Why I'm not a vegetarian
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
Asguard:
Yes, I agree. You have to be careful to get everything you need, especially if you're vegan.
TW Scott:
You have apparently forgotten our previous, long, conversation on this topic. Who knows? Maybe you really are as stupid as you appear.
Please review the previous thread where I spent a lot of time attempting to educate you. Maybe you'll pick up what I was saying the second time round.
The argument that we ought to keep doing something just because it is traditional or has been done that way for many years is a very very weak one. In actual fact, moral philosophy has come a long way even in the last 30 years, let alone the last 100,000 years.
No. You just need to be careful and put in a little effort to make sure you get all the nutrients you need. Being moral isn't always easy. In fact, quite often it is difficult.
I bet you don't have many vegetarian friends. You don't seem like a very good host, either, if you think your guests are wasting your time.
Yes, I agree. You have to be careful to get everything you need, especially if you're vegan.
TW Scott:
You have apparently forgotten our previous, long, conversation on this topic. Who knows? Maybe you really are as stupid as you appear.
Please review the previous thread where I spent a lot of time attempting to educate you. Maybe you'll pick up what I was saying the second time round.
The argument that we ought to keep doing something just because it is traditional or has been done that way for many years is a very very weak one. In actual fact, moral philosophy has come a long way even in the last 30 years, let alone the last 100,000 years.
No. You just need to be careful and put in a little effort to make sure you get all the nutrients you need. Being moral isn't always easy. In fact, quite often it is difficult.
I bet you don't have many vegetarian friends. You don't seem like a very good host, either, if you think your guests are wasting your time.
Creeptology
Registered Member
"I will tell you I don't mind a vegan or vegetarian. I just let them know when they are guests in my house I am not wasting my time and effort in making a special meal for them. I have enough to do just taking care of the guests who don't get preachy over food.
”
I bet you don't have many vegetarian friends. You don't seem like a very good host, either, if you think your guests are wasting your time."
Not to mention it's a little two faced to say they are preachy when the hosts view is they are awkward because they don't conform with their dietary preference. Doesn't that make the host preachy. I have friends who invite me to BBQs ans meals and the like. They either cook a veggie thing for all of us or in case of BBQ cook the veggie stuff first. I don't even ask they just plan this for me, I'd be quite happy to bring my own or sort myself out but still they insist on providing for me.
”
I bet you don't have many vegetarian friends. You don't seem like a very good host, either, if you think your guests are wasting your time."
Not to mention it's a little two faced to say they are preachy when the hosts view is they are awkward because they don't conform with their dietary preference. Doesn't that make the host preachy. I have friends who invite me to BBQs ans meals and the like. They either cook a veggie thing for all of us or in case of BBQ cook the veggie stuff first. I don't even ask they just plan this for me, I'd be quite happy to bring my own or sort myself out but still they insist on providing for me.
Don't you just love the irony in this statement?
Not to mention it's a little two faced to say they are preachy when the hosts view is they are awkward because they don't conform with their dietary preference. Doesn't that make the host preachy. I have friends who invite me to BBQs ans meals and the like. They either cook a veggie thing for all of us or in case of BBQ cook the veggie stuff first. I don't even ask they just plan this for me, I'd be quite happy to bring my own or sort myself out but still they insist on providing for me.[/QUote] blah blah blah. The point has been made.
madanthonywayne:
I don't think we know everything. But that argument works as well for me as it does for you. You say we don't know what nutrients we need from vegetables. I say we don't know what harms meat is doing us. So, I don't see how this stands up as a reason to prefer meat eating to vegetarianism.
Apparently, humans don't need meat to be healthy and thrive. Millions of vegetarians around the world can attest to that.
Well, yes. A right is a recognition of an interest that is enforceable (usually by process of law).
But human infants apparently have rights, as do mentally disabled people. Is that because they can abide by a "social contract"? I don't think so.
And why does this not extend to animals over which we have guardianship, in the same way that it extends to humans over whom we have guardianship? Please explain what makes the difference.
Might makes right, then? Hmm... Sounds like a fairly typical conservative stance.
The natural beauty is only valuable in that you might get enjoyment from it, though. It too, has no [enc]intrinsic value[/enc].
Do you ultimately evaluate the value of everything only in terms of its utility to yourself?
I have never argued that if it came to making a choice between saving a human life and saving an animal life that it would necessarily be wrong to choose the human above the animal. But in choosing not to eat meat, you do not put your life (or the life of any human being) at risk. And in choosing to eat meat, you put the lives of countless numbers of animals at risk, needlessly.
I don't think we know everything. But that argument works as well for me as it does for you. You say we don't know what nutrients we need from vegetables. I say we don't know what harms meat is doing us. So, I don't see how this stands up as a reason to prefer meat eating to vegetarianism.
Apparently, humans don't need meat to be healthy and thrive. Millions of vegetarians around the world can attest to that.
Well, yes. A right is a recognition of an interest that is enforceable (usually by process of law).
But human infants apparently have rights, as do mentally disabled people. Is that because they can abide by a "social contract"? I don't think so.
And why does this not extend to animals over which we have guardianship, in the same way that it extends to humans over whom we have guardianship? Please explain what makes the difference.
Might makes right, then? Hmm... Sounds like a fairly typical conservative stance.
The natural beauty is only valuable in that you might get enjoyment from it, though. It too, has no [enc]intrinsic value[/enc].
Do you ultimately evaluate the value of everything only in terms of its utility to yourself?
I have never argued that if it came to making a choice between saving a human life and saving an animal life that it would necessarily be wrong to choose the human above the animal. But in choosing not to eat meat, you do not put your life (or the life of any human being) at risk. And in choosing to eat meat, you put the lives of countless numbers of animals at risk, needlessly.
Creeptology
Registered Member
Yeah killing countless others to save one you cared about is still not good grounds to do so. Why are animal lives worth less than human? It's flawed argument again.
There are so many grounds to contest this on with pure logic alone. The same logic is saying I would kill 100 human strangers to save my brother. It's a decision based on my own selfish discrimination and judgment. What if the person you were to save would do more damage to other lives than those you sacrificed? Logically then a person who covers up for a family member who murders 10 people they never met nor cared for is right in doing so. They sacrifice lives they see as unimportant to protect one they value themselves. It's so selfish and biased.
What about your pets? If you had them, since they are "just animals" how would you feel if a stranger moved into your neighbourhood and said any furry creature within a 1km radius of their house needed to be killed as it was a threat to their life due to some condition they had. Would you kill your dogs because human life is more important?
There are so many grounds to contest this on with pure logic alone. The same logic is saying I would kill 100 human strangers to save my brother. It's a decision based on my own selfish discrimination and judgment. What if the person you were to save would do more damage to other lives than those you sacrificed? Logically then a person who covers up for a family member who murders 10 people they never met nor cared for is right in doing so. They sacrifice lives they see as unimportant to protect one they value themselves. It's so selfish and biased.
What about your pets? If you had them, since they are "just animals" how would you feel if a stranger moved into your neighbourhood and said any furry creature within a 1km radius of their house needed to be killed as it was a threat to their life due to some condition they had. Would you kill your dogs because human life is more important?
I have far from forgotten your rather ineffectual comments. You made no proof of anything, except perhaps your own inability to prove what you think is the truth. I am indeed fully educated on the entire subject and your mistaken belief that you need to further enlighten me is in my view hysterical. I also have not resorted to ad hominem attacks here. Your reliance on them will not go unnotticed.
Excuse me, but in order to prove that something is indeed unethical and immoral as you claim the long standing tradition does tend to work against you as does the biological facts. Now yes they do not in and of themselves prove morality or immorality, but they do make wonderful supportive arguemnts for my side.
Actually being moral is 100% of the time the easiest thing in the world. Don;t murder your brother, don't sleep with your wife's sister, don't beat your dog, Don't steal and so on. There is not a single time ever that the moral choice is ever harder than the immoral choice. And 99% of the time it is physically easier to just not be immoral as well. So this works against you too.
Actually five of my friends are vegetarian and one is vegan. One's vegetarian because he is allergic to poultry and dislikes the taste of most other meat. However they all agree when iIthrow a party and I invite them I am not obligated to make a specially balanced meal for them when they are less than a quarter of the people I invite. If I was just inviting them I would make a vegetarian meal, but when they are 5 amoung 20+ they make do with the potato salad and deviled eggs.
Creeptology
Registered Member
Deviled eggs and potato salad (assume it contains mayo) for a vegan, I bet he loves you hehehehe.
TW Scott:
No.
1. Asserting that biological facts lead to a moral duty is to commit the appeal to nature fallacy. You still haven't understood that point, obviously.
2. Long practice or tradition does not make an unethical act moral. Take so-called "honor killings" if you need an example. Or slavery. Or locking people up without a fair hearing or trial.
Rubbish. Moral duties often conflict with personal self-interest. That often makes making moral choices difficult. You work in a shop and give small discounts to your friends, without your employer knowing. You take some of the office stationery for your personal use. You lie to your spouse or your boss because you've made a mistake and you don't want to be found out. You spend your income on a new plazma TV rather than donating it to saving lives in Africa.
Lots of moral choices are hard.
You drive to work instead of riding a bicycle or walking, thus polluting the environment more than you need to. Physically easier? You really haven't thought this through, have you?
No.
1. Asserting that biological facts lead to a moral duty is to commit the appeal to nature fallacy. You still haven't understood that point, obviously.
2. Long practice or tradition does not make an unethical act moral. Take so-called "honor killings" if you need an example. Or slavery. Or locking people up without a fair hearing or trial.
Rubbish. Moral duties often conflict with personal self-interest. That often makes making moral choices difficult. You work in a shop and give small discounts to your friends, without your employer knowing. You take some of the office stationery for your personal use. You lie to your spouse or your boss because you've made a mistake and you don't want to be found out. You spend your income on a new plazma TV rather than donating it to saving lives in Africa.
Lots of moral choices are hard.
You drive to work instead of riding a bicycle or walking, thus polluting the environment more than you need to. Physically easier? You really haven't thought this through, have you?
HumanBeast
Registered Member
I heard from a documentary that meat IS GOOD for your brain, especially in the hunter-gather era. I'm not diminishing the value of fruits and veggies.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You mean fish then ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Brilliant.
Creeptology
Registered Member
if it is fish and you're are talking about omega 3 and 6 then what about linseed (flax to Americans) since it's a valued source to Vegetarians and meat eaters.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If it contains the same stuff then it's just as good I should think. But it probably has lower concentrations.
Vegans can eat mayo? I thought it had eggs in it? I was always under the impression that vegan meant no animal products at all.
Ps. I love to cook for my vegie friends, I like the challange of coming up with a non-meat main course....sides are easy.
Ps. I love to cook for my vegie friends, I like the challange of coming up with a non-meat main course....sides are easy.