Can of Worms crossover
I don't think it's wrong to eat meat, it's the natural food chain. I've come around to the fact that since we (humans) are so much smarter than most livestock/food stuff animals, agriculture is culturally natural.
How did you reach that conclusion? "Culturally natural" with respect to what culture? I kind of don't get it. That sounds like many of the arguments used to justify slavery in the south. Just the first thing that came to mind...
shit I just had this all typed out and my battery died. dammit.
I just want to mention that if you didn't understand, you could have just asked me. Don't start a personal attack and compare me to a slave trader. I think dialogue is the key here, not squabble.
By "culturally natural" I'm referring to the fact that people are so much smarter than livestock animals. Livestock domestication allows for other elements of our culture to occur, like a sedentary lifestyle. I realize that not all cultures are agricultural, but ours is and that's what I'm referring to. Agriculture is also a more dependable way to obtain food. By domesticating foodsources (like plants or animals) you're not as vulnerable to seasonal fluctuations in food availability. Animal fertility is greater and morality lower when the herd is devoid of predators. So therefore, I think it makes sense that people would domesticate and controll things that they need to survive, i.e. foodstuffs like agricultural crops. We're not a hunter gatherer society in North America (not since the genocide of our aboriginals anyways) and if you live in an area like the northern states or Canada, or Europe, or anywhere without consistently abundant foodsources, you need to domesticate life to live a sedentary lifestyle. If you're eating meat, you'd need to domesticate that too. I think it's natural to eat meat because hey, at the end of the day, we're just really freaking smart animals, and animals eat animals. It's the food chain. Being smarter we've found a way to get at our food whenever we need it, and if you've got a little family farm where your cows can move around and your chickens can actually see the light of day, then good for you. It's the factory farming and industrial farming that sucks balls, and my veganism is a reaction to that industry.Nothing should suffer for your mercedes, not a cow, not a twelve year old in a Chinese sweatshop (and no, I don't think that a cow that lives on a family farm is suffering).
That's a far cry from the slave trade. Africans, Europeans and all the lovely people in between share the same brain size to body ratio ( or encephalization). Animals don't share this with people. We have a higher capacity for intelligence by far. A Sudanese kid has the same potential to do a math problem just as well as a Japanese kid, but a cow can't even read. Exploiting people isn't the same as exploiting animals. A lion exploits it's environment for food, we exploit our environment for food. Exploiting people is a completely different topic altogether, because we're the same species.
1. Editorial: Who the f*** starts a "maybe a can of worms but" thread on the Chit Chat board when there is a News & Debate board. The statement of "maybe a can of worms" means that the original poster KNEW that there was potential for debate. Dude. Figure it out. Four boards.
2.
I don't think it's wrong to eat meat, it's the natural food chain. I've come around to the fact that since we (humans) are so much smarter than most livestock/food stuff animals, agriculture is culturally natural.
How did you reach that conclusion?
I just want to mention that if you didn't understand, you could have just asked me.
She did ask. And she made a comparison, not an attack.
3. But, since you brought it up - one of the arguments in favor of slavery was that slaves weren't as smart. So, your position is that if that were true it would be okay to enslave people. If it's a matter of intelligence, I'm hella smart, so could I enslave people who were less intelligent than me, specifically? Also, animals have different types of intelligence. Dolphins are smarter than humans, supposedly. It would be okay for dolphins to attack us because of that?
Someone who is vegan for health reasons saves just as many animals from ending up on a plate as someone who is vegan for moral reasons.
This is definitely not necessarily the case. A lot of the time, a person who is "vegan" for health reasons, does not take on a vegan lifestyle, but instead focuses solely on a vegan diet. I don't really understand why a person would be "vegan" just for health purposes, AND actually follow a vegan lifestyle. I'm not saying it's not done, it just doesn't really make much sense. If a person is just concerned with the health aspect, why would he/she also be concerned with things such as animal testing?
This is a great point. How can you live out values of compassion and non-violence and NOT be vegan? I know that none of us would discourage a health vegan from their lifestyle, but I would surely try to plant some seeds about the other aspects there too.
Wouldn't that be strict vegetarian instead of vegan?
hence the "vegan"
eta: opening another "can of worms" (decidedly NOT VEGAN)..
if you're vegan, you're vegan..you either ARE or you're NOT..period
you can't be partially vegan..or mostly vegan..
Wouldn't that be strict vegetarian instead of vegan?
hence the "vegan"
eta: opening another "can of worms" (decidedly NOT VEGAN)..
if you're vegan, you're vegan..you either ARE or you're NOT..period
you can't be partially vegan..or mostly vegan..
Here is my question then: If one is dietary-vegan, and does his/her best to buy clothing/shoes/products that do not contain animal products, are they considered vegan? I mean, I do my best, but I still buy foods that have the little "processed in a facility that also processes ____ (milk, egg, etc)" and occasionally I will purchase something that I realize later due to not knowing ingredients well enough, is not necessarily vegan (my flossers are waxed, but to be fair, mom bought them for me). I also find it wasteful to refuse to use something that someone has bought for me (my mom buys me all sorts of stuff and frankly, I'm dependent upon her at this moment in time, so I don't really have room to complain).
So.... what am I?
Here is my question then: If one is dietary-vegan, and does his/her best to buy clothing/shoes/products that do not contain animal products, are they considered vegan? I mean, I do my best, but I still buy foods that have the little "processed in a facility that also processes ____ (milk, egg, etc)" and occasionally I will purchase something that I realize later due to not knowing ingredients well enough, is not necessarily vegan (my flossers are waxed, but to be fair, mom bought them for me). I also find it wasteful to refuse to use something that someone has bought for me (my mom buys me all sorts of stuff and frankly, I'm dependent upon her at this moment in time, so I don't really have room to complain).
So.... what am I?
Honestly, I don't really understand the term "dietary vegan." As vegans, there are obviously the fine line decisions that we all have to make, doing what we think is practical and best, but if a person is a "dietary vegan," is he/she still living a vegan lifestyle..or just not eating meat, dairy, and eggs? It all really comes down to the greater good, and furthering the vegan community's cause, without causing confusion. I mean, if you are out with others eating eggs, meat, whatever...but are known as vegan...that's quite the confusing message. (I'm not saying you do this, just explaining my point)
In terms of not wasting things, a lot of us (vegans) find it difficult to throw out everything non-vegan that we previously owned, but obviously choose to no longer purchase such things. I assume that your mom understand the lifestyle you want to live..so would it be much harder to buy you vegan things? Now that you know about the flossers, you can use them up (and there's always the option of giving things away), and find a vegan alternative. I mean, you know this. :)
I don't think it's wrong to eat meat, it's the natural food chain. I've come around to the fact that since we (humans) are so much smarter than most livestock/food stuff animals, agriculture is culturally natural.
How did you reach that conclusion? "Culturally natural" with respect to what culture? I kind of don't get it. That sounds like many of the arguments used to justify slavery in the south. Just the first thing that came to mind...
shit I just had this all typed out and my battery died. dammit.
I just want to mention that if you didn't understand, you could have just asked me. Don't start a personal attack and compare me to a slave trader. I think dialogue is the key here, not squabble.
By "culturally natural" I'm referring to the fact that people are so much smarter than livestock animals. Livestock domestication allows for other elements of our culture to occur, like a sedentary lifestyle. I realize that not all cultures are agricultural, but ours is and that's what I'm referring to. Agriculture is also a more dependable way to obtain food. By domesticating foodsources (like plants or animals) you're not as vulnerable to seasonal fluctuations in food availability. Animal fertility is greater and morality lower when the herd is devoid of predators. So therefore, I think it makes sense that people would domesticate and controll things that they need to survive, i.e. foodstuffs like agricultural crops. We're not a hunter gatherer society in North America (not since the genocide of our aboriginals anyways) and if you live in an area like the northern states or Canada, or Europe, or anywhere without consistently abundant foodsources, you need to domesticate life to live a sedentary lifestyle. If you're eating meat, you'd need to domesticate that too. I think it's natural to eat meat because hey, at the end of the day, we're just really freaking smart animals, and animals eat animals. It's the food chain. Being smarter we've found a way to get at our food whenever we need it, and if you've got a little family farm where your cows can move around and your chickens can actually see the light of day, then good for you. It's the factory farming and industrial farming that sucks balls, and my veganism is a reaction to that industry.Nothing should suffer for your mercedes, not a cow, not a twelve year old in a Chinese sweatshop (and no, I don't think that a cow that lives on a family farm is suffering).
That's a far cry from the slave trade. Africans, Europeans and all the lovely people in between share the same brain size to body ratio ( or encephalization). Animals don't share this with people. We have a higher capacity for intelligence by far. A Sudanese kid has the same potential to do a math problem just as well as a Japanese kid, but a cow can't even read. Exploiting people isn't the same as exploiting animals. A lion exploits it's environment for food, we exploit our environment for food. Exploiting people is a completely different topic altogether, because we're the same species.
1. Editorial: Who the f*** starts a "maybe a can of worms but" thread on the Chit Chat board when there is a News & Debate board. The statement of "maybe a can of worms" means that the original poster KNEW that there was potential for debate. Dude. Figure it out. Four boards.
2.
I don't think it's wrong to eat meat, it's the natural food chain. I've come around to the fact that since we (humans) are so much smarter than most livestock/food stuff animals, agriculture is culturally natural.
How did you reach that conclusion?
I just want to mention that if you didn't understand, you could have just asked me.
She did ask. And she made a comparison, not an attack.
3. But, since you brought it up - one of the arguments in favor of slavery was that slaves weren't as smart. So, your position is that if that were true it would be okay to enslave people. If it's a matter of intelligence, I'm hella smart, so could I enslave people who were less intelligent than me, specifically? Also, animals have different types of intelligence. Dolphins are smarter than humans, supposedly. It would be okay for dolphins to attack us because of that?
no that isn't the point. there's a big difference between having a 12 ounce brain and a 5 ounce brain. And she didn't ask. She stated that she didn't get it. Instead of saying that she could have said "whoa hey that's unclear, can you explain it?". And when someone tells me that I have the same logic as a slave trader, yeah that's an attack. Calling someone racist is an attack. It's not the same as eating meat, or thinking it's okay to eat meat, it's completely different, and I'm sorry if you feel differently.
So, what is your point? Human brains weigh more, so it's ok to eat animals with lighter brains? I am really quite confused. I mean, that's unclear, can you please explain it?
I think the reasons you go vegan are just as important as the fact that you are vegan.
I don't hold them equally important. In terms of why someone is vegan, I can think of three main reasons: health, the environment, and animal protection.
Whether someone is vegan or not is itself is qualitative. Is honey vegan? Is bone-char-process sugar vegan? If someone wears non-leather/wool shoes but the source of the adhesive is unknown, is that vegan? I think there's a definite threshold of eating animal products and wearing leather or wool, although some would argue that if it's a second-hand garment there's no perpetuation of harm. That said, there are generally agreed upon requisites for vegans.
Thinking back to the slave example, Lincoln's goal when freeing the slaves was to economically cripple the South; it wasn't primarily a humanitarian act. The reason behind the action would be a primary issue to Southern slave owners, it would be a secondary issue to freed slaves. In the metaphor, I suppose that the animals would be like the slaves and vegans would be like the slave owners. So motivation might be a primary interest - that's still tricky.
Let's say someone meets the "vegan" threshold. Is that person less vegan because their concern is their own personal health rather than the altruistic health of animals? Is someone who is concerned with nitrate levels in soil from ag waste so they abstain from all animal products in protest less or more vegan than the health vegan? I think that comes down to qualitative personal preference and the question really can't be answered definitively.
For me, being vegan (not strict vegetarian) is ranked higher in importance than the motivation behind being vegan because with some exceptions people can generally agree on what it is to be vegan, but motivation is murky.
no that isn't the point. there's a big difference between having a 12 ounce brain and a 5 ounce brain. And she didn't ask. She stated that she didn't get it. Instead of saying that she could have said "whoa hey that's unclear, can you explain it?". And when someone tells me that I have the same logic as a slave trader, yeah that's an attack. Calling someone racist is an attack. It's not the same as eating meat, or thinking it's okay to eat meat, it's completely different, and I'm sorry if you feel differently.
Don't be sorry.
This is how I asked. I'm not even gonna go find the quote because I remember it by now. I asked "How did you reach that conclusion? And what do you mean by culturally natural?" or something along those lines. If that is not a "can you explain?" then I don't know what is.
I find enslaving an animal and enslaving a human equally reprehensible. You disagree, and we find ourselves at an impasse. There's not much else to say here.
I never called you a racist. "Hey, you racist!" would be a personal attack. I drew a parallel between racism and speciesism. I do not think you are racist.
I think the reasons you go vegan are just as important as the fact that you are vegan.
I don't hold them equally important. In terms of why someone is vegan, I can think of three main reasons: health, the environment, and animal protection.
For me, being vegan (not strict vegetarian) is ranked higher in importance than the motivation behind being vegan because with some exceptions people can generally agree on what it is to be vegan, but motivation is murky.
You and I are in total disagreement here. Why should it be more important to fit into a definition of veganism than to understand and detest animal suffering? Yeah, a person doesn't eat animal products for health reasons. That's all well and good, keep it up--but in intent and purpose, that person is not part of the larger movement to eliminate animal suffering. Her actions happen to be consistent with that movement, that's all.
Also, I totally don't follow your Lincoln analogy. I tried several times. I iz lost. But intrigued.
And when someone tells me that I have the same logic as a slave trader, yeah that's an attack.
In a lot of debates, when someone is trying to get a point across, they use an example unrealted to the topic, but of which it is reasonable that all parties have some knowledge. Slavery and Nazism are popular for that purpose. It's not the same as calling someone a racist. kmk is well known for having very logical debates. Unless she posts, "You're racist," she's not attacking you - she's debating.
So, what is your point? Human brains weigh more, so it's ok to eat animals with lighter brains? I am really quite confused. I mean, that's unclear, can you please explain it?
If you have a bigger brain, you have a higher capacity for cognitive function. Peroid. It's true that we don't know how animals feel, but we do know how (some) animals process information, and we're capable of doing things that require the brainpower that other animals just don't physically have. We're smarter than what we eat, just like bears and other omnivores. I don't know how else to explain this point.
And fine, if health vegans and environmentalist vegans and whatever other kind of vegan there is whats to use the term, no one can stop them. But then I feel compelled to invent yet ANOTHER term which defines the movement to end animal exploitation as demonstrated by abstinence from animal products. Because that reason is of paramount importance to so many vegans. And I mean, since that's WHY THE TERM VEGAN WAS COINED IN THE FIRST PLACE, it's frustrating.
kmk, I liked my Lincoln example. I'll work on clarifying/rewording/starting over with a better example tomorrow. For now, I'm headed to bed.
So, what is your point? Human brains weigh more, so it's ok to eat animals with lighter brains? I am really quite confused. I mean, that's unclear, can you please explain it?
If you have a bigger brain, you have a higher capacity for cognitive function. Peroid. It's true that we don't know how animals feel, but we do know how (some) animals process information, and we're capable of doing things that require the brainpower that other animals just don't physically have. We're smarter than what we eat, just like bears and other omnivores. I don't know how else to explain this point.
I think the question is, WHY is it OK to eat animals with lighter brains and (presumably) lower capacity for cognitive function? Like, is that in the Bible? Thou shalt only eat creatures who are stupider than thou?
Also, I still think that this definition of "smart" is incredibly narrow. Like I said in an earlier post which I'm not going to rehash, animals surpass humans in a multitude of ways in terms of abilities and different types of intelligence.
no that isn't the point. there's a big difference between having a 12 ounce brain and a 5 ounce brain. And she didn't ask. She stated that she didn't get it. Instead of saying that she could have said "whoa hey that's unclear, can you explain it?". And when someone tells me that I have the same logic as a slave trader, yeah that's an attack. Calling someone racist is an attack. It's not the same as eating meat, or thinking it's okay to eat meat, it's completely different, and I'm sorry if you feel differently.
Don't be sorry.
This is how I asked. I'm not even gonna go find the quote because I remember it by now. I asked "How did you reach that conclusion? And what do you mean by culturally natural?" or something along those lines. If that is not a "can you explain?" then I don't know what is.
I find enslaving an animal and enslaving a human equally reprehensible. You disagree, and we find ourselves at an impasse. There's not much else to say here.
I never called you a racist. "Hey, you racist!" would be a personal attack. I drew a parallel between racism and speciesism. I do not think you are racist.
I think weve agreed to diagree. I never intened to change your mind, just express mine. I do agree that this is game for open debate. When you followed your questions with o by the way that's how people justify the slave trade, I didn't really feel that you gave me a chance to explain myself, and it kinda seemed like you didn't want to. I felt extremely ambushed and like the debate ended right there. Not to meinton that a whole, lets trash Delware's logic thread popped up, and is spreading way to fast for me to keep up with (I don't really spend that much time on my computer). So yeah, feeling a little singled out for thinking differently. Thanks for clearing up that you don't think I"m racist, that helped.
kmk, I liked my Lincoln example. I'll work on clarifying/rewording/starting over with a better example tomorrow. For now, I'm headed to bed.
Please do! It's magnificence is lost on me, that's all. Brain capacity approaching zero.
But that doesn't give you all permission to eat me. ;)
I think weve agreed to diagree. I never intened to change your mind, just express mine. I do agree that this is game for open debate. When you followed your questions with o by the way that's how people justify the slave trade, I didn't really feel that you gave me a chance to explain myself, and it kinda seemed like you didn't want to. I felt extremely ambushed and like the debate ended right there. Not to meinton that a whole, lets trash Delware's logic thread popped up, and is spreading way to fast for me to keep up with (I don't really spend that much time on my computer). So yeah, feeling a little singled out for thinking differently. Thanks for clearing up that you don't think I"m racist, that helped.
No offense, but the debate isn't really about the original poster once it gets going. No one is trying to attack you. I don't discriminate when I debate. I just disagreed with HH and we're pretty tight and tend to agree on most things. I've disagreed with AC more than once. Nothing personal.
So, what is your point? Human brains weigh more, so it's ok to eat animals with lighter brains? I am really quite confused. I mean, that's unclear, can you please explain it?
If you have a bigger brain, you have a higher capacity for cognitive function. Peroid. It's true that we don't know how animals feel, but we do know how (some) animals process information, and we're capable of doing things that require the brainpower that other animals just don't physically have. We're smarter than what we eat, just like bears and other omnivores. I don't know how else to explain this point.
I think the question is, WHY is it OK to eat animals with lighter brains and (presumably) lower capacity for cognitive function? Like, is that in the Bible? Thou shalt only eat creatures who are stupider than thou?
Also, I still think that this definition of "smart" is incredibly narrow. Like I said in an earlier post which I'm not going to rehash, animals surpass humans in a multitude of ways in terms of abilities and different types of intelligence.
I don't know if it's in the bible, I'm not a christian or jew. No wait actually I think it is, beacuse I remember hearing about a american senator (I think he was under.. Cater? I need to google this) that sold off a bunch of national forests because god said man had dominion over nature. In that case, it doesn't include me, being female (o and those old white straight guys writing the bible definetly used "men" exculsively).
It's okay to eat animals (to me) because in nature, many other animals do it. It's natural order.
But I don't think that animals surpass people in intelligence. They know different things because they are exposed to different enviroments and live different lifestyles. I'll admit that birds are WAY better at opening say... nutshells that people. Hands down. But if I lived in an enviroment and all I could eat were nuts, I'd learn how to get at them. Then if I passed that behaviour down to my kids, they'd be better at it than me, and pass their knowledge down to their kids and so on. Conversley, if you rasied a few generations of chimps in captivity, they wouldn't be engineering skyscraper projects, flying planes, et cetera. We have the ability to learn what they do, but they don't have the ability to learn the entirrty of what we can.
Honestly, I don't really understand the term "dietary vegan." As vegans, there are obviously the fine line decisions that we all have to make, doing what we think is practical and best, but if a person is a "dietary vegan," is he/she still living a vegan lifestyle..or just not eating meat, dairy, and eggs? It all really comes down to the greater good, and furthering the vegan community's cause, without causing confusion. I mean, if you are out with others eating eggs, meat, whatever...but are known as vegan...that's quite the confusing message. (I'm not saying you do this, just explaining my point)
In terms of not wasting things, a lot of us (vegans) find it difficult to throw out everything non-vegan that we previously owned, but obviously choose to no longer purchase such things. I assume that your mom understand the lifestyle you want to live..so would it be much harder to buy you vegan things? Now that you know about the flossers, you can use them up (and there's always the option of giving things away), and find a vegan alternative. I mean, you know this. :)
I used the term "dietary vegan" to say that I do not eat things with animal products. Sadly, she is not supportive of my lifestyle choice. She finds it to be "weird" and wishes I would stop it so we could "go out and eat together'. I try to explain that there are plenty of places that we can go out together, but she cannot wrap her head around this. She thinks it is more expensive and "difficult". The only way I was able to get vegan boots when she wanted to buy me Uggs was because I kept pointing out how much cheaper they were and such. She still wanted to buy the damned Uggs. (I got my vegan alternative in the end! yay!).
Anyway, I digress... back to the debating society.
I have been hesitating to post but I have questions.
What definition of vegan is being used here? Is it Donald Watson's?
he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Or one of the other many definitions? Is there a check list somewhere that one most follow to be the "perfect vegan"? Or are we all just going off our own personal beliefs of what a vegan should be and judging others by that?
Please don't get me wrong. I do believe that debate is helpful and indeed necessary for growth and understanding. I just wonder if some basic clarification is needed.
Pages