard labouring jobs mainly on a grain and a legume
rice/lentil (or other pea type)
mentally healthy when without it they felt so much better and snappy all the time.
Personally I find artificial light and signs offensicve and the artificiality of society and its plastic trappings make me snappy and unhappy.
What you have just said is not something that gives you a 'right to something' it is just your preference.
You do have a human right to be able to go and catch your own food if you want to, however you dont have any 'rights' to expect an industry to do it for you.
so what is it an issue about?
Look as i said as a human animal you can eat whatever you like.
However I can also criticise an industry that sets false standards and expectations and promotes itself to people who dont really want to eat meat as much as you do. Any human animal can catch its own food.
I used to work on a farm and to aid quantity, quality IS sacrificed. I WAS asked/encouraged/TOLD to cut corners. I WAS laughed at for niavely believing that regulatory safeguards would be followed. That is what mass production means.
I object to it.
Im not a hippocrit cos I havnt asked you or anyone to actually give up meat, I DONT believe that certain humans SHOULD give up meat as it is not viable for humans to live, say, in the artic circle without being hunters or herders/fishers.
I do believe in some symbiosis, many animals do it. I object to the industry that expounds meat eating for ITS own good though, since the methods of producing on that scale are often contrary to other human concerns.
any hugely hypocritical statements about meat until you actually become veggie please?
it's really boring and irritating hearing you get on your high horse.
animals are pretty shit. why shouldn't we use them how we see fit?
your nature is to be an animal.
If you were following your nature then you would not baulk at eating maggots.....as it is you would, becasue you, and many of us are not being natural
as it is most people (vegetarian and meat eaters) are actually domesticated animals fed with feed from a huge artificial master
(im a celeb get me outa here)
OK so you can say that about the maggot fair enough.
However you are very wrong about saying that we are little more than creatures of custom, we COULD be far more, you yourself allude to this by saying that you would defy custom to eat a grub.
yOU ARE right in that most people do follow custom, as they are required to do so, under destraint of censure/fortune reduction (by society)....(as do many domesticated animals)
you can't just dismiss it out of hand.
meat is easy to obtain and cook and get a balanced tasty diet with little knowledge. veggie options aren't.
i'm a good cook. i eat pretty healthily. but i wouldn't have a clue where to start being vegetarian, because it isn't part of the food culture i was brought up in.
but as you say it probably isnt if the food culture of it is a bit alien to you, as it might be to most.
But trust me it is easy if you cook yourself
but it's difficult to know what to cook to get the balance of nutrients, and it's harder to make something like lentils super tasty compared to steak.
but then again its subjective and this is only my opinion
if he were a veggie people would acuse him of getting on his high horse.
As it is he is expressing an idea that it is society as a whole that should share this and that he is not trying to single out individuals and blame then. (its like the pacifist general)
fur isn't symptomatic of "consumerism gone mad", though is a lot more unregulated than meat/leather so they can get away with lots more like gassing loads of foxes.
but you can wear a coat MANY TIMES
or realllllllllly shit meat
or do you genuinely not know how to spell Mehodor?
People can say food is essential for life whereas fur isn't: but this wasn't always the case. Warmth and shelter is just as important for survival, it's just that technology has provided us with alternatives to wearing animal hides and burning stuff. The same could be said of food - people can survive easily without eating meat. If people wanted to survive without harming other creatures, they could do so. And many do.
The main question after that is the one of 'natural order', with people obeying their 'natural urge' to eat meat. I'm not convinced by this either. I think it's more just a matter of habit. People who have been brought up vegetarian do not crave meat, so people craving meat naturally as part of their diet is a fallacy.
People eat meat because it tastes good and because they don't really care about animal lives. That's the truth of it.
Meat+dairy farming is the most inefficient way of farming in terms of produce/land used
i'm starting to see why you're so unpopular
for the record i was pointing out that if everyone in the world decided to go and buy lentils now, there wouldn't be enough in shops, and for everyone to suddenly switch to vegetarian, there'd be a short-fall in the short-term
most of all i was just bored of trying to argue with smug vegetarians, y'know, the sort of vegetarians who embarrass the other vegetarians. but whatever, right, you're proud of yourselves init?
look. if people went out in this country and tried to be 60 million peoples' worth of lentils and other protein-heavy natural crops they're not there. they just wouldn't be able to. i was making a facetious, silly point and you're trying to call me out on it, christ.
well done you, vikram. well fucking done you.
a lot of crushed voles
theoretically it's right, but it doesn't account for the different land types used in the two types of farming.
you can farm venison on mountains, you can't grow crops.
the climate in some countries is suited to growing lentils. in plenty it's suited to growing cows. that's why we have a food culture of meat and root vegetables, and asia has a tradition of rice and chilli.
and it might not be a necessity to you, but it is to lots of people purely because they don't know how to cook veg and replace the nutrients missing.
seeing as how the numbers would decline horribly and all
it's a valid point. no meat industry = lots and lots of dead cows.
if meat/milk industry continues, also = more diversification. More human nutrition could be gained, with less intensive 'consumer market' driven industry
from a species point of view the number of cows is irrelevant (as long as they are not likely top die out)
What is important to the species is the ability to also progress/ to evolve and adapt.
cows and sheep and grasses have gained hugely in terms of overall numbers due to humans, but diversification and robustness of the gene pool of these has decreased.
So to bring in species benefit is actually an own goal if your against less meat eating
most people wouldn't be better off, because they'd be deprived of one of life's joys.
what people should be taught is how to buy a ten pound leg of lamb and get a roast, three curries and a risotto out of it.
I was about to say, 'yes, but it does imply endorsement of the fur industry (people won't know it's second hand)' and then I realised I was wearing a fake-leather jacket. Hyyyypocrrrittee...
All fur is "second hand".
And you're supporting demand for something by buying it.
also, one big thing about fur is a 'rarer, more prestigious' mentality, which is why a lot of animals such as white tigers/various species of rare wolf and seal, etc. are either extinct or on the verge of it due to fur hunting.
I don't eat meat because i can't afford to regularly buy meat that i would feel happy eating, and only eat sustainable fish. I think that fur is both unnecessary and unsustainable, so i wouldn't wear it. Unless i went out and skinned a few rabbits myself, they would probably make a nice stew and some boots.
fur business is the very definition of pointless nastiness*. even people in it can't defend it with anything apart from "well, it's legal, isn't it? and the money's alright".
*if you happen to live in mongolian wilderness, I am willing to look the other way when you skin some animals to make a coat.
I don't wanna see that.
Also, your point is well made.
of a slaughtered cow. Cows used for leather production are seperate from ones bred for meat. I can see where you're coming from, but there's waste from both that could be used. You don't NEED fur, you don't NEED meat, it's difficult to say why one is worse than the other.
For the record, I agree with your view that it's nasty, but i don't that's the right argument against it.
they make stock, gelatine, suet. etc.
i just think "but they don't eat the animal they skin" is a silly argument against fur, because meat/leather production causes a helluva lot of waste too.
as an aside one of the thing that annoys me about the likes of ramsay campaigning about using every bit of an animal without wasting it is just how much meat they throw away because it isn't perfect on the pass.
if better = more valuable: rarity isn't an aesthetic distinction. If by killing something you're cutting down the species' chances of survival then you risk it being lost both to local ecosystem and future generations.
i didn't study philosophy. i would say it was, but i can see what you're saying.
I find it difficult to think of reasons WHY wearing fur is worse then eating meat, but i feel more disgusted by the thought of wearing fur. Who knows.
Maybe it's because wearing fur seems like more of a vanity issue, you killed an animal (or several) because you want to look good. Ok, in ye olden days, people wore fur to keep warm, and people in some parts of the world still do, i don't feel disgusted by that. I guess i just think it's wrong to use the skin of a living thing as a fashion item. It seems so shallow, much more so than eating flesh for sustenance (even though being omnivorous isn't a necessity).
or you don't believe they have 'souls' or whatever? I just think of humans as another animal (because we are). But anyway, that's not the reason i don't eat meat so it's not the point.
I kind of agree with John Brainlove, that there isn't a difference. I can't convince myself that wearing fur isn't horrible though, and i don't care about other people eating meat if they want to, although i would rather a lot more people were a lot more conscientious about it. But that's just imho and people can do what they like. Fur though, i'll never like it.
Possibly the main reason being that i think fur coats make people look like twats, why kill loads of cute animals just to make something that makes you look like an idiot? At least meat tastes really nice.
its culture/society that does that
then they learn/discover it (although some never do, whereas others are still fascinated and delighted by that discovery)
is that they assume one moral standpoint and want it applied universally.
i think eating meat is right.
i think eating endangered meat isn't too bad.
i think eating cute things and using the fur is fine.
i don't see why it should be wrong for anyone to agree or disagree with any of those statements whilst agreeing with the others.
are more relative; there are people/cultures/situations in which not eating meat < eating meat. eg. if you live in the mongolian wilderness/are anaemic etc.
My being a spindly sadsack predates me stopping eating meat.
know which I pick. meat makes people smell funny.
you're doing it wrong.
= involves mucho energy. Energy that could be used to make the sexytimes.
Having been a horny vegan.
My vegetarian record = 14 in one sat/sunday session (with another long time vegetarian)
i will sell you 1 for a million pounds
but DiS ate it.
1. For most people there's no principled objection to using animals for human ends since animals have no moral personality
2. Because of this, the justification for using animals changes on a case by case basis
3. These justifications are inevitably socially contingent - so some people might be justified in killing animals to keep warm but we're probably not justified in doing it to look pretty
4. These justifications will also be based on incommensurable values. It's impossible to assign an accurate weight to human and animal welfare so both vegetarianism and omnivourousness (?) might each be *potentially* justifiable in a society where all other factors are equal
but some humans allow themselves to be influenced by an artificial value system which extolls and extends the aesthetic of wearing real fur (something about look at me, 'I am considerably richer than yow' more glamerous, more ......)
A serious practical problem (beyond that of meat eating as a whole, is that the value system that seems to mostly promote the wearing of fur, also points (indirectly) to the idea of wearing 'exotic' animal fur as being 'the pinnacle' in having that which they are trying to obtain.......so even wearing mundane fur kind of encourages the whole attitude that will result in the killing of endangered animals for their pelts.
Meat eating is natural for some/many huiman animals.
However most humans that consume the majority of meat do not live as human animals.
They live like domesticated animals (like the cattle) and are fed their feed by a large and artificial master system, that needs them to provide some feedback.
Humans act as cattle to the artificial master, with their time/work and consumer choices acting as the meat and milk to this artificial master (Mammon)
Mammon is most peoples herder.
he milks you for your time and effort, to build his earthly bones and his cattle sheds and milking machine
he milks you for your consumer choices.....he makes things to make you follow and see which one you follow most, that which the majority follow, he masters, and then uses this mastery to make a shield to protect himself from attack
so really i dont see how people can claim that animals are not concious compared with animals.....I would raise my eyebrow at this and say 'barely'
to see the whole, and in that respect yes it could be considered to be negative, except that it isnt.
If you think about it, really the few people living independantly as tundra herders or living in the amazon independantly or sumatra. These cultures should be preserved and treasured far more than our culture as they are more human animal than us, their culture is far more integrated with them and their environment. Ours is pretty blunt and arbitary, relying on sheer force and ability rather than being designed in tandom with us and our environment.
However despite us being less 'worthy' in a zooalogical/anthropological sense, each one of us can have a wonderful and rich life within the artificial envioronment.
Which in a way is more depressing if you then consider the other domesticated animals situations
and from one of the places I can stand, they dont look that different
but it is not, as they say, empty rhetoric.
Because it is true, I can take a viewpoint and argue from that viewpoint and use words as if from that viewpoint, I can also take another viewpoint and argue/describe from there.
Overall I do have recomendations that are an amalgum of my viewpoints, however people don't like those often (especially if they seem to differ from commonly accepted) t5hey liek to have proof, it is difficult to provide people with reasoning unless you show them some of the viewpoints that you consider.
If you like I could just cut all the rhetoric and just give my heartfelt advice.
"whilst some humans could and should eat animals, the possible future where most of the (overinflated) population of humans survive (and severe adverse environmental degradations does not take place making mass tramatic depopulations by deaths occur) is a future where there is a mixed diet but one where the majority of protein is provided by plants directly to humans, NOT through the medium of livestock. That severe environmental degradation is more easy to curtail if soya is grown at the expencse of beef (I know that soya has also joined ranching as a degrader of forest, but if major ranching were curtailed then this encroachment could be halted for now.
Planktonic food production has never been seriously researched after brief forays have not revealed immediate benefit, but i think it is worth checking more.
I think that it is if benefit to humans and livestock were more money to be spent eating less, but better reared meat.
I do not expect it to be an achievable goal to remove all meat eating, but i do think that farming can be improved vastly.
have any humans arguing in this thread ever bitten any animals to death?
Ever bitten any flesh and felt blood oozing through your teeth into your mouth?
often it is only that, a convenience whilst butchering
din ask for your LIFE STORY
is that foie gras is ethical. a point i made in the pub on friday.
bamos was having none of it. which is interesting given what must be happening to his liver...
and not because they were vegetarians, but because it was french