A bit like that Sugar. :-P

Well if the likes of Paloma, Sugar, Vegangelica etc, i.e the more frequent contributers in this thread want it open then it stays for now but any more of this kind of shit and its gone.

I dunno, this thread really interests me.
And there aren't a lot of threads I can relate to like I can with this one.
I don't think it should be closed because of some annoying people.
Erica has the strongest views of all of us, and it doesn't even annoy her.

Well thats why im leaving it. But its a thread that constantly needs modding. If it gets back on topic and stays that way then fine but I can see a mod losing their patience with this one somewhere down the line.

Well that's why you're here. <3

No no no no no! :) Please don't close this thread! This is a great thread! It's lots of fun...for me, at least. ;) Also, AwwSugar and I still haven't had our ovo-lactovegetarian/vegan "fight"....yet. ;)

I agree with AwwSugar that this thread serves a purpose...the sharing of people's real feelings on a contentious topic. I'm not offended by the direction the debates take, especially since I have already experienced quite frequently in non-internet life what we sometimes see here as people's satisfied ignorance, disdain, and a desire to show their feelings by acting out (pretending to want to hurt animals).

Since people have very different ethical views and background knowledge about eating animals, I don't expect the conversation to avoid sometimes dealing with questions for which (I think) the answers should be obvious, mojo.

For example, in this thread a vegan said that eating meat isn't "natural" and a meat-eater said "meat is essential." These are (incorrect) viewpoints common to both "camps," and so I think this thread is a good place for people to state what they believe so that others can point out errors or offer alternative viewpoints.

So, please don't close the thread due to people's ignorance! And frankly, "sticks and stones and knives and chains and saws can break animals' bones, but words can never hurt them."

So here's a question for those of you who eat meat: given that meat is not a physiological necessity...and so you are supporting people killing animals unnecessarily...does it make a difference to you whether people kill the animal for fun sport (bullfighting, sport fishing, songbird target practice) vs. for fun food (tasty pizza toppings, mouth-watering burgers, tender fish)?

If you are willing for animals to suffer to allow you to eat them (when you don't need to), shouldn't you also be willing for animals to suffer to provide humans with fun in other ways (say, killing animals to get "revenge" on vegans)? The animal ends up dead either way, so why do people's motivations for killing the animal matter?

I've seen people pick up fish and bury them alive for fun, and no animal *likes* to asphyxiate. Is this any worse or better than fishing with the intent of eating the animal? Livestock animals suffer all the time due to human choices. Is this fundamentally any different than people intentionally causing animals to suffer for fun?

That's fine, Erica.
You're stupid because you're a vegan.
I'm going to shove eggs in your face.

I recognise that alot of people like this thread, so im not closing it. Im just pointing out the fact that it needs modding alot and i know alot of mods get fed up with having to action this one. I wouldnt be surprised if it gets closed if it continues down that same road. Most threads requiring so many posts to be deleted and so many idiots warned or accounts deleted would have gone the journey a while ago.

You didn't consider my question from the previous post, egg-breath. (Switch "egg" or "dairy" for meat): "Given that meat is not a physiological necessity...and so you are supporting people killing animals unnecessarily...does it make a difference to you whether people kill the animal for fun sport (bullfighting, sport fishing, songbird target practice) vs. for fun food (tasty pizza toppings, mouth-watering burgers, tender fish)?"

Stay on topic please, if you CAN. ;)

GAA! I don't want to fake argue with you, Sugar! (I just can't do it long, can I! ;). I was lacto-ovo vegetarian for many years, and I know some of the reasons going vegan can be difficult or a concern. It took me several years to switch to a vegan diet even after I realized that people kill the millions of male chicks who are the brothers of the egg-laying hens. Even after I knew that veal calves are not allowed contact with each other and then are killed, just so I could enjoy ice cream.

But seriously, Sugar, have you considered veganism, and why or why not? Do you look at it in this way: ovo-lacto vegetarianism doesn't directly involve killing the animals at that moment, although, of course, people eventually kill the egg-laying hens and cows?

Oh! There have been posts deleted from this thread?!? Would I ever love to see those, mojo! Now I'm curious...what did they say?

I guess I am using the word "press" in the wrong context. Because I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I am not telling anyone to respond the way I do (I know it's stupid and ignorant) but it's something I have picked up to purposely piss off people regarding the subject. And it works, judged by all the responses.
When I purposely order a cheeseburger in front of the vegan and continue to talk about how delicious the creature was, I am not encouraging others to do the same. If they do, however, that is their own action.

Very nice and classy response. I see you are one of the few whom don't let ignorance cloud their judgment and feelings.

You guys are deriving undertones that do not exist in my post. I am not expecting anyone to accept my opinion. And I am not accepting anyone's either. How would one say this on the internet? "I do it for the lulz"? I don't care about animal rights, and I want to be able to enjoy whatever I please to, without having someone in my face about it. And guess what? If you do (get in my face), I am going to be the biggest ignorant piece-of-**** to you.

Because I do not care of what a stranger thinks of me? Maybe you should give it a try.
And my first response to the thread was "Meat is murder. But it is essential." I should have probably been less vague on whom it is essential to but hindsight is 20/20.

I may be the "moron" but you're the idiot that lets the "moron" get under your skin.

It's not like that at all.
I'd love to be vegan.
But it's difficult when you're in college, and when you go home and everyone eats meat.
When I have my own place and make my own money and buy my own food, I'll consider it.
I really do care about animals.
P.S. Did I say my sister became a vegetarian? [=

Ive only seen a few from the last 10 pages or so but i would put good money on there being a lot, lot more in the 35 before that!

Yep...I relate to all those reasons. My college had great ovo-lacto food but not vegan. Thanks for answering. I know you really do care about animals, sweetie.

And no, I didn't know your sister became a vegetarian! When? Why? Are her reasons like yours? She's your little sister, right? How exciting! Are you going to throw her one of those secret vegetarian initiation parties newcomers get?...WHOOPS! Did I just say that out loud?! ;)

P.S. Make sure to teach her the vegetarian handshake! ;)

Yeah, she's my little sister. She's becoming a vegetarian a few months earlier than I did when I was her age, I think. Or maybe the same time.
She watched some videos about dolphin killings in Japan, and she felt really bad.
She didn't eat that much meat, so it's not too difficult for her.

No Erica, we haven't thrown it. But way to give it away.

I should have just let you explain to these people why this thread takes alot of modding.

Did i call you a moron? Did i mention your name? Did i mention anyones name? I think you will find the answer to all of the above is no.

Dont flatter yourself, you arent getting under my skin. However you do have an attitude. I dont care if you have an attitude or not because frankly I couldnt give a toss but please feel free to continue down this path and i'll give you some time off to consider whether you would like to re-think your demeanour on this site.

I lol'd, I am a twisted bastard. :laughing:

And it's your own action to choose to be a douche about it, I suppose. Personally, if someone wants to eat a greasy ass cheeseburger in front of me, you know yourself the **** out, I don't really give a ****. But to go to the extent where you're telling me how delicious it is, is like me going over the nitty gritty of my menstrual cycle with you. Actually, that's a great idea. Next time I come across an obnoxious meat eater, I'm going to give them all the lovelies about my last visit from Aunt Flo :D

Oh my god, I'm so excited.

The first month I switched, I hated telling to people that I don't eat meat, cz it kind of forced them to think of my eating options wherever we went. Although it's a nice gesture, it kind of made me guilty and nervous more than anything else.

Anyway, last week, at the latest family dinner, my mum made veggie lasagna... that surprisingly everyone enjoyed. It was the first time I didn't feel like eating some fixed up leftovers. It was nice.

Finally, after deciding to not kill animals on purpose (a decision I made 4 months ago), and seems for now I killed a mosquito by mistake, while scratching my back. An ant that has been walking near food, and that I tried to keep away, and 3 mosquitos, last week, and very much on purpose now that Summer has started (stupid global warming). Weirdly enough, I've been looking at cockroaches with peace, instead of running away screaming for help.

So that was my update, for my first 4 months as a veggie.
P.S: I have to admit that I cheated and ate a burger after a month from my decision, and the night following that incident, was one of the awfullest nights of my life.

Why was it awful? Because of feelings of guilt or because you got nauseous?

Now now Timmy, finish eating your broccoli then you can go outside and play with your friends.

Well I couldn't sleep, and felt very warm and itchy... plus it was the first time, in weeks, that mosquitoes prevent me from sleeping. I was weirdly irritated, and I don't know if it's guilt or just some physical symptoms, cause the first can trigger the latter.

I'm not sure if this was brought up somewhere in here already, so apologies if it has.

Let's say hypothetically we stop breeding animals for food and let animal numbers fluctuate naturally. We evolved eating plants and meat, so even though we have the intelligence to rationalize killing animals, we are still technically part of the food chain. What if a certain animal (let's say deer), due to our refusal to participate in the food chain, overpopulate and throw the ecosystem into chaos. Would the vegetarians here reconsider?

This isn't me trying to convince people to not be vegetarian, I'm just curious what you guys would think of the situation.

Mosquitoes are right turds, it's pretty much the itchiest kind of bites I've had and damn they can bleed from over-scratching.

Thank goodness I've never had chicken box or I would scratch my entire layer of skin off.

First, I should say I don't like mistreatment of animals in any shape and I do try to be an aware consumer! Still, as a meat eater, of course I do accept mistreatment of animals in order to put food on my plate. It would be naive to deny it.

I think what I dislike the most with mistreatment for fun or entertainment is it's not the sort of thing I think should be fun. The way I see it, only emotionally dysfunctional losers laugh at torture and only people with an utter lack of respect for life will entertain themselves by mistreating animals. It's not exactly the trademark of a winning personality and a healthy mind, but rather indicates douchebagism and mental health problems .. imo ;)

Mistreatment as a "side effect" of animals being used for food is something I find a lot more tolerable. The goal is not to cause pain, but to get some kind of animal food product. Killing animals for food doesn't mean you're a heartless psychopath.

I agree with Tore. You could argue that the end result is the same but i i think there is a huge difference between killing animals for produce and killing animals for sport.

Ive said already that i think its perfectly natural for humans, as animals, to eat other animals and so yeah, id have to say that i support the killing of animals to an extent.

However i once shared a flat with a mate of mine who told me one day that he supported hunting and that it should be protected. I asked him why and he said because it is a "great British tradition."

Now as much as i would love to argue with that, hes actually right. Hunting is a British tradition. It shouldnt be, it should be illegal. Killing animals for sport is barbaric and doesnt serve a purpose. No one is benefiting from it at all apart from a bunch of upper class, wine-tasting, cheese-eating, fur-wearing, stuck up toffs who think its not only fun but their right to hunt and kill for fun.

If no one is benefiting from the death of an animal, then it shouldnt be happening.

You're talking about wild animals, not domesticated animals, correct, duga? I ask just to clarify, because in many livestock situations people artificially inseminate the animals to make them produce offspring, so simply stopping artificial insemination would cause the domesticated animal numbers to plummet.

With wild animals, such as deer (and we have a fair number in Iowa), hunters do currently kill many thousands. However, Iowa also lets hunters kill deer predators such as coyotes and bobcats.

So then obviously, if people stop killing deer, since people have wiped out natural predators, the deer population will increase, altering the balance of the ecosystem...which has already occurred in Iowa. If humans were to stop killing deer, humans would also have to stop killing animal predators in order to prevent a huge increase in the deer population.

Of course, the impact of *humans* on the natural exosystems of Iowa and the world is much greater than that caused by deer. The impact of deer is more subtle: as their numbers increase, the ratios of tree species and other plants in forests change, due to herbivory. Most of Iowa and Indiana are now covered in corn crops (tasty food for deer), due to people. The impact of deer on ecosystems is negligible, in comparison to that of humans, I'd say.

I forgot to answer your question! My answer would be that, no, I wouldn't reconsider my vegetarianism or support people killing deer if people feel the deer population is too large. (I would argue the human population is too large.) Also, whenever people feel they have to resort to killing others (whether animals or humans) to solve a problem, I think this means that people haven't explored other options thoroughly enough.

Except whether people kill animals purely for fun (the challenge of the "kill," and the adrenalin rush of hunting) or for fun but unnecessary food, the basic goal is the same: to increase human pleasure.

I feel that with meat-eating, the main reason people do it is emotional pleasure, since there are non-meat alternatives that satisfy nutritional needs just as well. This is one reason I see very little difference between killing an animal to have fun, and killing an animal to have fun food.

And yet it is also perfectly natural for animals to *enjoy* hunting and killing other animals, mojo.

I've seen cats and lions and other animals hunt and then "play" with their living food a little. They definitely look like they are enjoying it. Chasing and killing another animal is fun...for them! One would expect animals selected to be predators through natural selection to have a positive emotional state connected with the hunt. Just like sexual activity can feel good...so that people want to do it.

So, why shouldn't people like your flatmate just do the "natural" thing and enjoy hunting for pleasure, or gain pleasure from their traditions that involve chasing and hunting animals? He is benefitting from the pleasure caused by the hunt and kill, just like people benefit from the pleasure of the meat they get from people killing animals.

I will argue again that whether some behavior is "natural" or not should not determine whether we feel that behavior is an ethical behavior we want people (or ourselves) to follow.

Since non-meat alternatives exist, sport hunting and meat hunting are united by their ultimate goal: increasing human pleasure (and that is their main purpose, I'd say). Neither meat nor sport hunting is *necessary*. So, if killing animals unnecessarily for sport is barbaric, like you say, mojo, then why shouldn't killing animals unnecessarily for unnecessary food be seen as barbaric?

I think killing for fun or food as both being simply to "increase human pleasure" is a generalization which simplifies too much and hides what I think are important moral considerations. To me, if someone does it for a reason like the thrill of the hunt or the satisfaction of being able to provide for oneself, I can't morally consider those the same as doing it out of a sadistic pleasure for pain and suffering. What people think and the motives behind their actions is important to me and also something I think you too readily ignore.

I think the average member of a jury would agree!

I agree I am simplifying the situation, Tore, since people who kill for food *and* pleasure do get food (in addition to the psychological pleasure of eating it). Yet to me killing an animal for "the thrill of the hunt" is not morally *very* different from killing an animal out of "sadistic pleasure for pain and suffering."

I feel that people who kill animals to provide for themselves or to enjoy the hunt as sport (by which I mean pure fun, whether or not they eat some of the animal...and most hunters do eat part of their "harvest") are ignoring or minimizing the significance of the fact that they *are* intentionally causing (unnecessary) pain and suffering for that animal they are killing.

When someone hurts and kills an animal intentionally (though she could have stopped herself from killing it if she had wanted to), apologizing or feeling some regret may make the person feel better, but it doesn't help that animal being killed one iota. So, this is one reason people's motives (rationalizations) for killing an animal (whether for sport or unnecessary food) don't seem so important to me.

I am more understanding of how people would make the choice to kill animals to survive when people don't have access to other foods (though I still don't think it makes killing the animals a *good* thing). But when the killing is not necessary for a person's survival, then killing animals for food seems like pure hedonism to me. I don't mind hedonism at all (I'm certainly hedonistic in many ways)...but I am troubled when it causes others to experience unnecessarily pain and suffering or an end to their lives.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive,and eat good food.

I had a Jimmy John's vegetarian sub today. it was ****ing delicious.

So you're on both sides of the subject?

I love meat. Veggies are disgusting.

But you said you need to do what you need to do to survive.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

Veggie lasagna is awesome. I never liked lasagna with meat in.

I always eat vegetarian food when it's an alternative and I very much prefer it to the times I have to eat meat. (Technically I guess I never have to eat meat, but I don't see the point in being a bother.)

One thing I hate about this whole debate (I havn't read this entire thread, but I mean veg. vs. meat debates in general) is the black-or-white views portrayed. The problem is not that we eat meat, it's that we eat way too much of it. When it comes to my meat-eating friends they eat meat or fish for pretty much every meal (except breakfast) and tone down the vegetables. My family does at home as well. That's good from neither a health, environmental or a humanitarian view.

That specific experience is entirely personal and does not necessarily portray the rest of our community, city, country or anything else for that matter. Fact still remains, we eat too much meat in relation to vegetables and fruit.

I think a lot of people are put off vegetarianism since it means they can't eat meat at all. That's quite a stupid notion. No one's gonna tell you "You can't eat that occasionally if you want to! You're not a real vegetarian!" You don't have to go all the way if you don't want to.

We're not some stupid elitists on our high horses looking down at regular people with contempt, doing it just to feel better about ourselves. (Yes, some people I've chatted with actually believe that.)

lol enjoy your clogged colon

Most people do eat too much meat, but not all meat is equally bad for the individual or the environment. Wild rabbit (Jack and Cottontail varieties, to be specific), for instance, is a wonderfully healthy food; and if you harvest it from the wild in a responsible manner (generally, this means legal), it helps keep the environment healthy as well.

The problem, however, is that most people who eat rabbit refuse to hunt it themselves; not because doing so is too difficult, time consuming, or expensive.... but because they get all blubbery when it comes time to kill the rabbit.

So, perhaps we should invent a rule: if you are unwilling to kill an animal yourself, don't eat the meat.

What I find most troubling here is that you're attributing human characteristics to animals; in particular a class of animals which are not self aware. So, really, why should one care whether that animal meets it's end by being hit by a truck, getting devoured by something higher on the food chain, or peacefully in a field... when it makes no difference to the animal in question?

I will :yeah:.

I understand it's the consequence, specifically the consequences for the animal by which you rate how an action scales morally. By now, I guess it's clear that I don't agree .. If I applied your views very strictly, that would mean a lot of the people I know and like a lot rate about as high morally as sadists who revel in torturing animals. Yet they don't! It seems quite unfair to me.

Generally speaking, consequence to me is usually just part of what makes an action morally good or bad. I wouldn't want someone who kills someone by accident (bumped'em down the stairs) to get punished as harshly as someone who murdered with intention, even if the consequences - death - are the same.

edit :

I should add that while I read what you write, I have trouble believing your view wouldn't conflict with your emotions.

As an example, let's say you're in the english countryside and witness two scenarios. In the first, you see a man with a rifle shoot a hare, killing it instantly. In the second, you see a man slowly torturing a hare to death while clearly getting enjoyment from it's suffering.

I believe you would find both acts morally wrong, but I believe the second one would disgust you more. I think you'd think much less of the sadist. Now, of course it's possible that you do your best to follow morale by rationale and logic rather than emotions and that's allowed of course, but if that as well as my assumptions about how you'd react are true, then I think you should at least admit that what your intellect thinks of morale and what your feelings feel about morale might come in conflict.

Those two scenarios have different consequences. One has death. The other has death and torture.

Offtopic, about morale:
I believe that what is moral is based solely on consequences. That doesn't mean I believe that people who kill by accident should get as hard a punishment as people who kill purposely. You see, punishment for punishment's sake is entirely pointless. If you act immoral, that doesn't mean you have to be punished. Punishments need to be moral themselves, have a point. Punishing the murderer out of revenge for the murdered is pointless. The punishment needs to have positive effects, otherwise it would be immoral. And what are the positive effects of punishment? Preventing further crime.

Basing morale on consequences only makes sense if you always use that approach. The notion that immoral acts should be punished is not based on consequences but rather on feelings.