• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...456789
Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
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.


Delete Topic

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:it's interesting how vegetarians get defensive about their habits...
i've been attacked by every veg i have met in person...one time in response my museum friend and i had a barbecue...childish i know
the guilt comes into play in this thread with "think how the poor animals are treated" or "it destroys the environment with over grazing and flatulence." Whether it is a fact or not does not mean it cannot be used as a guilt trip.
Those vegetarians worried about the environment should consider where there food comes from too though...as I showed with my strawberry article. it's not about being a vegetarian, it should be about where your food comes from


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

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: stout



This thread's a little shy in the guilt thing...





Glad someones noticed smile

It's more than a little shy- as far as I can tell not a single vegetarian has attempted to put guilt on a meat eater.

This is in noticably sharp contrast to the number of meat-eaters complaining about vegetarian harrassment- this thread is far from 'a little shy' in those...

Like I said before, most vegetarians are OK- as long as meat-eaters refrain from trying to push their views, or use logically falicious arguments to justify/promote meat, then they'll pretty much keep to themselves.

There is a minority of very active and very vocal militant veggies who make a nusience of themselves and, even then, it's not so much that they're vegetarian as that they are mouthy, militant, 'chip-on-shoulder' types.

Now, what about reverse harrassment- do you all think it's particularly pleasant for those chilled-out veggies making up the veggie presence in this thread, to be encountering every third post, comments about how nasty and aggressive vegetarians are?

It's not pleasant, not polite and not particularly conducive to a meaningful disscussion.

I think we're all aware now that most meat-eaters here have encountered some militant veggies and we do sympaphise- it's just that it has no connection with the vegetarians here.

So, could we stop bringing it up, or at least reduce the frequency to, say, every 10th post? 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!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by:


the guilt comes into play in this thread with "think how the poor animals are treated" or "it destroys the environment with over grazing and flatulence." Whether it is a fact or not does not mean it cannot be used as a guilt trip.




Yes, the treatment of factory farmed animals and the effects on the environment are facts.

As such they are not only totally acceptable in a discussion including vegetarianism, but actually essential.

They can, as you say be used as part of a guilt trip, but that's a matter of the way they're presented and the tone they're presented in.

In this thread, as far as I can can, they're not been put forward as guilt trips, but as factual parts of reasoned POVs.

If you still feel that talking about the facts of animal suffering or environemtal damage, inflicts guilt; then, do you have suggestions as to how vegetarians can engage in debate without this happening?


"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!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:it doesn't for me but it probably does for others, i think it just needs to be met as i did saying that being veg also causes damage
our existence causes damage

i don't fly that much, i am conservative with many other waste producing aspects of my life, i will eat meat. i've bought rainforests, and land for an elephant conservation. i have not said that these veg's have attacked me but i think we meat eaters have in this forum, i have said that in person, they make faces and say inappropriate things, like "ewww, how can you put that disgusting thing in your body" which i find sort of funny that it is disgusting but anyways...


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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I can count the times I've personally had a "problem" with vegetarians using the fingers one one hand, but, as OWD points out, it's the activists that cause all the polarization between meat eaters and vegetarians.

One comes to expect vegetarians to immediately seize moral high ground, and a visit to some veg websites where they outline the meat industries practices only serves to prove this point. Why else would this information be there if not to reinforce the "we're superior" mindset that underlies the motivation behind becoming a veg in the first place. That frutarian website I linked to in the first page of this thread serves as an example of this going to far with the suggestion that one can be ethically superior even to vegans by switching to their diet.

Vegetarians are right about the animal suffering and environmental damage though and those topics do belong in a discussion about vegetarianism It's only natural for meat eaters to see them as a guilt trip and go on the defensive, much like the frequent flyers did.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stout



I can count the times I've personally had a "problem" with vegetarians using the fingers one one hand, but, as OWD points out, it's the activists that cause all the polarization between meat eaters and vegetarians.









I wouldn't actually say that activists cause all the polarization between meat eaters and vegetarians.



There are agressive activists in all areas- they only cause people to polarise to the extent that those people are prone to polarization, or who want to be polarized.



For some reason, many meat eaters seem prone to categorising all vegetarians as being extremist.



This is something that's been happening in this thread, where, despite the fact that there have been no instances of vegetarian extremism or aggression, the majority of meat eaters here are complaining repeatedly about vegetarian extremism/aggression.











 Written by: Stout







One comes to expect vegetarians to immediately seize moral high ground, and a visit to some veg websites where they outline the meat industries practices only serves to prove this point. Why else would this information be there if not to reinforce the "we're superior" mindset that underlies the motivation behind becoming a veg in the first place.





It's not about establishing superiority, it's about spreading the facts about meat industry practices.



The aim is enable people to make rational decisions about their diet- this can only be done if they know the facts.





 Written by: Stout



That frutarian website I linked to in the first page of this thread serves as an example of this going to far with the suggestion that one can be ethically superior even to vegans by switching to their diet.











Fruitarianists are not particularly close to vegetarians in their views.



Whereas vegetariansm is a non-extreme diet firmly established by medical science to be healthy, fruitarianism is,in contrast, in the eyes of medical science, not adequate to provide the nutritional requirements of humans and not a healthy diet (except in the very short term).



It tends to attract far more cranks and mentally unstable individuals than vegetarianism.



(Much like a slightly less-extreme version of the 'light-food-ers' who believe that humans can live without any food or water whasoever).



What a fruitarian site says about any kind of dietary ethics has no bearing whatsoever on vegatarians.







 Written by: Stout







Vegetarians are right about the animal suffering and environmental damage though and those topics do belong in a discussion about vegetarianism It's only natural for meat eaters to see them as a guilt trip and go on the defensive, much like the frequent flyers did.





Personally I don't think it's at all natural for a group of people to get defensive about facts.



Facts are the last thing you want to be having problems with if you're wanting to reason things out and come to decisions 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!

Delete

iansmith


member


Total posts: 90
Posted:I'm a meat eater, and I have no problem with most vegetarians. The overbearing, preachy minority don't do any favours to the cause of vegetarianism. Here's my response to two arguments regularly spouted by the zealots - #1 "Humans aren't designed to eat meat. Our teeth don't have pointed incisors like cats and dogs". Indeed we don't - that's because (unlike the aforementioned cats and dogs) we don't use or teeth when trapping and killing prey. If you speak to the world's leading scientists they'll tell you that man is an omnivore, eating both meat and vegetables in his natural enviroment. #2 " Yes, wild animals eat each other but humans eating meat is cruel...humans have a conscience and are able to make an ethical decision.." Dosen't say why eating meat is cruel, though! I've heard these arguments many a time but haven't articulated a reply till just now when I started reading this thread.

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:OWD, I don't agree with the "want to be polarised" idea because it's something that simply just happens, whether one is looking for it or not. A case in point may be a meat eater going out to dinner with a group of vegetarians. How is that meat eater going to feel about placing his/her order for say veal, rare ? Would the meat eater simply assume that the vegetarians won't mind and go ahead,,or temper their order to something that's more socially acceptable for the moment ? Would said meat eater feel he/she was pressured to make a choice... I think so.

Maybe meat eaters perceive the facts as a threat. if so, then maybe they should get over it.... especially in light of the 18% percent of greenhouse gasses....and the IPCC report that just graduated global warming from "issue" to "crisis" and just admit that eating meat is bad for the environment. I could try a defence, that I only buy local meat ( which is true ) but I don't expect it to hold much weight. One thing I don't understand..if a person becomes a vegetarian for animal cruelty reasons, then why not go vegan ? because unless you have Bossy the milk producing cow living in your backyard, a vegetarian consuming commercially produced dairy is just as guilty of perpetuating "the industry" as a meat eater

OK. frutarians and breatharians are nutcases....I'm still wondering about raw foodists and their claims that cooking food destroys it's "lifeforce"

inasmith..interesting point about humans not using their teeth to kill things..I hadn't thought of that.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stout


OWD, I don't agree with the "want to be polarised" idea because it's something that simply just happens, whether one is looking for it or not. A case in point may be a meat eater going out to dinner with a group of vegetarians. How is that meat eater going to feel about placing his/her order for say veal, rare ? Would the meat eater simply assume that the vegetarians won't mind and go ahead,,or temper their order to something that's more socially acceptable for the moment ? Would said meat eater feel he/she was pressured to make a choice... I think so.




Most people eat meat; vegetarians are in the minority.

I know that vegetarians get at least as much prejudice, misunderstanding and hassle, from meat-eaters, as meaters do from veggies.

Given the absolute lack of victimisation from veggies on this thread, i'd suggest it's time to stop going on about it so we can focus on the real issues?







 Written by: Stout


especially in light of the 18% percent of greenhouse gasses....and the IPCC report that just graduated global warming from "issue" to "crisis" and just admit that eating meat is bad for the environment. ............

.......One thing I don't understand..if a person becomes a vegetarian for animal cruelty reasons, then why not go vegan ? because unless you have Bossy the milk producing cow living in your backyard, a vegetarian consuming commercially produced dairy is just as guilty of perpetuating "the industry" as a meat eater





Partly cos many are intimidated by the thought of going vegan- it's seen as more extreme and potentially health-threatening than going veggie.

But you're right- much of that 18% you mention is produced by dairy cows as much as meat animals.

Given that this idea of the meat industry being a major cause of environment damage is fairly new, I expect one of the issues that is about to become more important is working out the relative benefits of veganism to vegetarianism to the environment.

Personally, I support an overall reduction in all animal produce, not just meat.

This is partly because much of the health benefits of cutting out meat are neutralised if it's simply replaced by loads of cheese/milk etc- as is the reduction in environemtal damage.

I don't particualrly think people should be pushed towards being 100% veggie or vegan (unless, as in some people, they actually find it easier to go 'all or nothing' rather than have to set their own arbitrary limits).

The important thing is that, overall, humanity tends to rely a lot less on animal produce- not for reasons of abstract morality, but for the totally practical one that, if they don't, humanity is going to suffer considerably as a result.


"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!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:First of all I would like to issue doubts whether or not animal farming is de facto responsible for 18% of the worlds greenhouse gases. Would you be so kind, OWD, to - if you haven't so far - provide sufficient evidence, that proves this?

As far as my informations go, the entire farming sector might be responsible for 14% of all carbon emission. I will try to dig out sources who prove this information I recently came across.

On the other hand, the conversion of - for say rainforest - into agricultural land - for say in Brazil - to produce soybeans, is highly contributing to the rise of CO2. Whether or not these soy beans are exclusively used to feed farmed animals - I can't say.

Human teeth are not pointed? Well I do not know about yours... even in a babies mouth, there are teeth that are called "canine" (I'm lacking the English expression right now, but from the middle, it would be the third from the middle line, dentists give it number 43) - these particular teeth are somehow looking like a soft version of fangs (?) to me shrug

I would also not claim, that vegetarians are a minority (worldwide) - as (for instance) Indians (to my personal knowledge) are predominantly Vegetarians, if not Vegans.

The underlying guilt pattern put on meatlovers, in the face of 43 BILLION animals killed for food in 1999 alone, is undeniable.

Whereas this thread points at the fact, that vegetables indeed do have a consciousness and feelings - one fact that vegetarians usually deny, because this would diminish their "saint pattern".

Ultimatly - if one really wants to liberate ones self from that karmic pattern - indeed is to eat fruits and (artificially) substitute the lacking elements... IMHO


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom



First of all I would like to issue doubts whether or not animal farming is de facto responsible for 18% of the worlds greenhouse gases. Would you be so kind, OWD, to - if you haven't so far - provide sufficient evidence, that proves this?







Check my earlier posts where I put up some links to articles.





 Written by: FireTom





I would also not claim, that vegetarians are a minority (worldwide) - as (for instance) Indians (to my personal knowledge) are predominantly Vegetarians, if not Vegans.









I wouldn't claim it either, I was referring to the fact that, in our culture (UK/USA/European), that vegetarians are still a minority.









 Written by: FireTom



Whereas this thread points at the fact, that vegetables indeed do have a consciousness and feelings - one fact that vegetarians usually deny, because this would diminish their "saint pattern".









It's also been shown in this thread, that the existence of plant feelings is far more a moral issue for meat eaters than it is for vegetarians.



This is because meat production involves far greater plant fatalities than does vegetarianism.



A vegetarian meal involves a given quantity of plant deaths- the equivalent meat-based meal typically involves ten times that amount of plant death, due to the fact that the animal consumes vegetation throughout it's life.



Vegetarianism is not only better for animal suffering, it's also better for plant suffering 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!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Yes right, but it bases upon the way animals are farmed for food. Life depends upon each other - one on the other. Man has replaced most of the natural threats (to for say cows).

Milk and milk products in general are nothing that create suffering. It's the fact that cows are constantly kept pregnant for this purpose. Modern industrialisation has perverted much in the natural system.

Man has replaced the otherwise natural predators. - and what's wrong with that, as long as we come back to the natural essence and treat the lifeforms we depend upon more nicely...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Pyro, Zen is not about destroying consciousness. It's just another way of looking at the world. Buddhists master his or her desires to engage more purely with the world. The key to enlightenment is overcoming dualism, without merely substituting it with monism or pluralism. Thinking in opposites (right and wrong, good or evil) makes it difficult to achieve a sense of non-duality. Buddhism does not have a notion of sin because there is no such thing as sin. There is only ignorance and false views. Evil does not spring for the devil, bit from ignorance. There will be no evil left in the world when ignorance and false views are eradicated (adapred from Wiki) .



Dave, if vegetariansm is a non-extreme diet firmly established by medical science to be healthy, then where do you get your Vitamin B12 from? Humans cannot get all their nutritional requriements from plants or animals. Thats why we need a balanced diet that contains both plant and animal product.





Speaking of bumper stickes "Tofu ain't chicken "





wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted:As far as blaming meat eater for the worlds ills...

 Written by: OWD

where the majority of us in the modern west are concerned, meat production is an inneficient waste of land that could be better used to grow human-edible crops directly, cutting out the inefficient 'middle-man' (cow, pig etc)



Claims that no one in the world would be starving if everyone was vegan/vegie are rife among vegan/vegie's and organisations such as PETA/VIVA (I have good friends who work for both).

 Written by: dream

The problem as far as feeding people is not so much about a lack of food (there is still a global grain surplus - for example UK farmers currently produce 3.5million tonnes more grain than they can sell annually) as a lack of political will and the logistical problems of getting food to the most remote areas.



 Written by: OWD

To me though, the fact that we in the west happily squander resources by insisting on unnecessarily gorging on animal flesh, whilst a large portion of humanity starve as families, in some way, contributes to the problem.



So although no one need starve as there's enough food in the world to feed everyone, the problem is meat eaters. Which of course means that you aren't the problem, but other people are.

So instead of engaging with the politics of why people starve, you disengage with the problem and scapegoat a section of society.

This is the kind of thing that pisses people off.

Your quotation of the UN FAO report is similarly misleading. The report has been recently jumped upon by PETA, VIVA etc, as proof of how how wrong meat eating is (which is why I know about it - I was referred to it as new evidence that farming has been found to be worse than human transport). What they neglect to mention is the reason that it is new evidence, is not that scientists have recently discovered that cows fart, or that cows fart 6 times more than previously thought, but that unlike previous reports, this one includes land transformation. Which means that deforestation - which is reckoned to account for 20% of the greenhouse effect is included in the climate forcing. As has already been pointed out, in the amazon, 70% of deforestation has been to create grazing land. If this were the same rate for deforestation the world over, this land transformation would account for 14% of global climate change.

The problem then, is not meat eating as a universal whole, but the clearance of forest to rear more cattle in certain parts of the world. Eating locally grown organic meat does not necessitate cutting down the Amazon.

As I mentioned back on page two, if everyone adopted this approach, people would have to eat less meat on average - and this would in general be a good thing - having a fry up for breakfast, McDonalds for lunch and a meat based dinner washed down with coca-cola and lager is a fast road to obesity and health problems.

The problem then is not eating meat... But aspects of the way the industry works, abetted by many westerners eating unhealthy meat based diets.


If that tackles the (non-existent) lack of food, and environmental concerns, what remains is animal suffering.

How about looking at it the other way round... If animals can feel pain, suffering and lack (as you suggested earlier), then you'd think they could also feel happiness, joy, and pleasure. An animal on an organic farm, with a constant supply of food and clean water, plenty of room in which to meaner, safe from the threat of predators and cared for in the event of injury or illness would seem to me to qualify as likely to lead a fairly happy life. Yes it will die, but unfortunately (as far I'm aware) everything that lives eventually will. If the animal has had a reasonably pain free, happy life, then I see no problem with eating it.

This is of course, very different to the conditions endured by factory farmed animals, who are often kept inside 24/7 under low level artificial lighting with insufficient room to exercise, leading to intense pain and suffering for the animal for the entirety of its existence.



This link posted by Icarus on page 2 sums the attitude which I dislike quite nicely...

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html

Factory farming is bad so go vegan. You think when you buy factory farmed goods that they came from an idyllic country farm where the animals have space to roam (kinda like organic farms have to be to get certified), but they aren't so go vegan - there is no middle road, there is no other way it's my way or you are responsible for torturing animals destroying the environment and starving Africans. Go vegan.

frown


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

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone




Dave, if vegetariansm is a non-extreme diet firmly established by medical science to be healthy, then where do you get your Vitamin B12 from?





Vitamin B12 is not a problem for vegetarians as it is contained in eggs, milk etc.





 Written by: Stone


Humans cannot get all their nutritional requriements from plants or animals. Thats why we need a balanced diet that contains both plant and animal product.





Actually, humans can (and do) get all their nutritional requirements from non-animal sources.

Vegans, who eat no animal produce (including eggs/milk) do exactly this.

They do require B12, but this is easily obtained from supplements- often based on yeast extract as certain yeasts contain B12.


"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!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: dream


As far as blaming meat eater for the worlds ills...

 Written by: OWD

where the majority of us in the modern west are concerned, meat production is an inneficient waste of land that could be better used to grow human-edible crops directly, cutting out the inefficient 'middle-man' (cow, pig etc)



Claims that no one in the world would be starving if everyone was vegan/vegie are rife among vegan/vegie's and organisations such as PETA/VIVA (I have good friends who work for both).

 Written by: dream

The problem as far as feeding people is not so much about a lack of food (there is still a global grain surplus - for example UK farmers currently produce 3.5million tonnes more grain than they can sell annually) as a lack of political will and the logistical problems of getting food to the most remote areas.



 Written by: OWD

To me though, the fact that we in the west happily squander resources by insisting on unnecessarily gorging on animal flesh, whilst a large portion of humanity starve as families, in some way, contributes to the problem.



So although no one need starve as there's enough food in the world to feed everyone, the problem is meat eaters. Which of course means that you aren't the problem, but other people are.





In those quotes though, i'm not critisisng meat-eating- I'm critisising the excessive use of meat in western culture.

I stand by that- the west overdoes it where animal produce is concerned.

From points you make later in your post, I get the impression that you wouldn't necessarily disagree with me on that?


"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!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Well OWD, I also gained the impression that you in fact ARE opposing the consumption of meat in general - not just under mentioned circumstances...

"The West" is simply doing one thing (based upon it's environment and history): It's trying to optimize and be as effective as possible. Minimal effort - maximal outcome. I guess this "western disease" is simply human and not "exclusively western".

The past has shown that things only change, IF the people demand it with a very clear and sound voice (see unleaded petrol in Europe, installation of filters, recycling, etc.)

The problem (IMHO) these days is,

- that the conservative parties have put "environmental programmes" on their agenda, which they are not interested in.
- that meat has gotten widely available to everyone on a daily basis for the last... say 50-60 years.

I do not know any meatlovers, who are menacingly supporting the incarceration, maltreatment and finally the degrading slaughter of our animal cousins. Most of those (eating meat) simply have enough other sorrows to take care of and would like to trust their government on a few things more than only collecting taxes.

I personally would love to see animals rights enforced, without (again) going over the top and into the other extreme.

Yet, as long as we are fighting ourselves and each other, nothing is going to change. Seeing things "as they are" rather than "as they appear" helps a good bit to come to terms.

As I stated before: Vegetarianism is not going to make me a saint, neither is the consumption of meat turning me into a devil. Therefore I do think that this discussion is necessary in order to raise awareness. But - as Stone also put it correctly - it's not about painting a black and white picture (good veggies, bad meaties) - that IMHO is absolute cowspoo, because it promotes separation and controversy, therefore conflict, alters the facts and invalids the admirable approach that veggies in fact do have.

As a society we have to join efforts and not fall for the old "divide and rule" formula of the reigning cast (which is childish anyway, because in order to maintain "power" they only do hurt themselves)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Stone


Jeff, you said "Feeling victimised doesn't change whether or not your lifestyle causes unneccasery harm or not."

Thats crap. Its not about feeling victimized, its about changing peoples attitudes. The guilt approach does not work.



In fact I disagree. The "guilt approach" has proven to be a highly effective tool for changing public opinion from matters like smoking/drinking during pregnancy, abolition of slavery, and abolition of the death penalty (in most of the civilised world at least). However I'm not actually trying to convert anyone, so I'll leave it at that to prevent a subargument developing.

What I ask is that we have a serious discussion of what we consider moral and why, rather than rationalising our current behaviour. If we accept that some animals have a level of experience that is comperable to humans then it should follow that we afford them some of the protection from harm that we enjoy.

Whilst true that every lifestyle will cause some kind of harm, I think we still have a moral imperitive to try and minimise that harm. How to do so ought to be based on reason, rather than dogmatism (which leads to fruitarianism, and other nonsense), and we should not be afraid to change our lifestyles if our conclusions point that way.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:It's really up to the meat eater whether they want to feel victimized by the facts that OWD is putting forth. As a meat eater I don't 'cause facts is facts and if I'm contributing to global warming by eating a steak...then so be it..sorry planet.

I'd like to say that I've learned things on this thread, like it's a better idea to buy local meat, but it's something I strive to do anyways..not for environmental reasons, but more for reasons of supporting the "local" economy. Were I not already doing this, this thread would make me consider it though.

My contribution to animal suffering isn't something I can dismiss, sure I feel guilty for it and have for years, but not guilty enough to actually stop contributing to it. I've read the books, and seen the websites designed to horrify me about animal suffering but some part of my brain manages to chime in with...oh well and then I come up with the justification that, were I raising my own meat, I personally wouldn't use factory farming techniques. A lame argument..I know....almost as lame as my argument that over the course of my lifetime, I can provide a quality life for cats that i didn't cause to be born, and probably would have have a miserable feral existence had I not intervened.

I don't have any moral problems with killing things in order to eat them, but I do have a problem with trophy hunting.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:To sum me up-

I become vegetarian as a teenager, then became vegan for several years, then become vegetarian again.

In total, probably around 20 years being vegetarian or vegan.

Currently not vegetarian as I eat fish (very occasionally).

My belief is that, in the west, there is far too much meat consumption and too much animal produce use in general.

I feel it's too much for the following reasons-

1. cruelty- due to the scale and consequential 'industrialisation' of the meat industry, living conditions are horrific- this is most obvious in the case of battery hen farming.

2. environmental- for reasons mentioned in previous posts- evidence is indicatiing that western meat animal production is contributing substantially to environmental damage.

3. dishonesty- the fact that the reality of the meat industry is not shown to children in education, making genuine choice impossible for them. Instead, it is only as adults that they can realistically assess the reality of where their meat comes from, by which time the habit of meat eating/animal produce use is well established as a habit, both personal and cultural.

-------------

I don't necessarily think 100% vegetarianism is the answer, for two reasons-

(though I respect those who do make that choice and I do feel that they are making a valuable contribution)

1. we need to assess the relative damage, both for animal cruely and environment- to determine whether, say, egg/dairy production is as, or more, damaging than meat production.

It may work out that a low comsumption of meat and eggs/dairy, is less damaging than a 100% vegetarian diet.

2. As I said above, IMO, the problem is not necessarily meat-eating per se, rather it is the scale of it.

--------------

Concerning the 'guilt-trip' that most meat eaters here feel that vegetarians subject them to.

Dream- your points above makes sense, i disagree with them, but acknowledge that they are a lot more logical than what most other meat-eaters here have come up with.

In general, where the rest are concerned, I've been genuinely surprised at the frequency of moaning about the 'guilt-trip', for the following reasons-

1. In this thread, there have been no attempts by vegetarians to make meat-eaters feel guilty; even several of the meat-eaters here have concurred with that.

2. We're all adults- no-one can force a guilt-trip on us. I suspect that all the meat-eaters here can pass by a religious extremist on the street, ranting that unless they obey Gods will they are sinners destined for hell etc, without having any problems with guilt.

So, why the problem with vegetarians in a debate simply putting forward facts.

If I were in your postion, of, when being presented with clear facts in the context of a debate, finding that I was growing resentful of having a 'guilt-trip' inflicted upon me- I hope that, instead, I would look inside and examine why I was feeling that way.

Perhaps what it comes down to, is that the reason some meat-eaters see a vegetrian engaging in debate as an attempt to inflict guilt, is that, for some reason, they're actually feeling a bit guilty?

After all, we live in more enlightened times, anyone tucking into some juicy chicken (assuming it's not organically reared), knows, on some level, where it came from and what it's been through.

Personally, and this is just me, knowing what I know, I would feel guilty and that guilt would be nothing to do with anything a ranting vegetarian might be saying.

That's just a theory I'm advancing to offer an alternative explanation of why many meat-eaters seem so prone to view themselves as being harrassed by vegetarians.

You'll notice I'm not ranting, hopefully, any meat-eaters responding will similarly not rant, or accuse me of attacking them etc- it's just a theory, a point-of-view .


"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!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave, strictly speaking and by definition vegetarianism implies that you consume plants and not animal products. I think the line in this thread has been drawn between animals vs. plants; sentient vs. non-sentient organisms. The point being if you consume animal products you support the system that you say exploits animals.

The point with Vitamin B12 is that it is not available in plants. Therefore, animals are part of a natural diet. As for supplements they are artificial and not organic. Yeast does not naturally contain B12. This indicates to me that animals are part of a natural diet, and our bodies are designed for meat as well as plants. Like you need to eat about 2.5kg of spinach to get your daily requirement of iron compared to getting the iron from a few grams of meat.


To say the majority of us in the modern west are concerned, meat production is an inneficient waste of land that could be better used to grow human-edible crops directly, cutting out the inefficient 'middle-man' (cow, pig etc) is at best misleading. For a start, in Australia beef cows, sheep and other ruminant eat grass and not grain.


Jeff, its difficult to have a rational discussion when we bring morals into it.


smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone


Dave, strictly speaking and by definition vegetarianism implies that you consume plants and not animal products.





The accepted definition of 'vegetarian' in the west is 'one who does not eat meat'.

Vegetarians generally eat dairy produce and eggs.

This is why we have a seperate term 'vegan' to indicate one who eats no animal produce whatsoever, including not eating eggs and dairy produce.




 Written by: Stone


Yeast does not naturally contain B12. This indicates to me that animals are part of a natural diet, and our bodies are designed for meat as well as plants. Like you need to eat about 2.5kg of spinach to get your daily requirement of iron compared to getting the iron from a few grams of meat.





Some yeasts don't contain B12 (eg brewers yeast), others do (according to sources on the net- I'm open to links that indicate otherwisw if you have any handy).

As for supplements not being natural, neither are TVs, cars and computers connected to the internet. I know for a fact you use at least one of the above smile

We live in modern times, where suplements are concerned, if they ease a vegans mind, then that's all good.


"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!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:if you are taking supplements, isn't all the pollution that the factories exude defeating the purpose of the supplement and vegetarian diet...the making of the machines, the oil or coal that powers them and greases them, the smoke and/or exhaust, and heated water that enters back into the water system not at body of water temp...
how are the supplements made?


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:This is going criss-cross a bit... and gained some length redface pls excuse...

First: Who determines which lifeforms are more valuable than others? This goes into the direction of Nazi determination of "unworthy lives", which in essence I have to oppose naturally.

OWD, actually you're not a vegetarian, but a pescetarian (according to the article in Wikipedia)... excuse me, but anything else is misleading.

In my personal understanding a "vegetarian" feeds himself "vegetables" (+ fruits and nuts)... without adding animal products. Now (to be precise) this is not the case, as "vegetarians" have sub-categories.

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, I just feel compelled to put it out one more time.

Lacto-ovo vegetarians, pescetarians and those who wear any kind of animal products, fur (in every respect), feather beds, and leather products are sub-categories of "vegetarians". The pure vegetarian is a vegan, or - ideally - fruitarian, all the others appear like "flexitarians".

One of the main (if not THE) reasons for vegetarianism is not to cause harm to other life forms and to reduce the (violent) impact on the environment.

I do not feel that proclaimed "guilt pattern" put on me, but there was an underlying morality that sounded through quite a few posts here and was articulating this. Now to reverse this and say: "IF you feel guilty, you have to look into yourself for the source of it" - to me is a implied mindfcuk... with all due respect.

On the other hand: the grazing of cattle in Australia is one of THE biggest rapes, westerners were putting on this continent. Such animals are not native in Australia and have (along with sheep) done great, irreversible damage to the continent - if not killed it's heart.

Anyone who is eating fish and points his finger at those eating poultry -to me- appears like a hypocrite, as the negative impact of overfishing and fish farming is undeniable.

But this is about "reduction" of impact, isn't it?

Talking about the reduction of carbon emission: (Northern) Europe is the only area which successfully reduced it's emissions since the Kyoto protocol. Southern Europe was not successful and along with the US, China has more than doubled it's emissions since Kyoto.

According to the third part of the "World Climate Report" issued by the IPCC, mankind MAYBE has another 13 years in order to significantly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, otherwise we will experience an irreversible landslide effect.

There are 3 major global threats - if it comes to global warming:

one (again) is the US and it's bad habits,
second is China and it's growing economy,
third is personal hypocrisy.

To the former I really can't contribute too much constructive, as the US public should have sufficient informations but chooses to live in denial.

Second - as I have pointed out many times at different occasions - I can only say: boycott of all Chinese products (as far as possible) and this includes (appropriate to this bb):

- juggling equipment
- Kevlar

And it merges with the latter: As long as we're telling each other that s/he is to blame for global warming, because they use the plane, or eat meat, we do not change a thing. Each and everyone has to ponder for her/ himself and be honest (btw: spinning fire is NOT environmentally friendly - a fact most here seem to neglect for good reasons).

All this phoney discussion only results in outsmarting each other and ego-battling (well, you know B12... but hey, TV's) is counter-productive and doesn't change a thing.

Maybe we should issue individual emission cards, where the consumption of meat, exotic fruits, products from China, airtravels, etc are listed. Maybe we should - along with Kyoto (which is only cunning however) - commit to an individual level?

This includes putting pressure on politicians and industry, letting them know that WE (the consumers) do care and do not tolerate lacking actions much longer. Scientists are putting forth that an investment of 16 Trillion (? as in European "Billion") US Dollars might be necessary to take necessary steps.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Could the Running the Numbers thread also be viewed as a guilt trip since it equates things we're all involved with in our daily lives ( cans, plastic bags, paper ) with things that are also horrifying to us ( guns, SUV's, prison, war ) ?

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom









OWD, actually you're not a vegetarian, but a pescetarian (according to the article in Wikipedia)... excuse me, but anything else is misleading.



In my personal understanding a "vegetarian" feeds himself "vegetables" (+ fruits and nuts)... without adding animal products.









Whatever your own personal understanding is, in the context of this thread and the context of general discussion, 'vegetarian'='not eating meat.



As you mention the wikipedia article, here's a link to it-



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism



And here's the first sentence of the article-





 Written by: Wikipedia article on vegetarianism



Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming the flesh of any animal (including poultry and fish), with or without also eschewing other animal derivatives, such as dairy products or eggs.







Note the 'with or without' part of it- this means that, according the to article you're using, that 'vegetarianism' is basically not eating meat- one who doesn't eat meat yet consumes other animal produce, is still a vegetarian.



(You're right of course that i'm not a vegetarian, as I do eat occasional fish- I've pointed this out myself on numerous occasions in this thread.)







 Written by:



I do not feel that proclaimed "guilt pattern" put on me, but there was an underlying morality that sounded through quite a few posts here and was articulating this. Now to reverse this and say: "IF you feel guilty, you have to look into yourself for the source of it" - to me is a implied mindfcuk... with all due respect.









Except that's not what i said.



What i said was-





 Written by: onewheeldave



If I were in your postion, of, when being presented with clear facts in the context of a debate, finding that I was growing resentful of having a 'guilt-trip' inflicted upon me- I hope that, instead, I would look inside and examine why I was feeling that way.







i.e. I'm saying what I would do (and do do). At most I'm implying that it would, IMO, be good for others to do the same, but it is only a suggestion- I'm certainly not saying, as you put it- 'you have to look into yourself for the source of it'.



Any, as you say 'implied mindfcuk' is put there by your own mind.



I respectfully request that, in future, you do not imply that I've said something I haven't- i have no objection to anyone disagreeing with me, or arguing against me; I do object to people misrepresenting me.


"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!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave, a strict vegetarian originally meant vegan, now it can mean vegan or vegetarian (International Vegetarian Union). So as far as Im concerned you consume animal products or you dont. And if people consume animal products, then they dont really have a leg to stand on in the moral stakes.



Brewers Yeast is known as natures wonder food, a name that it certainly deserves. It is an excellent source of all the major B vitamins (except B12). It also contains other vitamins, sixteen amino acids and fourteen or more minerals.



Jeff, while the "guilt approach" has had some success in changing public opinion, there are couple of differences here. Many people consider meat a natural part of the diet. The advertising by the Livestock associations is very good. We have different opinions on what is moral. I grew up a farm so I have a different moral opinion than someone who grew up in city.



Ultimately, I think we (human beings) need to develop a level of consciousness were we dont want to eat animals, hence the Buddhist connection.



Fire Tom, for sure we should have farmed kangaroos. I think you are exaggerating a bit when you say ..the grazing of cattle in Australia is one of THE biggest rapes, westerners were putting on this continent. The main environmental problem in Australia is the depletion our river systems to grow irrigating crops like rice and cotton.



As far as the grain fed animals goes, we produce much more wheat and barley than we need for bread and beer. Most of the excess is exported, while the poorer grade grain is used for feed. To me this argument is really about producing and consuming what we need without the excess.





smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:OWD - once and so often I'm reading and do then voice the impression that those words leave me with. I'm certain that this is a valid approach. Nowhere did I say, that YOU actually SAID, was... now stop it. wink

Not the "clarity" of said facts is what I am questioning, but the extent and the conclusion that one needs to draw from this.

Whereas I fully agree that the treatment of animals, who are "farmed for food" is censored up and that the West is consuming far too much animal products - further I do close shoulders that a healthy diet does not have to include meat on a daily basis, but I still regard it a personal choice.

And I do promote - as one result of this - what I think about people who want to implement sausages to India (just because there's a buck to be made). Some ppl really regard it "the same" whether I plan to bring a baker over here, as to whether I would bring a butcher... which is completely ridiculous.

But I am not as certain, whether mentioned practice of not wanting to, or de facto not eating animals is that desired "higher level" - an approach which in itself promotes the "low level" existence of "meat eaters" (even not remotely making a difference between those who have a shishkebab every fortnight and those who have a T-Bone for every lunch).

What - in essence - I do get annoyed with, is the condescending approach that many (so called) vegetarians are (sometimes) taking. If I were a vegetarian, who feels the urge to tell every meatlover (between the lines) how "low" their approach to human life is, I would immediately research in myself, why I feel this desire and why my ego needs this self-polishing - because wanting to "save the planet" is not the real motive behind it - IMO.

Stone, I might be exaggerating, but cattle, sheep and rabbits are amongst the most damaging factors in Australia. But very good that you mention rice and cotton... IS there really any way out of this? I mean even if we stop eating meat, stop using the airplane, use carpools - would we not also have to stop wearing cotton clothes, leather shoes, spinning fire, using the internet, etc. as not exposing ourselves to the argument from - say - Tibetan monks, that we destroy the planet?

Where's the line?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom




Where's the line?



A lot of people are scared of the line- 'where should it be drawn? Who are we (or you) to draw the line?'

Many avoid drawing the line, seemingly thinking that they thus avoid making a difficult choice, or avoid the consequences.

People shouldn't be afraid of drawing the line- they can't avoid choosing or consequences by not drawing it, because avoiding drawing the line is itself a choice and itself has consequences.

And if, on reflection, having drawn your line, you decide, whether cos of the consequences you observe or because you learn something new, that you didn't draw the line in exactly the right place, then you simply redraw it.

As an example, I draw the line at not eating mammals, birds, non-ethical eggs, very low milk product consumption; but i do eat (very occasional fish).

I'm happy with that- happy with where i've drawn the line; maybe in the future, in hindsight and on reflection, i may draw it somewhere else.

On HOP, I feel a lot of people are overly negative about drawing the line- IMO, drawing the line is pretty much essential.


"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!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:hug clap ditto

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Page: 1...456789

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [vegetarianism plant* feeling*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Your nickname, and you, your feelings and your friends! [120 replies]
2. Forums > A story of feelings true. [34 replies]
3. Forums > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too [267 replies]
4. Forums > feeling down and expressing feelings [5 replies]
5. Forums > Nice Feelings [24 replies]

     Show more..