Sort of double-post, but I have an entirely unrelated question…
Does this mean you’ll eat scallops or oysters? Things like that? They have no face.
Human beings are smarter than animals. Animals generally need to hunt and kill to survive. They can hardly set up a farm or make tofu or have an iron pill a day. Humans don’t need to kill for their food in order to live, therefore it is my view that we shouldn’t (a view that I have no interest in forcing other people to adhere to - I’m just answering the thread). Dogs eat their own vomit sometimes, does that mean humans should eat their own vomit because “hey, if an animal can do it, why can’t I?!”
Haha, no, not eating “food with a face” is just an expression I heard to describe vegetarianism that I think sounds funny. I don’t eat any animals, face or no face.
For the record I never ate scallops and oysters back when I did eat meat because I didn’t like the taste or the texture.
I missed what you asked about cats and stuff - I don’t care if a cat is eating meat. I don’t really care if a human other than me is eating meat but the concept of vegetarianism is about humans and meat, not about any other species. I don’t really have a view. Would I prefer it if nothing ever had to die for food and every species lived together in perfect harmony etc. etc.? Sure, but I’m aware this is basically impossible. The only situation in which I would have to worry about cats eating meat is if I were a cat myself.
This is why I stopped telling people that I wouldn’t eat anything that had a face.
I have always thought the phrase was silly. Is it anyone’s real reason for being vegetarian? (I’m vegetarian btw)
The “meat is murder” kind of vegetarian, anyway. It could be a handy shortcut for a certain level of complexity of the creature in question.
I see what you mean. I guess I’ve thought that this shorthand is awfully cutesy description for a rather serious objection.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as to the not eating anything with a face comment.
Speaking of phrasing and terminology, what’s the flip side of ethical vegetarianism? In other words, what’s shorthand for someone who’s vegetarian just because they’re lazy or don’t happen to eat meat for no particular reason (you know, other than a lazy cook)? A lazitarian? Vegelazian?
I’d like to save animals unnecessary pain and suffering, but at the same time, my ethics never had anything to do with my vegetarianism back when I was a full-time vegetarian or even now when I eat meat, but only rarely. Maybe I used to be an unethical vegetarian?
I usually say I’m a “dislikes factory farming” versus “meat is murder” vegetarian/pescatarian/vegequarian.
This more or less sums things up for me as well, right down to constantly working with other vegetarians since they all seem to flock to veterinary medicine. I’m not exactly a vegetarian, but I am slowly moving in that direction due to poor treatment of meat animals. I’ll eat meat occasionally, but every time I do it feels less and less like it’s actually worth the guilt.
If I had the means to raise animals in humane conditions and then slaughter and eat them I don’t think I’d have a problem with it. If I had a local farm that held itself to high ethical standards I’d gladly pay a premium for their meat. Neither of these conditions can be met at the moment, so my meals will continue to lean towards rice, beans, lentils, etc.
Food, Inc. is a great documentary in that it presents many facts I already know, but does so in such a way that I came out of it with a better understanding of the whole picture. It’s been mentioned a few times and I’d absolutely recommend it if you’d like a better understanding of what might prompt someone to give up delicious animal parts. It does a good job of discussing problems in all food industries, and not just meat. Should be available on Netflix instant watch too, if I’m not mistaken.
Hi, Empire State. Welcome to the SDMB! Not sure of your geographic location, but what you can do is locate a local CSA or other supplier of organic produce, check out their website, and from there you can usually find local farms they use. The CSA may deal in meat as well as produce, and you can be sure they only deal with humane farms. Here, I’ve used Irv&Shelley’s Fresh Picks as a resource for where to find local, humanely raised meat. I also got lucky and recently moved about 150 yards from a tiny little wonderful organic grocer called Newleaf. Their stocked meat is all frozen and in small quantity, but comes from local farms (mostly Wisconsin) where the cows are grass-fed and pasture raised from birth to the day of slaughter.
It’s not cheap or very easy, but I’ve come to the conclusion that including meat in my diet should be neither cheap nor easy.
This argument is so puzzling to me, all the more because of its ubiquity.
Lightning strikes kill dozens of people every year. Murderers kill dozens of people every year. Do you feel the same toward both of them?
Probably not, because lightning strikes cannot make moral decisions, and murderers can.
It’s not that silly for “meat is murder” people. If you anthropomorphize the victims, why wouldn’t you the predators?
It’s unnecessary to anthropomorphize animals in order to assign them the status of moral subjects–what a strange idea! We treat infants as moral subjects, even though they cannot make moral decisions, and in doing so, we needn’t pretend that they can make moral decisions.
If being moral means that one pays attention to an entity’s capacity to suffer, it’s not remotely anthropomorphizing to suggest that many nonhuman animals are moral subjects.
Wow, it never even occurred to me that that would be the root of such an argument. Weird.
This is an excellent summary of one of the best cases around for animal rights. I disagree with some aspects of it, but I admit that Regan lays out the case far better than I can lay out my disagreements. The relevant part of the summary:
hijack
<snicker> I just totally confused the phone order person for the soy milk maker I just ordered… they were doing a phone survey of the customers and when asked “How many vegan/vegetarians live in your home” I answered “none”
“None?”
“yup. None”
“why did you buy the soy milk maker, is someone lactose intolerant?”
“Nope.”
“?!”
“We like tofu, and I wanted to be able to make it myself from scratch”
“Um, ok … thanks”
What, you have to be either oriental or vegan/vegetarian to like tofu? Or want to make it yourself? I just like being able to control my ingredient quality. Yes, we like to play with our food at Casa Aru 
Could someone explain the comments that **BigT **and **Left Hand of Dorkness **posted, please? I asked the original Q they’re responding to, but I’m not following the reasoning.
Go ahead, explain it to me like I’m five. Lean over a little, put your hands on your knees, raise your voice half an octave, talk real slow …
Since I eat meat but also think CAFOs are horrific - who wouldn’t? - let’s assume we’re talking about free-range, pasture-raised, humanely slaughtered, organically fed meat, the way it used to be done and is supposed to be done. One of these days I’m gonna raise chickens just like **Empire State **dreams. waves hello to newcomer Do these arguments y’all are raising apply to those hypothetical chickens, which will run around in the sunshine eating bugs and living a happy life until a quick and merciful ending?
Fun fact: In Japan, ordering a dish at a restaurant that includes tofu does *not *ensure that it will not *also *include meat.
Well, you see, when a boy tiger and a girl tiger like each other very much…
Honestly, I’m not quite sure where the confusion is. You seem to suggest that, if you think humans shouldn’t eat meat because to do so is cruel, then to be consistent you shouldn’t think tigers should eat meat, because to do so is cruel. Is that right?
I think that reasoning is flawed, because I don’t think tigers can be cruel. Or if they can, then it’s not cruelty that’s objectionable about people eating meat.
Try a comparison. Do you agree that rape is wrong, and that we should imprison people who rape?
WHen ducks have sex, generally the male rapes the female. In one species of insect, the male has an appendage whose sole function is to clip the female’s wings together so that she cannot escape when he’s mating with her.
Are these rapes wrong? Should we imprison those insects who rape?
If not, what’s the difference?
Of course, Japan is oriental, the other case of stereotypical tofu-eaters considered by aruvqan…