A few question for Omnivores . . .

Great Debates
21

Ehem? I don’t know about you dalmuti, but personally I like to keep the DDT, the arsenic and enriched plutonium out of my abode and when I need to do number one or number two I’m sort of like the forenamed grizzly bear and I prefer to do it well away from spaces where I feed/sleep/socialize/reproduce and such.

And if they do, were do they? Outer space? In fact quite a few other species have been known to destroy their own natural habitat in times of ecological unbalance I name but the most obvious namely the great and mighty Elephant, who repeatedly will trample and stomp, eat and romp to the point were everything he needs for survival is either dead or soiled beyond consuming, he then usually moves on and does the same thing in another eco sphere. Several species of birds and insects do this kind of thing as well (it would seem that it could serve some mystical purpose in the greater picture of things). The ‘most evil animal of all’ myth is a little tired, Sure, we’re pretty efficient at what we do, but morally and self destructively we do not stand that much apart from our less verbose cousins.

22

The biological reason I’m an omnivore is because I’m descended from a very long line of ancestors who, if they hadn’t had meat in their diets, probably would not have survived to produce me.

While I certainly agree that production of meat products should be done in as merciful and humanitarian a way as possible, I guess I don’t really care if there’s a moral reason or not to eat such products.

I note though, that things change. Used to be it wasn’t considered immoral to own humans. Used to be acceptable to beat your wife. Used to be that cruelty to animals was of no concern. (Okay, don’t start with me; that’s another thread) Other examples abound.

Someday society as whole could very well agree that meat-eating is immoral. Doubt if it’ll be in my lifetime though.

[offtopic]
As for your OP, you should really learn to phrase your questions more objectively if you want to be taken seriously here. For example: (For demonstration purposes only!)

Should any woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy be forbidden to abort, thus effectively making her a breeding machine and a slave to a fetus?

Or, should any woman be allowed to viciously murder her innocent unborn child, no matter what the circumstances may be?

As Mighty Maximino mentioned, if your question answers itself to your satisfaction, why bother posting it?
[/offtopic]

23

Ah, the Jack T. Chick of Vegetarians!

(To all of the vegetarians of the SDMB, I want to reassure you I don’t hold you responsible for or associate you with the OP).

24

Usually eitheir ‘Mmmm, tasty’ or something related to the conversation over the meal.

First, tell me how you justify the fact that a living, breathing plant was killed for the sole reason of satisfying your hunger? Then tell me how you justify all of the living, breathing animals that are killed in the process of growing your plants (you do know that farmers routinely kill lots of animals, including things like insects, gophers, squirrels, etc.)?

If god doesn’t want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?

25

Well, the assumption that I’m logical and reasonable might be a stretch, but…

Ok, to seriously try to answer your question, it’s partly that, in my culture, cows are eaten and dogs aren’t regularly kicked, so I was raised to accept the eating of cows as acceptable and the kicking of dogs as unacceptable.

However, that being said, I probably couldn’t see myself killing and butchering a cow, which sort of leads into my next reason, which is aesthetic. I don’t like to hurt animals or see animals in pain, and I also don’t believe in gratuitious cruelty. If I were to kick a dog, there would be no real purpose in it other than causing the dog pain. However, if you kill a cow for food, you’re not doing it with the sole purpose of causing pain to the cow…you’re doing it for the food. If someone were to just kill the cow and let it rot, that would be both wasteful and cruel.

An analogy might be…lets say someone has a garden of radishes. You wouldn’t have any problems with the person picking a radish to eat. However, if he pulled up all the radishes and just let them rot, you might find that wasteful and wrong.

26

Cazzle-

That’s interesting. I never really considered allergies as a reason toeat meat, but it does make sense. I’m sorry to hear about your two friends, and it’s sad that many people rush into the “vegetarian thing” quickly, without knowing exactly what they’re doing to their own body.

The whole ““All things kill something else to survive” talk” is all too familiar, and it’s sad that children who get taught that seldom wind up questioning it, later in life. Sure, plants are also killed in during harvest, but anyone would have to admit that harvesting a plant and destroying animals are two completely different things.

But, I do have a question. You said:

“Yes, I do feel as if there are no other acceptable alternatives. I could swap to a vegetarian diet, but I don’t want to and am happy being an omnivore.”

It’s a contridiction. You state that there is no other acceptable alternative to an omnivorous diet, but then follow it up by saying that you could adopt a vegetarian diet, but simply choose not to. So, I suppose it is not acceptable because you don’t want to do it. That’s reasonable. But, it is acceptable in the grand sceme of things. It could be an alternative, if you wanted it to be. And a good one, at that.

27

How so?

28

Key word is acceptable. Switching to a vegetarian diet is possible, but not acceptable to me.

I also said that I don’t feel I could satisfy my nutritional requirements on a vegetarian diet. I feel that I would adversely affect my quality of life by changing to a vegetarian diet. I feel that I don’t have the skills to feed myself properly on a strictly vegetarian diet. I also don’t have the inclination to make the effort to learn more about a way of life that I don’t really want to pursue. These are all reasons why I don’t believe there is an acceptable alternative to my current food habits.

And though childhood indoctrination may be to blame, I firmly believe that a cold hearted disregard for the animals I consume to survive is the only way to go. For me to live, something must die, be it plant or animal. The same thing holds true of every living creature. I know that’s not going to convince you because you so firmly believe that it’s wrong to kill, and there’s nothing wrong with your way of thinking. But as an adult capable of reassessing what I was taught in childhood, I find this one stands up. It may make me squeemish to think of animals being killed, but it makes me feel the same to think of lions and tigers and other carnivores killing in the wild, yet I wouldn’t change them because it’s the way they’re supposed to be.

By any chance do you own a pet? I’m wondering if vegetarians deny themselves the company of a dog or a cat because they don’t want animals killed to feed their pet, or if this somehow falls into a different ethical catagory for them.

29

The “I think mmmmmm, it tastes good” thing is getting old, people.

Myron Van Horowitzski -

Thanks for the advice. I was trying to be good, when I phrased the original post. But, in the future, I shall try harder. I’m still new to the game.

The whole “paradigm shift” that you mentioned. I can only hope that one day we, as a global community, will adopt a plant-based diet. I’m not blaming anyone for eating meat. It’s amazing the guilt that some people have built up, as they immediately jump on the defensive and start “bashing” me. I think they portesteth too much . . .I’m just sincerely curious how people sort it out in their own minds.

As far as I can see, thus far, the issue doesn’t get sorted out too often. Responsibility is often being pushed onto “my ancestors,” or “well, you’re no better because vegetable farmers kill insects.”

I suppose that it could be just a helpless biproduct of one’s society.

Is someone who lives in Texas responsible for the death of death row inmates? Not directly, but if they did feel bad about it, they could express their opinions through voting. Same goes with the meat industry. If you don’t like what it stands for, then don’t buy it. That’s all you can do. I just want people to stop pretending that they have no other choice.

30

What reasons are good enough, if “Humans have done it that way since the dawn of time and are designed for it?” doesn’t measure up?

31

If it’s an In & Out burger, I’m thinking: “Damn, this is one tasty burger”.

I can’t really justify it, but I can take some comfort in knowing that at least I’m not one of those really annoying Veggie-Nazi’s that try to push their views on everyone.

I’m curious - are you a Vegan, or are you one of those “vegetarians” that eats dairy products? The reason I ask is that I always found it hypocritical of those people to chastise others for eating meat. Obviously, it’s more humane to kill an animal and put it out of its misery, than to keep it penned up its whole life just so it can squirt out eggs & milk for so-called “vegetarians” to consume.

32

Although I find your questions a little loaded to say the least, I will try to answer as best I can.

What goes through your mind as you’re eating meat, and/or other animal products?
That it is meat, and it tastes good, or maybe that it doesn’t and it’s a bit fatty. I can’t bear any offal, my preference is to lean, clean meat.

Also, how do you justify the fact that a living, breathing animal was killed for the sole reason of satisfying your hunger, which could obviously be satisfied by a plant-based diet?
Several things:
(a) that animals also eat humans - it’s all nature and part of the food chain thing
(b) that most animals we eat are bred to eat and wouldn’t be there in the first place if we were all vegetarians
© that there is something primeval and natural at the thought of the hunting part of “hunter-gatherer” as well as the gatherer part
(d) that meat is extremely nutritious and it is nearly impossible to get all its nutrients from a plant-based diet (or even if possible, in pre-world-trade days all those plants certainly wouldn’t be growing all in each country) therefore humans are meant to eat meat

In your mind, are animals simply detached from your basic day-to-day ethics and morals?
I am a huge animal lover. I will not suffer the mistreatment of animals if I can prevent it. I will attempt to eat humanely-kept and killed (and preferably organic) animal produce wherever possible. I NEVER buy anything except free-range eggs.

Do you feel guilty?
No.

Do you feel as if there are no other alternatives?
No, but I do not feel those alternatives are particularly viable for my personal lifestyle and personal taste preference. If I was to give up animal produce - and I go for weeks often barely eating any - it would be for health and dietary reasons (allergies/lose weight/avoid growth hormone chemicals) rather than for the ideology of meat=murder.

33

I’ve got just the thing for you.

McFungus and fries.

34

Since my answers to the OP would mirror what many have said already, I will address this:

No. See, regardless what the environmentalists might believe, humans are far from the worst scourge this planet has seen. There is very little that humans can do that can kill the planet, or even cause irreparable harm. Ever heard of the Permian Extinction? The K-T Event? Both were planet-wide disasters on a scale far grander than anything man has yet to even conceive.

And you know what? The earth, and life, recovered. Just as they will from our actions once we’ve killed each other off.

If anything, it is in our own best interest to not ravage the landscape for whatever purpose. But we have no moral obligation to the planet or “environment” to do so.

35

Just curious, Dalmuti… without humans in the picture, what role do you think cows would play in nature? Would they be fierce predators, roaming the wilds in search of weaker animals to pounce on and devour? Would they be fleet herbivores, using cunning pack strategies to avoid being eaten? Or would they be able to exist at all, as a species, without human intervention?

Millenia of animal husbandry have produced animals which are designed, by humans, to best serve human needs. And if we stop needing these animals, they will cease to exist, because we’ll stop breeding them.

Would you prefer to be born, live a short life, then die, having served a purpose, or never have been born at all?

36

Cazzle -

Again, interesting. Thanks for actually taking my question seriously.

I completely agree, as it’s kind of difficult not to, that things must die for other things to live. It is an inherent aspect of the natural world, and it happens countless times in nature, every day. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it should continue to do so. Humans are always praising their own advances, and disassociating themselves from the rest of the animal world. But, we simply refuse to move away from a predatory, omniverous diet.

Sure, throughout history man has eaten meat. But, think about that, and think about all of the other things man has done throughout time. Not everything qualifies as “good,” or “productive.”

It also makes me squeamish to think about a lion, or some other predator, chasing down a gazelle and eating it for lunch. Which is I want to disassociate myself from the human equivalent of such a slaughter - that takes place every day in meat factories all over the world.

What do you think about the environmental consequences of meat production? Moving beyond the actual death of a particular animal, what do you think about the entire system that keeps pork and beef on your plate? Do you feel any sort of moral responsibility to making the system better, or less harmful to the earth?

No, unfortunately, I don’t have a pet. My apartment won’t allow them. But, I’m planning on moving in the near future, and will definitely find both a cat and a dog to adopt. My own values won’t be comprimised, though, as it’s perfectly possible to raise both dogs and cats on strictly plant-based diets.

37

As are your double standards. Numerous people have pointed out that you have to kill plants to eat them, but you have essentially pooh-poohed this argument. Aside from the different environmental factors, I, personally, see no difference.

I agree with you that animal products are not created in an environmentally responsible manner, but your OP did not raise this point at all. It seems to me that you wanted to send non-veggies on a guilt trip, and when you failed, switched your argument.

I personally enjoy the taste of meat and see no need to justify this preference. I am sorry that this is “getting old,” but many many people feel this way. Sorry you disagree.

38

Excuse me Mr/s. Dalmuti. With due respect for your moral standpoint, I being an avid meat eater and an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, would like to request that we two beasts be kept in separate boxes in your collection of nasty things that inhabit planet earth.

Equating omnivores with proponents of the death penalty won’t fly. Not because one is nastier than the other…that’s a matter of opinion as would be apparent by yours and mine. No, you just can’t do that because they deal with diametrically different moral and ethical issues. Meat eating has to do with our right or lack of right to consume other species for purposes of survival. The death penalty is an issue of moral response to members of our own species that have severely trespassed the moral boundaries that we have collectively adopted.

If you want to go down this road I might suggest comparisons to manslaughter in self-defense or warfare as a justified means to ward of aggressors or something along those lines. Not that I think that would be very nice of you, but then again I’m a meat eater.

39

How many animals were killed to provide you with your soybeans?

This isn’t a facetious question. Agriculture neccesarily entails converting natural habitat to farmland. And that means killing the plants that used to live there, which means that the animals who used to live there will die. Sure, some are able to move…but they will have to displace other animals. The net result is that a certain number of animals die.

The thing is, you have as a premise that animals and plants have a different moral status. But I don’t agree. There isn’t an on/off moral status, there is a continuum. Let’s put humans on one end, and rocks on the other end. In between are chimps, dolphins, dogs, elephants, lemurs, cows, chickens, sharks, rats, ladybugs, grasshoppers, oak trees, snails, rosebushes, ferns, flatworms, mold, blue-green algae, botulism bacteria, and rhinoviruses.

At some point we start to assign these creatures a moral status. And the status gets larger and larger, depending on our aesthetics and personal beliefs. But there is no objective measure of the moral status of an organism, it is a subjective measure dreamed up by the human mind. You and I can have different moralities regarding non-human organisms that are equally valid or invalid. Doesn’t make me right, doesn’t make you wrong.

I would guess that you have an agenda here. You wish more people shared your opinion about the moral value of non-human organisms. The way to do that is to get people to examine their premises. Your OP was an attempt to do that. But you also have to examine your own premises, if only because if you understand your own premises you can argue more logically and more convincingly.

You can believe that eating animals is wrong, just because you feel eating animals is wrong. But if you understood WHY you felt that eating animals is wrong you’d perhaps do a better job. It would allow you to avoid making all kinds of mistakes.

For instance, every traditional society in the world has eaten animals, from the Eskimos to the !Kung to the Australian Aborigine. And our pre-human ancestors for millions of years ate animals. So the argument that if people really understood that meat used to be an animal they’d quit eating animals is flawed. For thousands of years people hunted, killed, butchered and ate animals, as up close and personal as you can get. It didn’t stop them from eating animals. But often those people viewed animals as having some sort of moral status. So…animals could have some sort of non-trivial moral status, but that wouldn’t mean that people shouldn’t eat them. Or that the moral status of animals must be rigorously non-contradictory. For example, there is a well known religion that believes it is moral to eat Artiodactyls but immoral to eat Perrisodactyls. Does it make sense? No, but so what? Who said it has to make sense?

40

I’m torn on this in that I loooove beef. Then again I am a great animal lover. I console myself with the fact that my meat came from a supermarket and I didn’t get to know it personally prior to eating it. If someone said to me “Ok, there are no more supermarkets, the only beef you can eat is what you raise and butcher yourself”, I would never eat beef again. Am I a hypocrate? Probably, I’m just being honest with you.

Weird thing is I’ve never eaten venison, veal or lamb. And I hate chicken! (All those little bones… ewwww)

:wink: