Seriously, don’t engage.
Not so seriously, buy and wear some of these.
Also, a predator’s eyes point forward, prey’s are on the side of the head*.
*I have no idea if this is universally true, but it made my Dad laugh when I said it to him in a conversation about why I am not a vegetarian.
He’ll probably come back with dogs bred just to be breeders or targets in dog fighting pits, and how glorious their lives must be for having existed in their short, miserable lives rather than not-existed.
Really, just don’t engage. Tell him to shut up when he gets all high and mighty. People like this just fucking love arguing because they get to show off what they know, and you will never ever argue him out of his position.
It is generally true but of course there are notable exceptions.
Enjoy,
Steven
I may have given y’all the wrong impression. My close friends and I like poking at each other’s pet theories. He does glare a bit at our rare steaks, but doesn’t really criticize unless asked. So, this isn’t a matter if either one of us won’t stop bothering the other; it’s mostly welcome. I simply need better arguments.
But, I do believe he thinks he’s a bit more evolved based on his choice not to eat meat. This is why I want to bring up holes in his superiority (mild at best though). If he were being a complete jerk, we wouldn’t be friends and vice versa.
He probably is a bit more “evolved.” He has pretty much everything on his side. Being a vegetarian means generally less health problems for the person, translating into lower health costs. Vegetarian food production has a lower carbon footprint. The protein argument isn’t horrible, but its possible to get complete nutrition as a vegetarian without meat - its even possible - albeit harder - as a vegan. Particularly since you describe yourself as “practically a carnivore” there aren’t many legs you can stand on that won’t buckle in moments.
The only real ground is “I enjoy meat and am willing to make the sacrifices involved.” Not a huge deal since unless you are a Buddhist monk, you are probably not living close to an ethical life even if you don’t eat meat.
I wouldn’t want to survive as a vegetarian, but they do have the better argument.
Well it depends.
In *Meat: A Benign Extravagance *, the author- Simon Fairlie- shows that meat can indeed be even more sustainable than a 100% vegan production. But not in any way shape or form as much as Americans eat meat. In other words, as a side production, or on marginal land, meat and dairy is a “best use”.
But not so much in the way we currently do it, nor certainly in the amounts we eat.
As an omnivore (albeit one who tries to eat little meat and then mostly fish and poultry) I have to say it is hard to argue against a well reasoned ethical argument for vegetarianism. That said if the crux of his argument rests on “that eating meat is cruel to animals” then the counterargument is “not necessarily.” It is completely possible to raise and slaughter animals humanely. Can he convincingly argue that an animal that lived a satisfying life that was ended before it ever suffered, in a humane manner, is being treated cruelly exclusively because it was bred for the nutritional value and pleasure it provided after such had occurred? Or that such an existence is less preferable than none?
Indeed most meat is not produced in such a manner, but then his problem is not with meat per se, but with common current production methods.
I’d also be curious if he felt it was ethical for a human to own a pet dog or cat, especially one that was not a rescue? Animals often brought into the world to provide pleasure for humans. Sure, treated humanely but they exist solely for our pleasure. Moreover they are fed a non-vegan diet by need; having caused them to exist, or even helping a rescue animal continue to exist, contributes to the death of other animals.
If he likes animals so much, why does he eat all their food?
Meat eaters are unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan because they are unwilling to compromise their quality of life.
Vegetarian/vegan food is typically procured using modern agricultural methods.
Modern agricultural methods kill animals (earthworms, gophers and other critters killed by ploughs and combines and so forth, the dead zone mentioned above, etc.).
It is possible to cultivate one’s own food without using modern agricultural methods that kill animals.
Vegetarians/vegans who don’t cultivate their own food refuse to do so because they are unwilling to compromise their quality of life.
Therefore, a vegetarian/vegan who doesn’t cultivate his/her own food is ethically no better than a meat eater. Probably worse, because they consider killing animals for food to be immoral and unnecessarily do so anyway.
I disagree. You need no arguments.
Even if this is true, why do you care? 
My gf and I both eat meat. I like veal, she chooses not to eat veal. She drinks milk, I do not.
I explained to her that veal is a byproduct of her choice to drink milk. Cows need to reproduce in order for lactation to occur. Female offspring are used as replacements for milk production. Male offspring are essentially useless. They can be raised for meat, but the number produced exceeds need, hence. . .veal!!
So now we eat some veal.
They enjoy crossing swords. Not much different than why people debate such things here. He’s just cheating a little and asking for help. 
I’m interested in this argument because my nine year old daughter is a committed vegetarian for ethnical reasons while I am not. I admire her choice not to eat meat but I admit it can be a pain in the rear sometimes. We have to be careful to make sure that any restaurant or at home meal contains a vegetarian option. I also have to watch her food choices carefully to make sure she’s getting the right nutrients. Fortunately she loves cheese and other dairy products so I’m convinced she’s getting enough calcium for her growing bones.
Does he argue from a touchy-feely “don’t hurt the animals” viewpoint or an environmental-ethical viewpoint? From what I’ve read about the environmental vegetarian point, it’s pretty hard to argue against. The 1st World’s meat consumption/production habits are pretty over the top. Given that 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock (pdf cite, pg. 112), the world would be in big trouble if China and other emerging markets demanded the amount of meat the typical American does. I can’t help but - :dubious: - when I see someone claim to be an environmentalist then eat factory farmed food with every meal…
I type this as I eat a sandwich with bacon, turkey, and ham. :smack:
Just tell him you hear the screams of the vegtables
I can’t check the link at work. If it doesn’t work search “Carrot Juice is Murder”
But as pointed out by someone else’s cite earlier, that is great argument for significantly decreasing world per capita meat consumption, including the sigma outliers like the U.S. (and I have argued that in this thread -beginning post#85 - previously) but not against all meat consumption. Modest meat production could achieved using certain marginal lands environmentally more effectively than agriculture could, and harvesting wild deer and some other game for meat can actually be protective of the environment. The environmental argument is convincing for significant reduction of meat consumption but it does not argue that meat-free is ethically superior to sustainable levels of global meat consumption. I would even argue that personally reducing ones own meat consumption to zero is much less environmentally important than: reducing the largest consumers to a level closer to the world’s mean; figuring out how to slow the rapid per capita increase in meat consumption in countries like China; restricting animal feed production to more marginal lands; and otherwise increasing agricultural efficiencies.
One of these things is significantly more within the control of one person than the others.
“While I understand your ethical objections to meat-eating, you’re forgetting about how you need to fuck off now”.
Said with a smile, of course.
A vegetarian who takes on an attitude of smug superiority does little to convince a big meat eater to reduce to levels more moderate by global standards. A meat eater eating less, choosing to eat less ruminants and more chicken, to occasionally have a meatless meal, and supporting more sustainable agriculture by being willing to spend a buck or so more for food produced that way, is doing more good than a low meat eater going meat free.
I agree with you.
Right now America is doing the equivalent of driving Hummers around and leaving the AC on high all the time when they’re not at home vis a vis meat eating habits. It’s fine if someone personally wants to live off the grid (go vegetarian/vegan), but much more productive to aim for a general reduction in consumption.
