A few question for Omnivores . . .

Great Debates
141

dalmati-

Say that somehow everybody stops eating meat. What happens to all of the animals? Do you think modern breeds of cattle (descended from centuries of animals bred to be as docile as possible)would be able to survive without people? Do you think anyone would continue to raise these animals if they weren’t getting something for their trouble? What would you think such a society should do with a large population of useless animals?

(Apologies if this is too much of a hijack, but it’s a question I almost always have of morally-superior vegan types. I once asked this of a vegan friend of mine, and the only answer I got was that people “should keep cows as pets.”:rolleyes:)

142

GAH!!! Clearly my coding merits one of these too. :rolleyes:

143

Hmmm… nah. We have a obvious self-interest in ensuring the planet remains habitable, but the rest of your statement remains loaded. More accurately, it’s a forced dichotomy. We can be ethical (by your standards), or we can be dead. Any ground between those two is conveniently ignored.

Even assuming that a moral relationship does exist (I’m not saying it exists, but playing along for the sake of argument), to whom, exactly, would we be accountable? Personally, I feel some sort of “doing enough” level will evolve naturally when the cost of producing meet starts to exceed what people are willing to pay for it. The marketplace will determine the level, not a growing moral awareness. That’s the middle ground this issue will eventually find, between moral absolutism and extinction. Compromises aren’t the best way to settle contentious issues, but they are uniformly the only workable ways.

Incidentally, the seperation of production pollution and consumption morality is best illustrated by this sort of script:

Vegan: Meat production is highly polluting and should be reduced.
Bryan: I agree. People should be encouraged to consume less meat.
Vegan: That’s not enough. We must convince people that it is imoral to eat meat and they should feel guilty for doing so.
Bryan: Huh?

This may not have been your intent, but it’s how the discussion looked to me.

144

Been taking lessons from Ingrid Newkirk, have we?

You know what? One of my aunt’s dearest friends is a Holocaust Survivor. I met the guy. He’s a wonderful, upbeat, kind, gracious human being, who went through a horrible, inhuman ordeal.

To compare THAT to animals in slaughterhouses is way out of line.

As far as pigs and cows eating animal products-no, I don’t support it, it’s a bad idea. But if you disagree with that-because it IS unnatural, you should also disagree with feeding Kitty lettuce, because she can’t survive on lettuce. Don’t you get it?

But don’t you ever, EVER, even dare to compare animals being raised for meat to people who were killed in the Holocaust. If you cannot differentiate between the two, you are in need of some serious help. If you don’t understand why I find that extremely vile, offensive and immoral, you have way more serious issues to worry about than people eating meat.

:mad:

145

And I GAVE you a cite, by the Vegetarian Society of the UK. An organization that PROMOTES vegetarianism
As for your little crack at Cecil, well, may God have mercy on you for the duration of this thread.

146

Don’t bother getting up him for bringing Naziism into his argument; Godwin did that before he started this thread.

147

You made me realise that the Great Dalmation’s statement is frightening. The comparison of farm animals to Mengele’s victims has been made before, by Mengele. By giving other human beings the status of animals, they were able to commit atrocities.
What happens in the reversed situation?

  If the Great Danehoopy truly believes that the life of a chicken is equivalent to that of a human being, it justifes extreme measures. (I am not trying to hijack the thread into an abortion debate. The individuals who commit these crimes are the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe.) There have been instances in which an extreme(and again insane and not representative of the ProLife camp) have murdered doctors to prevent them from performing abortions. If livestock are equivalent to human beings, wouldn't that justify murder.  Hypothetical example- Carl Nivore likes meat. Each year he consumes 60 lbs of beef, and 100 lbs each of poultry and fish. Clearly, a lot of animals die to feed this man. If their lives are truly equivalent to his, why not kill Carl? You ensure that he'll never eat meat again. Vast numbers of animals would be saved. 
       
   You've already admitted to killing spiders. If the spider's life is equivalent to a human's, what would prevent anyone from killing omnivores to save animals?
148

It’s amazing how able everyone is to completelt ignore the discussion, keep dwelling on the veggie cat thing, and just taking low blows at me, personally.

Whether or not I choose to kill a spider has nothing to do with the questions I posed. If fact, all of my questions were not at all related to me. I was looking got other people’s input, and most of what I got were defensive questions asking about my own personal beliefs, which are (or ahould be) completely removed from the discussion. I wasn’t looking for converts. I was looking for a good discussion. But, by trying to be the merry little band of “deconstructionists” you are, you immediately made the discussion turn to me, personally, and just glossed by the serious questions I’ve been repeatedly posting. It’s a good way to waste time, yes. But, not a very efficent way to provoke debate and the growth of your own minds.

If anyone feels like continuing with thoughtful questions, answers, and/or rebuttles, (like some posters have, but unfortuantly it’s been a relatively small percentage) I’ll gladly oblige. But, I’m done talking about the cat. I already apologized for bringing up Nazis. And I’m sick of hearing that meat tastes good. I’m glad that are abel to get enjoyment out of eating meat. But that fact las little to not relavance in a (supposedly) moral debate.

149

Bryan -

Okay. This is good. How is it possible to encourage people to eat less meat? Pretty much every scientific and health group in the country has spoken out against it. Seriously. Most of them are speaking in the context of health, as most of the tests indicate that vegetarians and vegans have much lower chances of getting cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and other ailments.

This seems like the most basic level to try and encourage people to eat less meat. If doctors across the country are telling people “Meat will kill you, you should eat less.” (Exaggeration,) and people aren’t listening? Then how the hell do you get people to listen?

What it all comes down to, I think, is money.

Here’s a table from the book Food Revolution, by John Robbins:

"Amount spent annually by the dairy industry on the “milk mustache” ads: $190 Million

Amound spent annually by MsDonalds advertising its products: $800 Million

Amount spent annually by the National Cancer Institute promoting fruits and vegetables: $1 Million"

So, if people don’t listen to doctors, and they don’t listen to reason, how can anyone get anyone else to listen? With commercials. And unfortunately, McDonalds doesn’t want to advertise the negative environmental effects that it’s beef production is having on the planet.

What to do, then? This is the end point of Capitalism, it seems. When the money of the big corporations just simply can’t be fought, and the corporations are now dictating the common sense of the people.

it seems like the only possible way to fight, then, would be to hit people on a moral level. But, whenever you use morality, there’s a backlash. (Just read over the thread, again.

How would you handle the situation, sice you said that you feel people should be encouraged to eat less meat?

150

It’s not the only thing amazing around here. You started this thread yesterday and you’re already complaining? It’s not like people went digging through your junior high-school essays. You were defending your plan to raise a vegetarian cat as recently as nine hours ago (give or take an hour, with daylight savings time and whatnot). Those meat-eaters among us who like cats (as pets, not snacks) may not be inclined to stop talking about such a cruel idea just because you don’t want to hear it anymore (incidentally, I haven’t mentioned the cat in my last few posts, and this is the last time I plan to do so).

Why do our beliefs have to be defended whle yours do not? Anyone who proposes a moral course of action should be able to back it up. And anyone who suggests people who don’t agree with him should feel guilty is fair game for personal analysis.

Our minds are undergrown? On what basis do you make this statement? Is it that we don’t agree with you?

Well, there isn’t any point asking a bunch of people a question if their collective answers are going to make you sick. Most (if not all) of the people who answered said they enjoyed meat. If the repetition makes you sick, then hopefully you’ll ask more interesting questions in future. And this is only a moral debate to you, since most (if not all) of the respondants decided that there was no moral issue in meat consumption.

If you were honest when you said you were “genuinely curious” way back in the first post, then I daresay you’ve received a firm answer by now, though not the one you wanted to hear.

151

Bryan -

quote:

. It’s a good way to waste time, yes. But, not a very efficent way to provoke debate and the growth of your own minds.

Our minds are undergrown? On what basis do you make this statement? Is it that we don’t agree with you?
I was referring to the “debate” aspect of this thread. I sincerely believe that people came into this debate, and most others it seems, with a firm stance, and no desire whatsoever to take the “other side” seriously. I’ve found many things that other people have said interesting. I’ve even agreed with some of them. I agreed with the cat argument, in the end. That’s fine.

But, no one has even given an ounce of consideration for the other side. It’s great that people don’t agree, but to go into a discussion knowing 100% that there’s no way at all anything else someone says won’t permeate your pre-existing ideas? Just seems futile.

Anyway. I’m interested in what you think about my very last post.

(To be cynical: Everyone may or may not think that I’m cruel for wanting to adopt a cat and feed it vegetarian. Some may hail it as a victory that I said I wouldn’t go through with it. Just so eveyone knows, my future prospective theoretical cat will probably end up, just like the other tens and thousands of cats and dogs that animal shelters have no money to keep, as cattle food. About 10 years ago, cats and dogs from animal shelters were routines used in CAT AND DOG FOOD! But, due to consumer backlash (?!), these poor animals instead wind up as primarily cattle, chicken, and pig feed. So, please don’t forget my poor, poor, prospective future cat, who would have had an exceedigly poor life in a nasty, vegan, household. I’m sure the other option is a much better life for him/her anyways.)

152

Okay, now you’ve got the basis of a useful debate, though you still take “less meat” to mean “no meat” by mentioning vegetarians and vegans. My personal opinion is that Westerners should be encouraged to eat less meat, but if you insist on pushing a vegetarian agenda, you’ll just alientate everyone and accomplish zip.

I’d start with the kids, including some sort of subsidy plans to establish and increase the prevalence of school (and daycare) breakfasts and lunches with balanced meals. Increasing physical fitness levels through larger sports program subsidies would help (though this would increase fitness, not decrease meat consumption). Encouraging genetic engineering research that may allow vegetable products to be offered at lower prices and with longer shelf lives can be a major plus. There are ways a government can sloooowly drive up the price of meat by gradually reducing subsidies or increasing regulation. If the price of meat gets higher, that will provide a major disincentive to many people. Of course, if it gets too high - backlash city.

None of this is going to be cheap, quick or easy, but that’s life.

The problem with convicing people to change on a moral level is that they have to be… well, I’m hesitant to say “stupid”… pliable. If they are pliable because their lives have lacked moral grounding or they are disillusioned with the moral stances of their friend or families then you might be able to influence a moral change. A person who is already pretty happy and content is not likely to be swayed by moral arguments. If anything, they might resent the intrusion of the person making the moral arguments or (in the case of this thread) challenge him until he gets frustrated and starts making Nazi analogies.

Incidentally, pliable people are also prime targets for cult recruiting, so you’d better move quick before the Scientologists grab all the good ones.

153

Bryan -

quote:

. It’s a good way to waste time, yes. But, not a very efficent way to provoke debate and the growth of your own minds.

Our minds are undergrown? On what basis do you make this statement? Is it that we don’t agree with you?
I was referring to the “debate” aspect of this thread. I sincerely believe that people came into this debate, and most others it seems, with a firm stance, and no desire whatsoever to take the “other side” seriously. I’ve found many things that other people have said interesting. I’ve even agreed with some of them. I agreed with the cat argument, in the end. That’s fine.

But, no one has even given an ounce of consideration for the other side. It’s great that people don’t agree, but to go into a discussion knowing 100% that there’s no way at all anything else someone says won’t permeate your pre-existing ideas? Just seems futile.

Anyway. I’m interested in what you think about my very last post.

(To be cynical: Everyone may or may not think that I’m cruel for wanting to adopt a cat and feed it vegetarian. Some may hail it as a victory that I said I wouldn’t go through with it. Just so eveyone knows, my future prospective theoretical cat will probably end up, just like the other tens and thousands of cats and dogs that animal shelters have no money to keep, as cattle food. About 10 years ago, cats and dogs from animal shelters were routines used in CAT AND DOG FOOD! But, due to consumer backlash (?!), these poor animals instead wind up as primarily cattle, chicken, and pig feed. So, please don’t forget my poor, poor, prospective future cat, who would have had an exceedigly poor life in a nasty, vegan, household. I’m sure the other option is a much better life for him/her anyways.)

154

Y’know, this thread is making me hungry for, you guessed it:
MEAT! MEAT! MEAT!

On second thought, maybe just a nice burger.

155

It’ interesting. I agree that more empahsis on physical fitness would be very helpful, if implemented in public schools. What happens, though, is that overweight parents of overweight kids start to complain. School administration can’t just say “well, you’re kid would be doing better if he wasn’t obese,” so they effectively can’t make the changes in the first place.

Raising the price of meat is also a wonderful idea, but Canada annexing the States would happen first. I don’t have a cite, I’m sorry, but I read something that with something like a 6-cent, or 8-cent (something fairly trivial) raise in every fast food burger sold, the lines at slaughterhouses could be slowed down tremendously. Slower lines means much, much better working conditions for the workers. It allows for a much smaller chance of a conscious cow being skinned and torn apart. it also allows for a workers to be more careful while disassembling the animal, wchich would mean a huge drop in the number of intestines and stomachs that are accidentally ruptured diring disassembally, which would effectively provide somewhat (at least a little) meat.

But, as great as that sounds, it’s been tried. Most republican politicians, at least congressmen and governors, get huge campaign donations from the different meat and dairy corporations. Those same politicians are the ones who will insure that the companies will never need to change their systems.

So, this moves beyond the scope of vegetarians and vegans. It goes onto the shoulders of the meat eaters, who continue to patronize these companies who really, like most other companies, are only looking at the figure labelled “profit.”

156

Man, those Scientologists always get to the good people first. To think, we could have had Travolta . . .

157

Mr. Ellis -

I hope you enjoy your burger. I urge you to read the book “Fast Food Nation” by one Michael Schlosser. It is an excellent book, wittily written, and it’s written by an omnivore. It’s an examination of the imact of fast food on our society and culture.

It has no “green” or “veggie” or “hippie” or “animal rights” or “anti-copporation” agenda. He’s an excellent journalist, who was curious about the industry he was giving so much money to. It surprised him, when he went to investigate. The author still eats meat, but he doesn’t eat hamburgers or ground beef any more.

Please, read the book. I highly suggest it.

158

Okay, I’ll pause now for five seconds while I consider going vegan.
.
.
.
I’ll pass, thank you.

I don’t see any real indication that your stance has changed, although your tactics may have, slightly. You’re still yammering on about that stupid cat (for a guy who claims to be sick of talking about it, you sure do talk about it) but you keep invoking morality as a reason to stop eating meat, when it’s clear that you’re finding few, if any, takers. Plus that last rant about pet food is returning to the lame gross-out technique, which didn’t get any encouragement the first time you used it, making me wonder why you thought a second round would help.

All-in-all, you sound more hypocritical than anything else, and annoyed that your big moral stance is not earning you oodles of accolades.

159

Okay, I’ll pause now for five seconds while I consider going vegan.
.
.
.
I’ll pass, thank you.

I don’t see any real indication that your stance has changed, although your tactics may have, slightly. You’re still yammering on about that stupid cat (for a guy who claims to be sick of talking about it, you sure do talk about it) but you keep invoking morality as a reason to stop eating meat, when it’s clear that you’re finding few, if any, takers. Plus that last rant about pet food is returning to the lame gross-out technique, which didn’t get any encouragement the first time you used it, making me wonder why you thought a second round would help.

All-in-all, you sound more hypocritical than anything else, and annoyed that your big moral stance is not earning you oodles of accolades.

160

Bryan -

Okay. Your opinions are interesting.

I’m much more intersted, however, what you have to think about my above post, concerning School Programs, raising the price of meat, and meat industry lobby groups.

I’m not trying to gross anyone out. I’m merely trying to educate people to what really happens, and let them know that they’re way out of line for criticizing me for wanting to get that damn cat. (Considering it’s alternatives.) Okay. I’m officially done speaking of the cat.

Anyway . . .anything to add about schools, lobby groups, or meat-industry funded politicians?