Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too

Login/Join to Participate
Page: ...
PsyriSILVER Member
artisan
1,576 posts
Location: Berkshire, UK


Posted:
I would just like to mention out of general irritation that some veggie friends give me. They always ask how can I have a clean conscience because I eat meat? Uusally giving me a long lasting lecture also about how much healthier it is. I have no rpoblem with the healthy part. But I would like to inform you that plants have feelings too. If you have come across kirlian photography (aura photography) you can see strands coming from them. Well we know plants are alive of course but what about other tests that have been undergone? Plants react to the atmosphere around them eg music, smells, people talking.

Albeit they are a different form of life I just wish some veggies would stop taking the moral highground because I like meat.

All I can say is I appreciate every morsel of food that passes through my lips and I wonder where it came from and how that piece of food lived.

Views people?

Heres some linkage to show I aint a complete raving loony

linky link

Oh and if there are any fruitarians about who can give me a kick up the bum then go ahead.... I respect that you try not to harm anything to get your grub.

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
 Written by: jeff(fake)

It may be true that humans require a certain amount of meat to remain healthy, but that doesn't mean we can't try and minimise the level of animal suffering needed to do it.



Finally one thought I can support 999% clap good on ya, Jeff.

It's not about meat or not. I guess the intention of this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) is that plants are as much alive and have every right to be here as ourselves.

The point is, that IF we eat meat (which IMO is a choice, beacause - as proven - we don't HAVE to eat meat), why are we then allowing and supporting this industry in unnecessary torture. (BTW same applies to the veggie-industry, the mining industry and our very own kingdom - it's all across each and every level)

But maybe we turn (our diet in)to a conscious choice and stop denial (of the obvious).

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


DJ DantanaBRONZE Member
veteran
1,495 posts
Location: Stillwater, Ok. USA


Posted:
life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on

this is neccisary

we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: DJ Dantana


life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on

this is neccisary



..though not especially relevant smile

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


dreamSILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand


Posted:
[Quote]life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on

this is neccisary[/Quote]

hug

Tool are always relevant. Or should be. (for those who didn't get the entirely relevant reference look it up)

smile

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
regarding a living being as a "tool" is not quite my concept rolleyes but that's just me shrug

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


dreamSILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand


Posted:
shakes head disapprovingly...

Tom... you've misunderstood the cultural references.

Not a tool. But Tool. They be's a band. They also happen to rock. Bigtime...

The reference from dantana was to a song called Disgustipated which is the last track on an album called Undertow.

Tool - Disgustipated Lyrics

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my
place of slumber.

And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the
spaces betwixt the air itself.

And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.

And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.


One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.

And terror possesed me then.

And I begged,

"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"

And the angel said unto me,

"These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!


You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them
it is the holocaust."

And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of
one million terrified brothers and roared,

"Hear me now, I have seen the light!

They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!


Damn you!

Let the rabbits wear glasses!

Save our brothers!"

Can I get an amen?

Can I get a hallelujah?

Thank you Jesus.



This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........
This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


This is necessary.

This is necessary.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........


LIFE!









It was daylight when you woke up in your ditch.

You looked up at your sky then.

That made blue be your color.

You had your knife there with you too.

When you stood up there was goo all over your clothes.

Your hands were sticky.

You wiped them on your grass, so now your color was green.

Oh Lord, why did everything always have to keep changing like
this.

You were already getting nervous again.

Your head hurt and it rang when you stood up.

Your head was almost empty.

It always hurt you when you woke up like this.

You crawled up out of your ditch onto your gravel road and began
to walk,

waiting for the rest of your mind to come back to you.

You can see the car parked far down the road and you walked
toward it.

"If God is our Father," you thought, "then Satan must be our
cousin.

" Why didn't anyone else understand these important things?

You got to your car and tried all the doors.

They were locked.

It was a red car and it was new.

There was an expensive leather camera case laying on the seat.


Out across your field, you could see two tiny people walking by
your woods.

You began to walk towards them.

Now red was your color and, of course, those little people out
there were yours too.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Pele seems to be saying that the choice to eat meat is a matter of personal preference and that those who do choose to eat meat are not eligible for critisism.

I do understand this position, indeed, as I pointed out previously, i'm not myself vegetarian due to the occasional fish I eat.

There is however, a difference between eating a little meat now and again and the state of the current meat industry.

It's a difference of scale- animal product consumption on the scale of the West involves indisputable high levels of animal suffering.

As I previously meantioned, animal production is also responsible for a high proportion of greenhouse gas production (allegedly 18%)- if so then not only does frequent meat use contribute to animal suffering, but also human suffering- in particular, it endangers our grandchildren.

On those grounds, I would dispute the suggestion that the choice is soley one of personal choice only.

When ones choices affect others badly, there are, IMO, grounds for debate and critisism.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
When it comes to discussion on the vegetarian issue, i think it's OK for both sides to put their cases- debate is good.



One aim being to come to a conclusion.



Often, some of the points put forward tend only to cloud the issue, making resolution difficult.



Getting very much on-topic, which, according to the first post on this thread, is about the view that plants 'have feelings too', as well as rights etc.



The idea being that this means those choosing to eat meat are immune from critisism- as the only alternative is to subsist purely on vegetation, which, allegedly, have feelings and rights.



Personally, my every instinct screams out that this is nonsense, a mere distraction tactic (albeit, probably unintentional).



My feelings also tell me that there's probably little point in trying to rationalise with an individual who really believes that plants can possibly be conscious to the extent that our meat industry is justified.



Fortunately, over the past few days, I've realised there is no need to engage with that particular issue, when, instead, it can be shown to be irrelevant (to the issue of the rights/wrongs of meat eating and vegetarianism).



Let me be somewhat bold and say that I'm not interested in proffering an opinion here- what I am aiming to do is put forward an irrefutable, drop-dead proof, that the existence of plant feelings in no way justifies the meat-industry.



Of course, i may make a mistake, in which case feel free to point it out.



1. For the case of argument, I grant the opposition the possibility that plants are conscious.



2. I'll use one premise/assumption- the fact that, when it comes to doing harm or inflicting suffering, that it is morally preferable, when faced with two options, all other things being equal, to choose the option that results in less harm/suffering.



In life, it is impossible to not inflict harm occasionally- even those who commit to not killing any life, will inevitable occasionally swallow a fly, or sit on something that results in an insect being crushed.



The important thing, morally speaking, is to minimise the harm. Given a choice between selling cakes for a living and selling landmines, it is preferable to sell cakes.



-----------



Getting to the point, take two choices-



A. eating a lot of animal produce/meat



B. eating very little animal produce/meat and instead eating more vegetation



If plants have feelings and can suffer pain/loss, than option B does indeed involve harm.



Option A also involves harm (to the animals).



Clearly though, option A also involves considerably more harm to plants.



This is because animals eat vegetation to live.



They walk, run, copulate, breed- a considerable amount of food is necessary to fuel all this.



As a result, the amount of energy/food value obtained from an animal by eating it, is considerably less than the amount of energy/food value of the crops that have gone into it throughout its life.



This portion is generally said to be around 10 to 1.



This means that, to sustain a human with option B (vegetarian or close to vegetarian) involves an amount of plant suffering which we will call X.



Option A, however (eating, lots of meat) involves an amount of plant suffering equal to X multiplied by 10.



Option B, therefore, as it involves considerably less suffering to both plant and animal, is clearly the morally preferable option.



Thus, even if we accept that plants are capable of suffering, vegetarianism is still the morally superior option.



From this I put forward the suggestion that the 'plants have feelings' justification of the meat-industry, is irrelevant to the issue and nothing more than a smoke-screen.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


AdeSILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia


Posted:
 Written by: onewheeldave


When it comes to discussion on the vegetarian issue, i think it's OK for both sides to put their cases- debate is good.

The aim being to come to a conclusion.




with my devils advocate hat on
devil

I don't think that the aim always is to come to a conclusion as to which argument is more correct, or logical.

maybe the aim of the discussion is to come to understanding that there are many different perspectives, and not one size fits all? smile

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: Ade


 Written by: onewheeldave


When it comes to discussion on the vegetarian issue, i think it's OK for both sides to put their cases- debate is good.

The aim being to come to a conclusion.




with my devils advocate hat on
devil

I don't think that the aim always is to come to a conclusion as to which argument is more correct, or logical.

maybe the aim of the discussion is to come to understanding that there are many different perspectives, and not one size fits all? smile



A reasonable point... so I've edited the relevant part of my post to read-

 Written by: onewheeldave


One aim being to come to a conclusion.




However, I would want to reiterate that, while some points of discussion are just matters of opinion, others aren't.

For example, we're generally happy to accept diversity of opinions on whether orange is a nicer colour than blue.

However, on matters like slavery, burglaring houses, bullying etc, if anyone maintains that those things are OK, I'm going to maintain that they're simply wrong.

Where does the Western meat industry fall?

That's one of the issues being debated here- it's certainly not been established that it's simply a matter of personal preference.

My post above is meant simply to make the issue a bit clearer by showing that the 'plants are conscious therefore eating animals is OK...' line is wrong.

And, while some of the points in this thread are matters of opinion, open to diverse perspectives, when it comes to the 'plants are conscious therefore eating animals is OK...'- I am actually saying that I've proven it to be invalid.

Maybe someone else can show a flaw in my reasoning, in which case I'll happily retract it.

But, till that happens, i do want to make it clear that I am putting forward my refutation of the 'plants are conscious therefore eating animals is OK...' as fact, not opinion.

Cos I think, after 4 pages of meandering, some solid resolution is a good thing, so, please, do feel free to point out any flaws in my reasoning..

If no-one can, then, having removed this irrelevant, misdirecting 'argument', we can get to the real 'meat' of the issue, a large part of which, IMO, concerns the accountability of those who support the meat industry.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Or, to put it very consisely- if you want to eat meat, that's fine by me.

If you want to eat meat whilst simultaneously claiming that you're not causing unnecessary suffering, to animals and humans; then that's more problematic, I'm probably going to debate that a little; whilst accepting that there are different perspectives, personal circumstances etc.

If, however, you want argue that 'plants are conscious therefore eating animals is OK...', I'm just going to say you're plain wrong- no scope for simply differing opinions and co-existing perspectives- the argument is flawed, invalid and empty.

Cos, even if plants are conscious, it is simply not relevant to the issue of meat-eating and vegetarianism.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


dreamSILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand


Posted:
 Written by: OWD

Where does the Western meat industry fall?



As mentioned earlier...

Homogenizing the 'Western meat industry' is distinctly unhelpful.

Factory Farmed food is not the same as Freedom Food

Freedom Food is not the same as Free Range

Free Range is not the same as Organic

Locally grown produce is not the same as that which is imported.

The main reason the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said that meat production accounts for 18% of the greenhouse effect is the deforestation in the tropics (for example 70% of the Amazon that has been cut down is now used for meat production).

Eating meat from a farm on the outskirts of Bristol does not require cutting down Brazilian rainforest. However, an organic farm on the outskirts of Bristol is part of the vaguely defined western meat industry, far more obviously so than anything in Brazil.

I think what you might mean is that Intensive factory farming, especially that which involves the alteration of old growth forests into agricultural land is a bad idea.

But then this has already been said, and I don't want to put words in your mouth...

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: dream



 Written by: OWD

Where does the Western meat industry fall?





As mentioned earlier...



Homogenizing the 'Western meat industry' is distinctly unhelpful.



Factory Farmed food is not the same as Freedom Food



Freedom Food is not the same as Free Range



Free Range is not the same as Organic



Locally grown produce is not the same as that which is imported.



The main reason the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said that meat production accounts for 18% of the greenhouse effect is the deforestation in the tropics (for example 70% of the Amazon that has been cut down is now used for meat production).



Eating meat from a farm on the outskirts of Bristol does not require cutting down Brazilian rainforest. However, an organic farm on the outskirts of Bristol is part of the vaguely defined western meat industry, far more obviously so than anything in Brazil.



I think what you might mean is that Intensive factory farming, especially that which involves the alteration of old growth forests into agricultural land is a bad idea.



But then this has already been said, and I don't want to put words in your mouth...





You're right to express concern at my use of a vaguely defined term.



Let me clarify:



By the 'meat industry' I'm not only referring to that segment that relies on deforestation. I'm referring most intensive meat farming and, quite possibly, where some aspects are concerned, the organic meat producers.



 Written by:



The main reason the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said that meat production accounts for 18% of the greenhouse effect is the deforestation in the tropics (for example 70% of the Amazon that has been cut down is now used for meat production).







I'm no expert on this, but the research I've done suggests that deforestation is not the main reason and, is far from the only reason.



Here's a link-



https://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html



 Written by: from above lijnk





And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.











ie actual animal emmisions, produced by them regardless of where they are situated or whether their land was deforested.



 Written by: from above lijnk





The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.









...and several other issues.



IMO, the problem is the sheer scale of production- we eat way too much meat and animal produce.



The scale is such that it causes substantial envirinemtal damage.



Another problem with the scale of production is that, when some animal issues are addressed eg by use of organic farming, it simply creates greater problems elsewhere (environmental).



The 'organic meat vision' can only work in conjunction with a massive reduction in overall meat production.



So, it's pretty much the entire meat industry.



We can split it into different sections ie intensive, organic, that relient on deforested land and, each causes different types of harm.



But, of one thing we can be sure, whatever type of meat industry it is, on its current level of scale, it does cause considerable harm.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

 Written by:


With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year, the report notes. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.




That means it's looking like it's going to get worse.

Then there's the backlog effect as developing countries aspire to our 'cultured' ways and want the same riches that we have.

To me, one solution is for our culture to face up to reality and really clarify what the true consequences of our level of meat/animal production are-

1. animal suffering on an immense scale

2. huge environemtal damage that effects every human being and creature on the Earth

That's just the pretty indisputable effects, before we address the deep sickness that runs through large-scale animal production and it's relience on anti-biotics, issues with the likes of 'mad-cow disease', 'bird-flu' etc.

It's insanity and it needs addressing.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


PsyriSILVER Member
artisan
1,576 posts
Location: Berkshire, UK


Posted:
Well I'm glad to see my topic provoked some discussion. I am considered slightly mad depnds on the day. I'm sure we're all familiar with cycles of change, that life eats life. I just wanted to make light of some attitudes that I still come up against when it comes to what I eat. I have plenty of vegetarian friends.

Like I said I take full responsibilty for what I do.

Glad to see the opinions rolling in biggrin biggrin

faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
us meat eaters can be open for criticism but there is a difference between such and the preaching that we get from many vegetarians
being in Oregon, a while ago, my aunt took me through some virgin forest. passing through it, there was this incredible tingly feeling...cell phones don't work in those forests...i would say that it may not be a familiar consciousness, but that there is one there (imo)
even being vegitarian causes land destruction and who is anyone to say how much is acceptable and what is not...we just need to be more responsible with our farming techniques

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
.. and does all that mean that we also do hurt our little helpers friends, if we smoke em? umm

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
when they were picked and dehydrated

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


IcarusGOLD Member
member
165 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
I am all for not preaching if it is just a matter of personal choice. Eating meat is not a matter of personal choice it is hurting and killing animals because of a five minute taste satisfaction. As far as i can tell (for people who live within a reasonable distance from shop or can grow there own food) there is a very viable alternative.

One of my least favourite arguments from meat eaters (and from experience it is usually people who eat meat who start preaching to me) is that my body evolved to eat meat. Fine. We have also evolved enough brains and soul to invent an exellent substitute and analise our diet. And to consider the feelings of our fellow animals.

I will keep quiet on issues that do not effect those i care about.


xox

... simplify ...


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
it's my body, keep your hands off :P
i choose meat
there are other aspects of body control that hurt others especially children so keep your hands and your beliefs off my body

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire



being in Oregon, a while ago, my aunt took me through some virgin forest. passing through it, there was this incredible tingly feeling...cell phones don't work in those forests...i would say that it may not be a familiar consciousness, but that there is one there (imo)
even being vegitarian causes land destruction and who is anyone to say how much is acceptable and what is not...we just need to be more responsible with our farming techniques



Growing vegatables does involve land destruction.

So does meat production- as I pointed out above, meat production involves growing approximately 10x the amount of vegetation.

(That's just the land destruction involved in growing the animals food- housing etc requires more).

In terms of land destruction, eating meat causes considerably more than eating vegatation.

Anyone genuinely concerned about land destruction would do well to consider reducing their meat intake.

And this applies across the board- once you realise that meat=10x the vegatation use that simply eating vegetation direct does- then any harm caused by being vegetarian is 1/10 that caused by consuming meat.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
which is why we all should consider how we can promote more responsible farming techniques

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


PeleBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA


Posted:
Actually OWD, that is *not* what I was saying, or getting at. I have watched forrests be leveled for vegetable crops to go in as well.

My point is that unless you don't eat at all, then you have no right to point and critise.

In the end, I fully, 100%-won't be able to change my mind believe, it isn't the earth we are trying to save, it is our exsistence on it. The earth was here before us, it'll be here after. Yes we need to minimize damage but how far are you willing to go to do that? Unless you live off the grid, hunting and foraging and fully self-contained and natural, then you add to the problem (the term "you" meaning the "universal you" and in no way is meant towards any singular person.)
*EVERYONE* in some way or another adds, takes, uses and abuses and so no one is exempt, immune, above or beyond anyone else.
I've read quite a fair bit of contradictory information, including statistics like what you posted, and very different numbers. There is no hard and fast because every piece of literature about it has an agenda (and should, and is expected to).

Therefore, it still comes down to personal choice in my opinion becaue no one should be criticised for their food choice, unless they enlist in a weight loss program that uses that as part of thier method. wink

Which takes us all WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off the original topic....and the fact that I will still continue to eat plants. I can kill a deer and eat it without losing sleep, I can do the same to a head of lettuce.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
The original topic, as stated in Little_Miss_Nebula's first post, was not simply about plants having feelings.

It was actually about plants having feelings AND the fact ,that they have feelings, invalidating vegetarian arguments that not eating meat is more kind.

What I've tried to put in a clear and consise form above, is that this is incorrect.

Pele, you mention "I've read quite a fair bit of contradictory information, including statistics like what you posted, and very different numbers".

Please do pass on some links and I will definitly check them out- my argument above very much depends on the fact that meat production (in western intensive farming) involves around 10x plant deaths than if the diet consisted on plants only.

As such, if that statistic is in doubt, then I would appreciate links to any info on it and, if the stat is incorrect, I can either modify or withdraw my argument.

I'll also clarify that I'm under no illusions that the actual planet Earth is in jepeardy here- even an all-out nuclear exchange isn't going to damage the Earth.

As you say, what is at issue is our continued existence (civilised- what ever happens it's unlikely thaty humanity will be completely wiped out).

Now, if the info above concerning the meat industries effect on the environment is correct, then meat use (at current levels) is no more a matter of personal choice than excessive car use, excessive flying, excessive industrial pollution etc.

Like all those, it can be argued that there are grounds for addressing any excess that results in damage for the next generations of our children.

Concerning 'adding to the problem' and the fact that

 Written by:


*EVERYONE* in some way or another adds, takes, uses and abuses and so no one is exempt, immune, above or beyond anyone else.




Yes, vegetarians do cause harm- it's just that they generally cause considerably less than those who eat a lot of meat.

This is because, as meat production involves around 10X (?subject to any contrary info in that stat) plant destruction, then, whatever harm plant destruction involves, meat eaters bring about 10x that amount.

NO human can live their life without causing some harm so there's no point setting the stanard at zero- what we can aspire to is to lower/minimise that harm.

In no way am I suggesting that everyone becomes vegetarian, simply that a lot more people eat a lot less meat, whether that's to cut down animal suffering or to cut down on the considerable environemental harm (and therefore harm to humanity) that excessive meat use causes.

Mainly, what I'm doing in this thread, is trying to address some of the invalid/dubious arguments that try to critisise vegetarianism or 'big-up' meat-eating.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
i have decided since i don't fly, i can eat meat wink

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


Posted:
Bada bing...touche...and other expressions of a point well made.

PeleBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA


Posted:
 Written by: onewheeldave


The original topic, as stated in Little_Miss_Nebula's first post, was not simply about plants having feelings.

It was actually about plants having feelings AND the fact ,that they have feelings, invalidating vegetarian arguments that not eating meat is more kind.

What I've tried to put in a clear and consise form above, is that this is incorrect.

Pele, you mention "I've read quite a fair bit of contradictory information, including statistics like what you posted, and very different numbers".

Please do pass on some links and I will definitly check them out- my argument above very much depends on the fact that meat production (in western intensive farming) involves around 10x plant deaths than if the diet consisted on plants only.

As such, if that statistic is in doubt, then I would appreciate links to any info on it and, if the stat is incorrect, I can either modify or withdraw my argument.

I'll also clarify that I'm under no illusions that the actual planet Earth is in jepeardy here- even an all-out nuclear exchange isn't going to damage the Earth.

As you say, what is at issue is our continued existence (civilised- what ever happens it's unlikely thaty humanity will be completely wiped out).

Now, if the info above concerning the meat industries effect on the environment is correct, then meat use (at current levels) is no more a matter of personal choice than excessive car use, excessive flying, excessive industrial pollution etc.

Like all those, it can be argued that there are grounds for addressing any excess that results in damage for the next generations of our children.

Concerning 'adding to the problem' and the fact that

 Written by:


*EVERYONE* in some way or another adds, takes, uses and abuses and so no one is exempt, immune, above or beyond anyone else.




Yes, vegetarians do cause harm- it's just that they generally cause considerably less than those who eat a lot of meat.

This is because, as meat production involves around 10X (?subject to any contrary info in that stat) plant destruction, then, whatever harm plant destruction involves, meat eaters bring about 10x that amount.

NO human can live their life without causing some harm so there's no point setting the stanard at zero- what we can aspire to is to lower/minimise that harm.

In no way am I suggesting that everyone becomes vegetarian, simply that a lot more people eat a lot less meat, whether that's to cut down animal suffering or to cut down on the considerable environemental harm (and therefore harm to humanity) that excessive meat use causes.

Mainly, what I'm doing in this thread, is trying to address some of the invalid/dubious arguments that try to critisise vegetarianism or 'big-up' meat-eating.



One of the articles I read was on the One Degree website, which I tripped onto through the weather channel website.

I've also read about it in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, which we have subscriptions to at home. Not everything is read on the computer.

I find that the voracity with which you are finding any angle and belittling other points (trying to get people to eat less meat but then sitting on a computer, using paper, etc...) to be exactly representational about what is being said about vegetarians actually. You *are* in fact, arguing in the same manner that other vegetarians I have seen are, and justifying it with listing to a couple reports which side your arguement.

I find your continual repetition of your goal to be representational also.

When people are saying that it's about respecting the decisions that one another has made and to not argue about it because no one is right or wrong...you are saying "Meat eaters are wrong based on this potential 18%."

Do you use paper? Toilet paper? Paper Towels? Tissues? According to an article on One Degree about 3 months ago, that industry causes more damage than most.

You do what you want and respect others choices to do the same, that is what I am saying.

That being said, I have said all I wanted to say based on the topic and not see that this is a debate I choose to not get involved in so I respectfully bow out.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
belittle?



I think that's unfair. I'm disagreeing with some POVs and, where I see clear flaws in them, pointing out those flaws.



That's to be expected in discussion/debate on what, to many, is a serious topic.



To belittle means 'to make feel small'- nothing in what I have said has been done to make people feel small.



If, in anything I've said, there is a hint of insult, agression or clear attempt to make anyone feel small, point it out and I will apologise and modify future posting accordingly.



*******EDIT********

Having re-read your post again I can see that you're actually talking about 'belittling other points" i.e. paper and computers etc.



If so, what I wrote above is rubbish- my mistake, apologies.

*********END EDIT******



--------



Yes, I use paper, computers etc- as I previously mentioned, I also eat animal produce occasionally (small amounts of fish); so, yes, as I have already pointed out numerous times, I do cause harm.



As does everybody, unavoidably.



The point I've been making is that, given two individuals- all other things being equal (eg they spend same time on computer, use same amount of paper, same amount of flying etc), the one who eats no, or very little, animal produce, does less harm tham the one who eats a lot of it.



Anyone who wants to eat meat- go ahead- it's fine by me.



We live in a culture where meat use has, till recently, been seen as normal, good, harmless etc- it's no wonder that many people have got into the habit of regular animal produce consumption.



Eat meat- it's totally OK by me.



But, if in addition to eating meat, you post views claiming that the western meat industry does not cause incredible amounts of suffering to animals: then I'm going to disagree and explain why I disagree.



If someone posts an argument based on 'plants have feelings therefore it's ok.....' then I'm going to point out that, by eating meat, you cause much more plant suffering, therefore the argument fails.



Lastly, if someone goes on to claim that their meat use is pure personal choice and affects no-one but themselves, don't be surprised if I point out that recent reports and studies indicate that meat production causes more environmental damge than cars or flying.



I do use paper and I do use computers- they do cause harm. But I don't feel the need to post dodgy arguments attempting to deny the fact that they cause harm.



If I ever do use an argument to justify my beliefs and someone shows that arguement is flawed, I would never get defensive and accuse them of trying to belittle me- I'd thank them and modify my opinion accordingly.



If anyone sees a flaw in any of the facts, links or reasoning I've used, point them out. Please point them out, then I can stop using them.
EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1171150913)

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
oh my goodness.



I think we'd have a lot less meat eating if the meat eaters had to kill their own meat and butcher it to get their meat. so many people love to defend their right to eat meat, but then when it comes to ending the life of an animal right in front of them wimp out - and usually feel ill during the butchering process. I wonder how many would be defending their right to eat factory meat if they had an awareness of the conditions their food is being grown in?



life eats life etc...conjures imagery of some jungle situation and this is the often quoted "but its natural" argument - theres nothing natural about your battery hens, or your pig farms with sows in crates so they cant even walk around, etc, etc, etc...if meat eaters want to use the 'its natural' argument - you'd better find a natural source for your meat = big $$$. And if everyone who was currently eating factory meat shifted to 'natural' meat but didnt reduce the amount there wouldnt be enough surface area to produce it!



Then theres the fact that the grain fed intensively farmed meat that constitutes most of the affordable meat available is very carbon / fossil fuels intensive...but oh no! we need 30c hamburger patties and bangers for brekkie.



I think its not just personal preference - factory meat is wrong on so many levels, and yet constitutes the vast majority of meat you can buy.



If this discussion has led you to think a little about the ethics of food production, it might be a good idea for you to read a nice easy book on the subject like "The Ethics of What We Eat" by Jim Mason and Peter Singer.



So many people these days seem to think that having an opinion on a topic is the same as knowing about it - sad really.



I appreciated your proof re harm minimisation Dave - its a pity we havent seen a single cohesive argument from the Steaks4life crew wink

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


Posted:
Maybe the reason the steaks4life crew haven't put forth a cohesive argument is because, like the flying half way around the world for a vacation thread there really isn't one. From an environmental perspective meat is bad, from an animal cruelty perspective meat is bad, from a human health perspective, meat is unnesecary.

But like flying, eating meat is a personal choice and something we do because we want to. Could your average meat eater stomach slaughtering their own meat ? I don't know. I could..but 15 years ago I couldn't have ( I'm not so squeamish anymore ) Could I eat something I raised and actually knew, like buying a calf and raising it into a cow...I doubt it. Could I raise and butcher my own rabbits ? Most likely. Could I walk out to my backyard and blow away a deer...easily. Could I hook fish and beat them to death before eviscerating them ? I do it regularly.

Do I need to do any of these things..no..because I have the luxury of paying professional animal assassins to do my dirty work for me and all I need do is open my wallet... I call it a benefit of modern society and often wonder whether my being raised in this modern society has contributed ( or created ) to my now diminished squeamishness when it comes to the machinations of the slaughter house. Would I feel the same had I grown up in a different environment, like 200 years ago when going to the supermarket for a ready to cook chicken wasn't much of an option ?

Is this "I'm a product of my environment" argument valid ? I think so.

Of course we know what would happen if everyone shifted to "natural" meat...no more animals..ie no more deer in my backyard, or anywhere for that matter.

But then I do reap the benefits from animal testing too, I can easily tear open a packet of cold medication and consume it without a thought to the the animals that no doubt suffered to ensure that this stuff is going to kill me. Should I need to do my own animal testing too.

Page: ...

Similar Topics No similar topics were found
      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...