Welcome, Guest!
Why on earth I don't eat meat
Published: Friday, December 14, 2007 - 7:39am
My first memory of peers contradicting me with regard to my vegetarianism was in preschool, when frequently kids, including my friends, would obnoxiously sit down next to me and wave their meat in my face, saying, “I loooooove salami … Salami is soooo good!”
I remember crinkling my nose on many of these reoccurring incidents and saying, “That’s gross!” or maybe even a confident, “Stop it!”
Now I’ve aged, so have my peers, and along with it the level of maturity present in the objections to my vegetarianism rose.
For example, the other day I was arguing with several of my classmates at lunch as they tossed challenges at me about my vegetarianism. Finally, when they realized that I had answers to legitimately combat all of their challenges, one boy shouted out, “Well, have you ever thought that the animals, you know, want to be eaten?”
OK, just kidding. I have heard better arguments than that. For example, people have said to me before that it is “perfectly natural” for animals to kill animals as a way to gain nutrition. This, I cannot argue with because hunting has always been natural for numerous species. But, is that honestly what we see today in the meat industry? Factory farms aren’t like mountains — they were manually put there.
I would promote consuming free-range meat products versus eating factory-farmed meat products, but still raising animals to kill is not completely by nature.
Of course, the raising of livestock for food has dated back extremely far, but, at our most primitive state, humans were hunters and gatherers, just like most animal species remain today.
The real issue with this statement (that it is natural to kill other animals for nutrition) is that yes, the killing of other animals for nutrition is natural, but who in America (ignoring random individuals … I’m talking about significant numbers) actually goes out and hunts for dinner, brings the food home, and cooks it for themselves?
People have also posed the question: “Well, Sindha, if you came across an already dead animal would you feel OK eating it? I mean, if it’s already dead, isn’t it a waste to not eat it?” My answer is, “Yeah … but do you guys eat road kill?”
Just kidding, again. For me it boils down to an answer revolving around morals.
Some people are vegetarian for the environment, for their health, or for reasons other than to eliminate the suffering of animals. For me, it’s a combination of every reason I’ve ever heard for vegetarianism, including elimination of suffering of animals.
I was raised to believe that life is life and it is equally valuable in all animals. Therefore, killing any kind of animal is equivalent to killing any other kind of animal. This is besides some distinctions in the presence of complex nervous systems, the extent of pain that an animal would feel, and the presence of family systems in that species (whether the mothers are possessive of their children, etc.).
It’s true that my emotional attachment to a member of the human species and a member of a different species won’t be the same — I can directly relate to humans whereas I can’t quite as directly relate to a member of the different species. I still respect their right to life, though.
Now that I’ve explained my belief about the killing of any kind of animal, I can open up the parallel to the previously asked question: “If you came across an already dead human, would you feel OK eating it? I mean, if it’s already dead, isn’t it a waste to not eat it?”
I know what you’re thinking: that eating another human is wrong. I totally agree. And, if a human died, I would treat, not eat, its body with respect and proceed as one might expect, and the same with an animal.
I could write pages and pages about my rationalization for vegetarianism, and I’m sure people could keep on coming up with more arguments against my choice. So, I will stop here but conclude this article with some of the facts that really speak to me powerfully in regard to vegetarianism:
- 1. Every three seconds a child dies of starvation somewhere in the world. If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600 million people. Even if Americans just reduced their meat consumption by 10 percent, it would free up 12 million tons of grain, which is enough grain to feed 60 million people.
2. Overgrazing by cattle is destroying the land and increasing desertification; nearly 430 million acres in the U.S. alone has suffered a 25 to 50 percent reduction in yield since first grazed.
3. Twenty-five percent of Central America's forests have been destroyed for cattle grazing since 1960.
4. The 1.3 billion cattle in the world emit 60 million tons of methane, a greenhouse gas that leads to global warming.
5. It takes just 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat as opposed to 2,500 gallons to produce one pound of meat.
6. Vegetarians have a 50 percent reduced risk of dying of diabetes, a 24 percent reduced risk of getting heart disease, and a 40 percent reduced level of cancer (due to intake of vitamins).
7. In 1979, the U.S. used 145 million tons of crops that were fed to cattle resulting in only 21 million tons of animal bodies. The cost of the wasted crops was $20 billion.
Note: These facts were taken from this Web site, where a full list of 101 reasons to be vegetarian can be viewed.
Comments
My reasons for eating
My reasons for eating meat:
1) I like it. I realize this is a bad reason, but I like it, so it's all good.
2) Animals aren't human beings. As far as we can tell, most animals have no real cognitive abilities, and thus probably little, if any emotions. I wouldn't eat a chimp, but a rabbit, cow, chicken or pig I have no problem with.
3) Biblical precedence. Cain only killed Abel because God liked Abel's offering of meat better than Cain's offering of grain. I actually don't believe this, but this is my fall back position.
4) Sometimes, we have no choice. In Sweden, for instance, hunting has killed off the majority of the wolf population, causing the mosse population to explode. This is damaging to the environment, as the moose eat almost everything, damaging their habitats. As such, the Swedish government mandates that a certain number of moose must be hunted each year to control ecological damage. These moose are then eaten. Not only is moose meat low in fat and tastes good, but it also can help the environment.
Also, people who are iron deficient need to eat meat to remain healthy. As this condition runs in my family, I know this firsthand.
a brief rebuke
1) From the link at the end of the article:
"I hope you will agree it's pretty pathetic to consider all the evidence & then say "well I know you're right about the environment & health & the animals - but I just love my meat."
2) Humans display an unprecedented capacity for devastation of habitats, lack of natural symbiosis, wastefulness, interspecies hostility, and general disregard for the future survival of their species. I agree, 'animals' aren't human beings, and for that, I have to admit that I envy them.
4) The problem: we hunted too many wolves. The solution: we hunt a bunch of moose.
...?
The balance was just fine before we interfered with it. We should be trying to restore that equilibrium, not invent a new, bogus pseudo-equilibrium that requires constant maintenance from humans.
For the record, I'm not actually a vegetarian myself; I still eat chicken, because it has more protein than just about anything, and also because it's hard to imagine life without those chicken-with-everything's from Zorba's. Maybe in time.
A fun experiment for you.
A fun experiment for you. Buy some wheaties, put them in the blender, wizz them up, then stick a magnet over it. All the stuff that comes out is iron. All you need to process iron is vitamin C. Drink a glass of orange juice, eat iron supplemented food and you are golden. Your last "reason" is an excuse, not a valid reason.
Animal cognition is defined by academic professionals as "the ability of an animal to be aware of and make judgements about its environment"
(quoted from: http://asci.uvm.edu/course/asci001/behavior.html)
Birds were once found behaving very randomly... or is it intelligently? The birds would wait at traffic lights, when the light turned red and the cars stopped the birds would fly down and put nuts under the wheels of the cars. Then they flew away, the light turns green, the car wheels crack the nuts, light turns red again and the birds go back down to pick up their nuts. Honestly, I'm not sure if you are capable of making such intelligent and forward thinking actions--these birds understand what a consequence is, can you say the same?
http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/
Whether or not you agree that this is intelligence, I do not think that you can deny the fact that it is animals responding to their environments.
Also, have you never owned a pet? No dog or cat owner will deny that their pets have moods. My pets get grumpy, whiny, chipper... and they let you know it.
My friends are doing studies on zebrafish, they are training them to swim through a hole to another part of the tank to receive food on the cue of a colored card. Everytime they have preformed this experiment their fish has approximately halved his time from 10 minutes, to 5, to 3, to 1. And these are fish we're talking about, animals which aren't considered to be very intelligent.
Mice laughing--why would an animal with no emotion enjoy tickling?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/w atch/18916/
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from (obviously you are not...), but pigs are very intelligent creatures. A few website examples:
http://www.goveg.com/f-hiddenlivespigs.asp
http://www.upprs.com/training/training.htm
http://www.euroveg.eu/lang/en/news/magazine/2002-1-c-passionate.php
I think the point of this article was to make you think critically about your everyday behavior. Instead of trying to justify yourself with uneducated "points", just accept the fact that you are not compassionate, and care more about yourself than others. Even if you do not care about animals or the environment, surely you care about starving people around the world. As it was shown in this article, abolishing the meat industry would allow the grain grown for the animals to be grown for people, and would be enough grain to solve our shortage of food. Next time, before you bite into your steak, know that you are taking away many meals (not just the one that your steak provides) from starving people in third world countries. Now tell me you don't feel bad about yourself.
You can't say someone isn't
You can't say someone isn't compassionate just because they eat meat, that's just not fair.
Also, if you abolish the meat industry, sure there would be more grain for food, but there would also be less meat for food, obviously. Can you honestly say that the grain would make up for the lack of meat? You never know if it would necessarily be a good thing. And even if there IS more grain, who's to say that it will make it to those who need it most, knowing human greed? Even with the meat industry, I'm willing to bet there is enough food already to feed everyone. And are you suggesting that the animals that wouldn't be killed not be fed?
I respect your opinion, but I just wanted to point out a few logical flaws in some of your arguments. No offense meant.
1. You know what I like?
1. You know what I like? Beating up losers like you. It's all good. (Think this response sounds immature and stupid? It's mirroring you.)
2. You obviously have not been reading anything about cognitive testing on animals if you think there is a huge difference between chimps and pigs, or that animals posses nothing beyond simple stimulus responses. Many breeds of pigs are as smart as chimps. Animals have emotional attachments, vivid memories, and problem solving skills. Here is a link with information and sources: http://www.voiceless.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42...
Even if you do not believe that animals have emotions, numerous neurological studies have been done that show that all vertebrates experience pain in basically the same way that humans do. This article (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html) outlines it well. If you have ever watched a video of animals being brought to slaughter, you would not be able to argue that those animals are not experiencing fear. Being ignorant of the research being done on animal sentience does not mean that you can use your opinion as a justifiable reason.
3. That same biblical passage condones polygamy. If you choose to go along with everything in the bible, I hope you have fun in jail.
4. There is always a choice. Maybe if selfish people hadn't screwed up the ecosystem in the first place, we wouldn't be in such a mess now. Instead of killing moose, they could sterilize a portion of the population so that the birth rate decreases and the land is not depleted.
As for iron, dried beans and dark, leafy greens have more iron per calorie than meat. While iron from vegetable sources is not absorbed as efficiently as iron from meat sources, this is easily counteracted by adding vitamin C to your diet. Also, if you drink soda you are a huge hypocrite when arguing about iron.
response to (part of) rebuke
"The problem: we hunted too many wolves. The solution: we hunt a bunch of moose"
Well, yeah...what else can we do?
It's the same here in the U.S. with white-tailed deer. While we have reintroduced their predators to their old habitats, it will take decades or more for wolf and cougar populations to reach a level where they can cause any significant damage to the deer's current numbers, and even then deer will still need culling because of how human changes to their environmant has allowed their population to expand to ungodly numbers
trouble with free range
We were discussing this topic in Social Ad the other day, and the point was brought up that regulations for calling one's livestock "free range" are rather scant. Essentially if there's dirt and the occasional sunbeam, it can be called free range. Just something to be aware of.
(And as an aside, in response to Carl's second point: cognition isn't exactly necessary when you're being strung up by your ankles and bled to death. Torture is torture.)
Reponse to Carl
"1) I like it. I realize this is a bad reason, but I like it, so it's all good."
Yes, I realize people really like meat. But people have always given up things that they enjoyed just because it wasn't good for their well-being or the well-being of others. Lots of people quit smoking don't they? And many people make sure to buy fair trade items, don't they?
"2) Animals aren't human beings. As far as we can tell, most animals have no real cognitive abilities, and thus probably little, if any emotions. I wouldn't eat a chimp, but a rabbit, cow, chicken or pig I have no problem with."
I really can't say how technical I am being here, but this would be my argument:
There must be emotional attachment between mother/father and their offspring in any animal species where the babies need care after birth from their mother/father in order to survive. How else would the mothers/fathers stay? There must be some emotional attachment or possessive and protective feelings for their children.
Fish would be an example of a species which do not need care from a mother or father after birth. As far as I'm aware, after the eggs hatch the parents leave and the fish can live on their own.
This is not the case for chickens or cows, who do need care from their parents after birth. Therefore the parents must have a sense of attachment to their offspring.
"Also, people who are iron deficient need to eat meat to remain healthy. As this condition runs in my family, I know this firsthand."
While I did cite a website that shows facts showing what would happen if entire populations turned vegetarian, I am not trying to impose my beliefs upon others and say that everyone the population needs to become vegetarian. Of course I believe that a vegetarian world would be great, but I realize that this is far out of reach, especially for many cultures that have traditions revolving around the consumption of meat. I definitely think that the ethical treatment of animals is a must, and that we should be much more considerate about the well-being of other species.
If people have medical conditions that prevent them from being vegetarian, I would hope that they still try to live a life that supports ethical treatment.
more about iron..
"Additives in soft drinks are known to be inhibitors or iron absorption. When tea is taken with a meal, it may depress the absorption of iron by as much as 75%. The body has to use its natural resources in trying to throw out the low quality of processed, junk/fast food, cold drinks that we keep consuming. Donft take iron along with a calcium supplement as it interferes with iron absorption."
That's why she said that if you drank soda you were a hypocrite.
To be even more clear, the
To be even more clear, the phosphates in soda prevent the absorption. Since Carl's "first hand experience" hasn't taught him much, maybe this site will help: http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/iron_absorption.html
Phytate is a phosphate.
Civilization
Human civilization runs counter to nature simply by way of our initial inability to survive and evolve without some form of technology (tools, clothes). I suppose it's one thing to be ashamed of being human (which, if you are, you harm nature by defying its 'natural order' through living in a house, wearing clothes, going to school, reading books), but if you aren't a self-hating human, you should consider the possibility that nature just gave birth to a bunch of clever naked monkeys it couldn't quite handle. There is a very limited degree in which we as a civilization can practically aspire to appease nature and our fellow inhabitants of earth. We, like everything else that lives, wishes to survive and develop in a progressive direction, therefore our only real bond with nature is that it still holds some sway over our future as a civilization. This can be viewed as a sign of nature's omnipotence; I think of it as a flaw that will likely work itself out as we head into the future. If it doesn't, we'll bite the dust like every other ambitious entity that dares to blossom in the face of order. This perception that we as people have some sort of moral obligation to other organisms is just that, a perception. Implying that it is more valid than any other is just plain old arrogance.
That being said, all this talk of animals has made me terribly hungry.
Oh, don't sound so cavalier
Oh, don't sound so cavalier about your own existence and its supposed meaninglessness. I'm sure you actually care a great deal about your own existence and death. I'm sure you are also going to pretend to care a great deal about the world and humanity in your college essays and applications.
Even if you do not think that humans have moral obligations to other organisms, do you not think that humans at least have moral obligation to other humans and the earth in general? If we wish to survive, we need to curb global warming, address world hunger, prevent disease, and help the economy by cutting support for large business with little competition. Being a vegetarian would help with all of those problems. Did you know that if people did not farm chickens for food there would be no influenza outbreaks? Doesn't that sound appealing with all this talk about a possible bird flu epidemic? What humans have done to the earth will not "work itself out." However, if people take serious steps to lessen our effects on the earth, we could increase our longevity and the standard of living for millions of people. If humans lived as if we have no responsibilities at all, we might as well not worry about genocide, sweat shops, etc. If we have no moral obligations, it shouldn't matter if I kill your family. To perceive that killing other humans is bad is just a perception, so why should it be valid?
[Last two sentences deleted because they were an ad hominem attack. Please keep the comments limited to substantive arguments. —David Porreca, Gargoyle adviser]
I'm glad you're so passionate
It warms my heart to see people so passionate about something; in order for the majority of progressive (as well as regressive) changes to occur in the world there need to be people willing to believe that they know the truth.
However, your world hunger argument is simply not a reasonable conclusion to draw from whatever information you have learned about the subject. In terms of consumer market power, vegetarianism solving world hunger is infeasible. We already use grain to feed poor people - it's called US AID - since American farmers grow more grain than Americans eat, our much-reviled government used taxpayer dollars to buy up the surplus grain and fly it to poor countries. There would be even more grain if people just stopped eating meat - and it sounds well and good until you consider that practices like this cripple the economies of impoverished countries instantly. African farmers, who need to make profits to feed their own families, have no incentive to grow and sell their African grain when every six months, an American helicopter is dropping off large quantities of higher-quality grain for, to quote Kanye West, "free-ninety-nine." Ultimately, increasing the standard of living for millions of people would not be a result of widespread vegetarianism.
I'll also throw this out there: what makes you so sure that our survival depends on our harmony with nature? The advancement of human civilization thus far has relied largely upon our defiance of nature. Either that, or the natural order of things is for humans to use our resources on this earth as we see fit. I suppose those aren't the only two ways of thinking about it, but they're valid points.
I'm sure you thought of something dreadfully clever to say in those last two sentences. Pity they were deemed attacks on me and not my argument.
Response to Sindha's response to Carl's response...whatever.
Just a few responses...
1) Well, a vast number of people still continue smoking regardless of their own health and the comfort of those around them. That really bugs me, however, you cannot compare eating meat to smoking. Eating meat does not damage your own health, or the health of others...though it does affect the life of the animal you are eating. I am not saying that killing animals for our own enjoyment and satisfaction is a good thing, I actually do not like that aspect of my diet. But really, comparing it to smoking is going a little too far.
2) Yes animals have instinct to protect their young, feed them, etc. But humans are far more complex and advanced. Wolves, for example, forget about thier young once they reach a certain age, and the "emotional attatchment" is gone. There is no feeling of, "aw I am sad, I have no mother anymore, boohooo". No that is definitley not the case. Fish, another example, think that they are in a different place after circling their tank once. Animals are not capable of the emotions that we are.
That is all.
I think you're correct... My
I think you're correct... My comparison of smoking was not a good one.
However, the kind of meat that the American population generally does consume, and the quantity, is bad for one's health.
What I was trying to say is it isn't a new phenomenon to give up something that is enjoyed because it has negative aspects to it.
Response to anonymouses of all sorts
What I really dislike about this commenting system is that it lacks the ability to portray sarcasm. The only times I ever make biblical references are when I'm in church or being facetious. Similarly, if you knew me you'd know that I don't truly believe about 60% of what I say. I enjoy wordplay, shades of meaning and jokes, such as pretending to actually take controversial (and occasionally annoying) positions. That aside, the fact is I'm not a scientist. I don't know everything about this subject. If something I've said is wrong, approach me in person and talk to me about it, if you are at all related to Uni, which I have no way of knowing since you called yourself "anonymous."
And on that note, I find it utterly despicable that you cannot find the courage to use your own name. Most of you have good points. I would like to put a face or name to that constructive criticism.
To anonymous #3-how dare you? "You know what I like? Beating up losers like you." Come find me in person and we'll see how that goes down. If the best comment you can come up with is an immature, mocking threat you seriously need to get your head checked. The last time I checked, I didn't threaten anyone in my (admittedly badly thought-out) comment.
Now to your (slightly) more responsible comments. I said in my comment that I don't believe the bible passage-I was simply interpreting. And where in the story of Cain and Abel is polygamy brought up? I'll check my King James, but to the best of my knowledge that isn't the lesson of the story. Secondly, I didn't say that I believe everything in the bible. Like most non-fundamentalist Christians, I believe most, but not all of the scripture. Some things are simply too contradictory, and thus I typically choose New Testament theology over Old. Thirdly, the bible doesn't have a clear definition of marriage. The sacrament of marriage is not defined anywhere in scripture, and thus Christians have had to create their own definitions throughout history. Monogamous marriage as well as polygamy is seen in the bible, and I have no problem with either.
Finally, sterilizing moose does not solve the problem anywhere near as quickly as is needed. Waiting for the old sterile moose to die does nothing to help over-eaten habitats. In fact, the situation remains the same until the moose die, which according to http://www.smouse.force9.co.uk/facts.htm takes about 15-25 years. While that quarter of a century goes by, the moose keep eating. And eating. If you had simply hunted the moose while re-introducing natural predators, you not only would solve the problem, but you would obtain high-quality meat and fur, ensuring that these dead animals are not wasted.
But I digress. If you have a problem, be man (or woman, I suppose) enough to identify yourself or talk to me personally. Otherwise, keep your comments to yourself.
"That aside, the fact is I'm
"That aside, the fact is I'm not a scientist. I don't know everything about this subject."
That is obvious, I would in fact say that until our responses you knew nothing about this subject. There was a resource given to you, read it before commenting so you can atleast pretend to be educated.
And as an editor of the paper you should present a more solid front. It is embarrassing to the paper for an editor to disrespect the author of such an article by telling them that they are "full of ****." Once you get to college (which I find hard to believe is next year) this behavior will be completely unacceptable.
[I deleted the four-letter word. I'm not sure why that phrase is within quote marks. I didn't see it (and still don't) in any of Carl's comments and certainly would not have allowed it if I had. Just a quick comment about presenting "a more solid front." The Gargoyle encourages debate. If one staff member disagrees with another's position on an issue, he or she has the freedom to comment. Perhaps it's because I know Carl, but when I read his original comment I took much of it as tongue in cheek. I certainly did not think he was disrespecting Sindha, who did an outstanding job of presenting her position. If you would like to discuss any of this, please call me at 217-244-8578 — David Porreca, Gargoyle adviser]
Did you miss that I said I
Did you miss that I said I was mirroring your comment when I said I like beating up losers like you? It was supposed to be ridiculous because what you said was ridiculous. It's not like I have any intention of actually beating you up. I just wanted you to see how ill-received your selfish statement was.
In the passage of the bible you sited, polygamy is not a main issue but neither is meat eating. The passage talks about characters of the bible having many wives, and does not say that it is wrong or that this God did not approve of it. Since that passage also does not specifically say you should eat meat, by your logic it cn be assumed that if something in the bible is talked about without codemnation, the bible supports it. That said, the bible is viewed as a work of fiction by most scholars, and really should not be used as a definitive moral code. The idea that old men from thousands of years ago who owned slaves and beat their wives should advise me on how to live my life is not something I would subscribe to.
As for the moose, I say let the people reap what they sow. They could actively plant the vegetation that is being depleted. I'm sure not all of the moose in question are newborns, so many will be dying out and with an introduction of natural predators that process would be faster. I'm just saying that people do have a choice (not only in this matter, but in every aspect of their lives), and to act like they don't is inexcusable.
It doesn't matter if I use my own name because I do not know you in real life and I am from hundreds of miles away. However, I do know Sindha and I know that she is a nice, compassionate person that does not deserve to have the editor of the paper she writes for challenge her with uneducated responses and then tell her that she is "full of ****." We will never meet, but if we did I would have no problem telling you my views and giving educated and scientifically supported arguments for vegetarianism.
[I deleted the four-letter word. I don't know why that phrase is in quote marks. Unless I missed something in my multiple readings of Carl's comments, he never used that phrase. If you would like to discuss this, please call me at 217-244-8578. — David Porreca, Gargoyle adviser]
Oh, and in the future you
Oh, and in the future you might not want to personally argue things that you do not believe. It is one thing to take a stance in an academic paper because the topic requires it, but quite another to use arguments that you do not agree with in a personal debate. No one assigned you the topic of "defend meat eating" so you should expect that anything you say will be taken as personal opinion. Because of that, you should not act surprised when people hold you accountable for those opinions. Playing devil's advocate is never appreciated.
Carl those two long
Carl those two long anonymous posts were made by my sister and her friend.
I don't know why they didn't identify themselves..Maybe they didn't notice.
It wasn't their intentions to get away with being "anonymous" or anything like that.
The "beat losers like you up" was probably taking it too far. But the girl who said that was definitely joking. They live in Massachusetts and don't go to Uni, so they can't talk to you personally..
I'm not going to take credit or blame for anything they said but I'm just letting you know that it wasn't a Uni student.
Surely somebody has to
Surely somebody has to realize that saying to a meat-eater the equivalent of "You're taking the life of a poor defenseless creature. You're a horrible person." is the same as shoving salami in a vegetarian's face. This stuff goes both ways. There's also no point in arguing about what is "natural" or not, since many things we do are certainly unnatural, including the computers everyone's using to type their comments. Humans are omnivores, naturally. However, that doesn't mean we can't make choices about our food; vegetarians can choose to get the vitamins they would normally miss out on by taking supplements. Morals are not an absolute, which is why one diet cannot be forced on everyone.
Joy, I agree with you that
Joy, I agree with you that calling a meat eater a horrible person isn't a respectable way to go about promoting vegetarianism at all. I don't think people who eat meat are horrible...How would I be able to stand the general population? This isn't my belief at all. I know you're not necessarily accusing me of this, but I'm not sure if you are trying to call out other people who were posting pro-vegetarianism comments. If so, I don't think anyone here said that eating meat makes the consumer a horrible person. Again, I'm not sure if you are just saying this "in general" or if you meant specifically to this situation.
As far as I know, using a computer doesn't harm another living organism, does it? Sure, we are always going to be changing and moving forward... that is the nature of our race... but when should we draw the line? In my opinion, I think it's when we are making decisions for those who can't tell us what their preference is. I'm sure we could come to the conclusion that we can't do most things without affecting another population (such as animals) but I what I'm trying to say is that the meat industry is such a direct way of interfering with another population's way of life.
I'm not trying to force my diet upon everyone, I'm just trying to encourage people to consider the benefits of vegetarianism and how they can improve conditions (the ethical treatment of animals, their own health, the environment, etc...).
Finally (and this isn't directed at Joy, but to everyone) I think it is commonly misunderstood that vegetarians have to take vitamin supplements to maintain a healthy diet, but honestly this isn't the case. Most of my family and extended family members and I have lived at most to all of our lives while maintaining vegetarian diet. We don't take vitamin supplements and we are all healthy. There are simple ways to eat vegetarian and still get necessary vitamins (and necessary amounts of protein, at that). I know Joy say that vegetarians may choose to take supplements or not, but if anyone is letting aspects such as these keep them from turning vegetarian they should know that you can eat vegetarian and still stay as healthy (or healthier) than a meat eater.
Well said, Joy.
Well said, Joy. Very well said.
more vegitables, less meat
more vegitables and less meat is okay, depends on person to person. It may or may not need scientific reasoning..
I find it totally ridiculous
I find it totally ridiculous that this article, which is really well presented, by the way, about one person's personal diet, is getting so many harsh comments. If you don't agree with vegetarianism, then don't become a vegetarian. It doesn't seem like this is a subject that warrants debate. Either you want to eat meat, or you don't. I don't even think we need all of this stuff about world hunger and bible passages. It's a case of personal preference and beliefs.
I also find it really disrespectful for someone who be dissing someone else's reasons for eating meat while pretending you're defending this article, when actually you're just defeating what it's partly about. Yes, it's about being a vegetarian, but it's also about how (and forgive me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly) Sindha's reasons for being a vegetarian have been questioned and argued against so much, and how unnecessary that is.
Why can't we just accept that we all have different tastes in food and just be done with it?
I don't think you understand
I don't think you understand that for some, vegetarianism is an issue on par with genocide, rape, etc.
It is a moral standpoint, and therefore one that some believe should be discussed.
You could say the same about anti-semetics: if you want to kill jews, please do, but if you don't, that's fine too. Obviously for you this issue doesn't warrant the same response as the holocaust, but for others it does, and that is why it is being discussed.
Please do not say that it is ridiculous for this issue to be considered as important. To me, this is a fair comparison, and it is hard for someone else to tell another person which issues they should feel compassionate about.
For some, being vegetarian is an eating preference, but for others it goes way beyond that. It is a choice that can be made to not only improve your diet and health, but to improve the health of the world--not to mention that I believe killing animals is wrong.
Anyways, who said I was defending Sindha's reasons for being a vegetarian, these views are my own. Not all vegetarians have the same reasons for not eating meat.
I never said that it was
I never said that it was ridiculous for vegetarianism to be considered important. I understand that lots of different people have lots of different reasons for being vegetarian or not being vegetarian. I just think it's silly that the blog is talking about people questioning and arguing against her reasoning for being a vegetarian and then people are making comments questioning and arguing against other people's reasons for not being vegetarian.
I am not completely defending Carl's first comment though, because for someone who's never met him before, his sarcasm probably wouldn't be very apparent.
Also, you are quite right. While you may see killing jews as a perfectly legitimate comparison to vegetarianism, I do not. To me, it's not even kind of the same thing. Yes, it's killing living things, but the animals being killed to eat are not people of our own kind.
What I was really trying to comment on was the viciousness with which people responded to a somewhat sarcastic comment about someone's own reasons for not being a vegetarian, and how I don't think that was really necessary.
I'm sorry if I offended you. That wasn't the intent of my comment at all.
Actually, most decent people
Actually, most decent people do not compare rape and genocide to eating a hamburger.
Then again, I've had several online comments on the subject that accidently made me look pretty terrible, so I'll assume that you don't actually find all "moral standpoints" equally important. Otherwise we might as well say that flag-burning warrants the same response as nuclear warfare, just because it happens to make some anonymous commenter on a high school newspaper blog entry feel "compassionate".
So on a slight topic shift, when I was in Kindergarten my class went on a tour of this Slaughterhouse/USDA inspection plant. Man do those things smell bad.... Whoever suggested improving those conditions has a good point.
Understanding or not
Always never compare other side issues with those simple.. here it is being discussed about food preferences not your ideas about killing jews and rape. If it were known that you are going to write sensitive issues then one is always careful and understanding. No one of us is saying that killing humans (jews or else) or animals is correct and please don't mix just food habits with political issues.
Not only jews were killed but a large number of other people have been killed due to political changes in the world. It is not something to compare it with food. What jews are eating Christians and Muslims are more or less eating the same. So, nothing to compare it with who killed whom and rape. If you are starting political issues then most welcome.
Making personality conclusions based on someone's neutral messages is not correct. You cannot understand what someone's is not by just reading one ot two lines. I have been in West and East. I see no difference in life of a common people. But it is our politics that has created diffrences between people. Just half a century ago there were places where people lived without any religious differences. Now pleas e tell me why jews were killed, why thousands of people are being killed in Iraq? Are they all war lords? or every one of jews were war lords?
Making a neutral argument just to reflect our presence on simple issues doesn't guarantee our leval of understanding.. I hope nowI understand before you make an other hard argument.
It's natural for humans to
It's natural for humans to eat meat. We have evolved so as to become the top of the food chain.
I think the only reason vegetarianism exists is because morals have corrupted this. And that's fine, whatever. The real problem is when vegetarians feel that they are more superior to people who do eat meat. Eating meat IS NOT a moralistic issue. Stop comparing it to the holocaust, genocide, or even religion. None of these are natural actions; they exists because humans made them up.
My own dad was a vegetarian for decades, and I understood why he was, but he wasn't overly opnionated about it.
That's alright.
What is not is the anonymous post above saying that being vegetarian will make the world better. Who are you to make that conclusion? That's basically dissing on all who eat meat by trying to make them feel bad that they're not improving the world. At least I was insulted by that statement. It's not like I wouldn't want to help improve the world.
And one more thing, along the lines of what Lauren was trying to get across. It's true this is a pretty heated argument at this point. But for what reason? People have a right to their own opinion! Indiviuals who have a certain reasoning for something have a right to disagree with someone else, but you have no idea how lame you look when you say they are wrong when there is no definite answer.
Conclusion: Sindha wrote a piece on why she was vegetarian. It should not be why being a vegetarian is better.
YES
"...you have no idea how lame you look when you say they are wrong when there is no definite answer."
I'm glad other people are bringing this up too. This is basically the problem with the right-wing and left-wing ideologies we have today. The vast majority of folks out there calling themselves "liberal" are actually quite the opposite - they're leftist. If you really think whatever you've come to believe is because the natural progress of intellectual thought has led you to discover the truth, I recommend reading Hegel. Or, you know, meeting some of the many, many intelligent people who disagree with you.
Factory farming
Rachel, I agree with just about everything you said. The issue of vegetarianism is not one on par with rape or genocide or any such thing. To say that killing a cow is like killing a human, no matter how much cognitive reasoning you give cows credit for, is ridiculous.
I also think that you are right to say that vegetarians shouldn't think themselves superior to the rest of the steak-loving masses.
Finally, you are spot on in you're critique that issues like murder and rape and religion are man-made, while eating meat is natural. However, one does need to examine factory farming and the terrible treatment of cows and chickens, etc. who are kept for food. While I too am a declared lover of all things bloody, the conditions imposed on our livestock are man-made and completely unacceptable. Torturing the animals, keeping them caged in a 15 square foot area, overfeeding them, stuffing them full of hormones, terminating pregnancies with harmful drugs, etc-- these are moralistic issues. Ones that, perhaps still not on par with genocide, do need to be discussed and are valid critiques of the meat industry.
In general, I think this thread of comments has strayed too far from the real issues. While a vegetarian world may be an admirable goal (though one I hope is never achieved) what we should be encouraging is knowledgeable meat consumption. As in, not bickering over who is right, the meat-eaters or the vegetarians.
While the grain wasted to feed livestock and other problems one may have with eating meat are still valid and should be discussed, in my mind, the most pressing issue is that of animal treatment. The more responsible and easier change to make is that of trying to buy free-range meat. Admittedly, the regulations for free-range are iffy, but Mr. Sutton said today in the lounge that he buys meat locally that he knows to be actual free-range. Not only is this great because it supports local produce, it ensures that the animals were well-treated. One may still have issues with raising animals for food, but even they could admit that having all meat be free-range would be a giant leap from where we currently stand.
Dreams of a vegetarian world are nearly impossible to realize. Thus, we should first be concerned with improving the treatment of the livestock, something I think we can all agree should be done, before we move on to grandiose ideas of vegetarian utopias. One step at a time people.
Wind
It's windy weather here, someone here got heighest number who got **** stars :)). That is the conclusion.
The Greenhouse Effect
A UN study says that meat production is responsible for more greenhouse gas than all forms of transportation combined -- that is all cars, trucks, planes, ships, rails.
Now who says the world won't be better off if we cut down on greenhouse gas emissions?
As for religious perspectives, there is more than one:
"The next important hindrance and allurement is the tendency of all
sentient beings .. to gratify their pride of egoism. To gain this,
one is prone to be unkind, to be unjust and cruel, to other sentient
beings.. The reason for practicing dhyana is to escape from the
suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves,
why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your
minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is
abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the
world's life...
"If one is trying to practice dhyana and is still eating meat, he
would be like a man closing his ears and shouting loudly and then
asserting that he heard nothing. The more one conceals things, the
more apparent they become..."
-- The Surangama Sutra
Gautama Buddha
(translated in Dwight Goddard (ed.) "A Buddhist Bible")
"Well said, Joy. Very well
"Well said, Joy. Very well said." - Kumars
Agreed.
God to Noah and his
God to Noah and his descendants, or in other words all living humans, "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you."-Genesis 9:2-3
I really don't think
I really don't think religion can logically be brought into this discussion as justification of either point of view. Obviously, not everyone believes the same thing, or even believes in any religion at all, so bringing religion into this discussion/debate/whatever will almost definitely just cause more arguments.
Realizing that in saying this I'm being slightly hypocritical, I agree with everyone who's said that this has gone a little bit too far. Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, and therefore by definition there is no right or wrong answer or viewpoint. Personally, I have no problem eating meat (though I don't eat it often, because most of my family is vegetarian). I do, however, agree with Sarah P. that there are problems in the meat industry. I believe that one is a cause worth supporting.
One has to wonder (again slightly hypocritical, I know): Why can't people just agree to disagree and respect other people's personal decisions? You believe what you want to, and let other people believe what they want to.
"'Well said, Joy. Very well
"'Well said, Joy. Very well said.'
- Kumars. Agreed."
- Sachin Kay
Word that. I second Sachin's seconding of Kumars' seconding of Joy.
I would proceed to second
I would proceed to second myself, but I think that would be overkill. Actually I think it was overkill a while ago.
Post new comment