Growing meat in vast vats (methane gas no longer put into the atmosphere.)

[Solmyr]

I don't know if this really counts as a definitive argument. You're basically saying X is bad, but Y is also bad and Y happens to humans.

If X is being assholes to animals;

and Y is being assholes to humans;

then although both X and Y are bad, Y is worse when the perpetrator is a human and X is worse when the perpetrator is an animal. Reasons being is that both individual humans and animals owe their very existence to the evolution and (in case of humans) civilization of their specie, whereas they don't owe anything to other species.

Moreover, humans can be assholes to each other because of X - i.e. a person can dislike or even hate another person or people, because the latter are perpetrating X. It's hardly anecdotal either, even laws in most countries punish violence against animals (although, strangely, not equally against all animals *recalls Orwell's quote*), punishment being serving time, and since life is a function of time, freedom and consciousness (and a few others, but these three are the major components), humans are being deprived of life because of X - prime example of Y.

More anecdotal evidence of Y can be found on a social level - many condemn violence against animals to the point of brandishing [usually metaphorical] pitchforks and torches.

So unless your point is that all vegetarians are assholes...

Unless there is a direct set of circumstances where being a vegetarian/vegan is actual harming humans at the expense of animals[?] I suppose you could make an argument about job losses but this would imply an immediate cessation of meat eating being the best solution.

I actually do not accuse veg-s of being the primary perpetrators of Y, however there is certainly a high correlation. There are plenty of meat eaters, who hold unjustifiably harsh stances against fellow humans, guilty of X.

Now all that said, I do think the advocacy for stopping X is more compelling when it presents itself with an understanding that Y, Z, Q, etc are also bad and the person doing X may in fact be doing something about those other letters. OTOH, someone working against X may also be working against the other letters as well.

Of course X is a problem, but not nearly as big a problem as Y. X is on a completely different meta level when it comes to problems. Attempting to solve X, before we've solved Y and, more importantly, allowing Y to deepen as a result of fighting against X, is not only counterproductive, it's actually detrimental to our society.

If someone is actively working against all the letters, then kudos to him/her. I'd still advise them to focus on the most important problems first, as one person can also be spread so thin.

[Larry of the Lawn]

If X is being assholes to animals;

and Y is being assholes to humans;

then although both X and Y are bad, Y is worse when the perpetrator is a human and X is worse when the perpetrator is an animal. Reasons being is that both individual humans and animals owe their very existence to the evolution and (in case of humans) civilization of their specie, whereas they don't owe anything to other species.

Moreover, humans can be assholes to each other because of X - i.e. a person can dislike or even hate another person or people, because the latter are perpetrating X. It's hardly anecdotal either, even laws in most countries punish violence against animals (although, strangely, not equally against all animals *recalls Orwell's quote*), punishment being serving time, and since life is a function of time, freedom and consciousness (and a few others, but these three are the major components), humans are being deprived of life because of X - prime example of Y.

Care to unload that one at all? As written it sounds like you're implying that it's worse for humans to be punished for cruelty to animals than it is for humans to be cruel to animals.

[Davrum]

Yep. That's one of the things that makes me so angry and frustrates me when people are arguing against veggies and they say things like "But we're CARNIVORES! Look at our TEETH! It's only NATURAL we eat meat! We're top of the food chain"

:lol: Honestly, this was me too for along time. As a man - and I mean the type of man who builds houses and has hunted and fished and trained in fighters gyms for more than a decade - in my head the fact I eat meat was for a long time tied up with my masculinity. As if the simple and frequently unearned act of consuming another animal was some kind of victory over it. In a way part of me was that Tim The Tool Man "Arrr Arr Arr Arr" kind of doofus.

Funnily enough it was fighters who showed me that being any kind of badass has nothing to do with being a meathead. Initially it was a muay thai fighter (and radio host) by the name of Richie "Hardcore" Steward and then later top level MMA fighters like Jon Fitch, Jake Shields, Mac Danzig and Alex Caceres - all of whom I watched be about as tough as a man can be while living either a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle.

In fact one key moment for me was hearing an interview with one of the all-time great MMA fighters, the Canadian legend Georges St-Pierre, who beat everybody they ever put in front of him. He said that there was always a moment in his fights where he felt his opponent concede to him. Where, even if they didn't actually tap out, they quit mentally. They went into survival mode rather than trying to win mode. And he said the only opponent he ever defeated who he hadn't felt that from was Jon Fitch. Jon Fitch, the vegetarian, could be defeated, but unlike the rest he couldn't be broken.

[Darzin]

What? Why? That's like saying if you can't wade through raw sewage you have no business using a toilet, or if you can't invade and destabilize oil-producing regions in order to leverage a political advantage you have no business using oil-based products.

Personally I think eating meat is a bit more of a moral decision than using a toilet. It's killing a living breathing thing for your sustenance, and if seeing how you get your meat brings you to tears maybe you shouldn't be eating it.

I agree with Solmyr and his letters,it boggles my mind that things like animal charities exist, when people are going hungry and without healthcare. Why would anyone give money to dogs when they could help a person?

[Davrum]

Using a toilet ain't a choice, it's a necessity. Eating meat is a choice, not a necessity. Analogy is broken.

The other one almost works though.

[Larry of the Lawn]

:lol: Honestly, this was me too for along time. As a man - and I mean the type of man who builds houses and has hunted and fished and trained in fighters gyms for more than a decade - in my head the fact I eat meat was for a long time tied up with my masculinity. As if the simple and frequently unearned act of consuming another animal was some kind of victory over it. In a way part of me was that Tim The Tool Man "Arrr Arr Arr Arr" kind of doofus.

Funnily enough it was fighters who showed me that being any kind of badass has nothing to do with being a meathead. Initially I was a muay thai fighter (and radio host) by the name of Richie "Hardcore" Steward and then later top level MMA fighters like Jon Fitch, Jake Shields, Mac Danzig and Alex Caceres - all of whom I watched be about as tough as a man can be while living either a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle.

In fact one key moment for me was hearing an interview with one of the all-time great MMA fighters, the Canadian legend Georges St-Pierre, who beat everybody they ever put in front of him. He said that there was always a moment in his fights where he felt his opponent concede to him. Where, even if they didn't actually tap out, they quit mentally. They went into survival mode rather than trying to win mode. And he said the only opponent he ever defeated who he hadn't felt that from was Jon Fitch.

I believe this is what Bakker calls "the secret of battle: unconquerable belief, indomitable conviction" , but one sologdin once explained in the vegetarian context as "the secret of cattle: unconquerable beef, indomitable victuals."

[felice]

As a lifelong ice cream fiend I can testify that Little Island coconut ice cream, which is dairy-free, is the best ice cream ever created by man.

Ooh, and it's actually available locally; I must check it out. Thanks!

it boggles my mind that things like animal charities exist, when people are going hungry and without healthcare. Why would anyone give money to dogs when they could help a person?

Feeling guilty on behalf of your species when it's humans' fault that animals are suffering?

one sologdin once explained in the vegetarian context as "the secret of cattle: unconquerable beef, indomitable victuals."

Bad cow pun.

[Solmyr]

Care to unload that one at all? As written it sounds like you're implying that it's worse for humans to be punished for cruelty to animals than it is for humans to be cruel to animals.

I don't think there's much to unload - I already covered this in my initial explanation of X and Y.

But to paraphrase - it's worse for humans to be punished by humans for cruelty to animals than it is for humans to be cruel to animals. If the specie that we're being cruel to punishes us, then it's not worse.

[Davrum]

Ooh, and it's actually available locally; I must check it out. Thanks!

I recommend banana flavour.

No wait ... scratch that. I recommend every flavour.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I don't think there's much to unload - I already covered this in my initial explanation of X and Y.

But to paraphrase - it's worse for humans to be punished by humans for cruelty to animals than it is for humans to be cruel to animals. If the specie that we're being cruel to punishes us, then it's not worse.

Thanks for clearing that up. So, just to follow that to it's logical conclusion, it's worse to put someone in jail for beating a dog to death than it is for them to beat the dog to death. Got it.

[Davrum]

I believe this is what Bakker calls "the secret of battle: unconquerable belief, indomitable conviction" , but one sologdin once explained in the vegetarian context as "the secret of cattle: unconquerable beef, indomitable victuals."

I have that very t-shirt.

[Davrum]

Of course X is a problem, but not nearly as big a problem as Y.

The fact that - at least in part because meat production requires so much more in the way of planetary resources than crop production - we use so much more in the way of planetary resources than the planet can sustainably provide shows that X isn't at all separate from Y. That in fact X is absolutely a part of the contribution to Y. The idea that humans should be good to animals only because we "owe" them anything is myopic in the extreme.

Also, if we're calibrating the categorizations such that causing animals unnecessary suffering and death belongs in "being assholes to animals", then causing humans unnecessary suffering and death belongs in the category of "being assholes to humans". Your "[usually metaphorical] pitchforks and torches" need their own category. Something far, far short of being assholes. Something to do with [usually metaphorical] sticks and stones maybe.

[Theda Baratheon]

Oh my GOD - it's not JUST a love of animals thing, lots of vegans and veggies dont have pets and dont claim to love animals anymore than anyone else. It's simply a 'i dont like murder and abuse' thing. To even suggest i should go join some "animal civilization" is fuckin nuts and says more about you Sol and your lack of understanding on this topic. Maybe there are some super extremist vegans who place animal life above human life but THE VAST MAJORITY just respect life in general, human life, animal life - it's all the same. THATS THE POINT - we just dont like abuse or murder of any kind and just happen and if we DONT HAVE TO take part in it, we'd rather not.

Ugh i hate the image of vegans as putting animal life above human life because its so fuckin false. People think vegans in general are violent and confrontational well go to most vegan blogs and most of what you see will be cute pics of animals and yummy vegan recipes. Wow...how militant!!!

[Solmyr]

The fact that - at least in part because meat production requires so much more in the way of planetary resources than crop production - we use so much more in the way of planetary resources than the planet can sustainably provide shows that X isn't at all separate from Y. That in fact X is absolutely a part of the contribution to Y.

I completely agree that meat production is inefficient. Thus if we can produce more meat with fewer resources we should do that. And we've been doing just that in the last few decades, usually at the expense of animal "happiness".

One day we might substitute meat with crops entirely. Long-term wise I am in favour of that. But you can't just do it overnight and not even in the span of a generation. Until there is demand for meat, meat will be harvested. And we ought to be as efficient as possible about it. Meanwhile, if we can work on diversifying non-meat foods so that the demand for meat gradually declines over time, and if that leads to less resource consumption, all the better.

Also, if we're calibrating the categorizations such that causing animals unnecessary suffering and death belongs in "being assholes to animals", then causing humans unnecessary suffering and death belongs in the category of "being assholes to humans". Your "[usually metaphorical] pitchforks and torches" need their own category. Something far, far short of being assholes. Something to do with [usually metaphorical] sticks and stones maybe.

Perhaps I should have elaborated further on the [metaphorical] pitchforks and torches bit, but as it wasn't the core of my argument I avoided the derail.

Those metaphorical pitchforks and torches (MPT) manifest in social disapproval, stigma, shunning and ostracizing. When a critical mass is reached (and it has been), even laws are passed. Those laws, which are already in existence for animal cruelty and etc. are the product of those MPT. Otherwise they wouldn't have existed - unless we have sows and chickens voting our laws that is ;).

The reason why I mentioned the MPT is that social disapproval towards certain degrees of animal cruelty is not yet law, but may become in the very near future. For example, laws about egg production that limit the number of chickens that you can stuff in cages are a recent thing - I actually read an article about the rising prices of eggs in the US a month ago or so. Many countries don't have those yet, but they might in the future, as a result of the MPT.

So, in conclusion, MPT lead to the passing of laws and even though it's the law that is the bigger problem, the source of the problem is the MPT.

ETA: TB, I never addressed my post to anyone in particular, rather I stated that people, who are willing to engage in Y in order to prevent X are betraying their own specie. I have no reason to believe you engage in such behaviour, if you do however, this is your own problem. Not liking animal cruelty is a different thing, I don't like it either. If I could eliminate it without any adverse effects to our society, I would. But I won't engage in Y in order to prevent it.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

I'm friends with a vegan who compares drinking milk with rape. It's over the top and impossible to take seriously. Most I know aren't quite as preachy.

[Solmyr]

I'm friends with a vegan who compares drinking milk with rape. It's over the top and impossible to take seriously. Most I know aren't quite as preachy.

Ask them if they swat flies or spiders. If they answer yes, call them a hypocrite for discriminating animals on the basis of specie ;). If they answer no (highly unlikely), you can escalate to plants and mushrooms - those are living organisms as well.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I completely agree that meat production is inefficient. Thus if we can produce more meat with fewer resources we should do that. And we've been doing just that in the last few decades, usually at the expense of animal "happiness".

One day we might substitute meat with crops entirely. Long-term wise I am in favour of that. But you can't just do it overnight and not even in the span of a generation. Until there is demand for meat, meat will be harvested. And we ought to be as efficient as possible about it. Meanwhile, if we can work on diversifying non-meat foods so that the demand for meat gradually declines over time, and if that leads to less resource consumption, all the better.

Perhaps I should have elaborated further on the [metaphorical] pitchforks and torches bit, but as it wasn't the core of my argument I avoided the derail.

Those metaphorical pitchforks and torches (MPT) manifest in social disapproval, stigma, shunning and ostracizing. When a critical mass is reached (and it has been), even laws are passed. Those laws, which are already in existence for animal cruelty and etc. are the product of those MPT. Otherwise they wouldn't have existed - unless we have sows and chickens voting our laws that is ;).

The reason why I mentioned the MPT is that social disapproval towards certain degrees of animal cruelty is not yet law, but may become in the very near future. For example, laws about egg production that limit the number of chickens that you can stuff in cages are a recent thing - I actually read an article about the rising prices of eggs in the US a month ago or so. Many countries don't have those yet, but they might in the future, as a result of the MPT.

So, in conclusion, MPT lead to the passing of laws and even though it's the law that is the bigger problem, the source of the problem is the MPT.

ETA: TB, I never addressed my post to anyone in particular, rather I stated that people, who are willing to engage in Y in order to prevent X are betraying their own specie. I have no reason to believe you engage in such behaviour, if you do however, this is your own problem. Not liking animal cruelty is a different thing, I don't like it either. If I could eliminate it without any adverse effects to our society, I would. But I won't engage in Y in order to prevent it.

So meat or eggs being more expensive justifies animal cruelty to you, and you'd even encourage it if it made stuff cheaper. Makes your statement about 'not liking animal cruelty' seem kind of hollow if you actually place such a low priority on it. Your whole species traitor thing isn't rooted in any actual logic despite your X and Y equations crap. If anything, encouraging cruelty to animals in the name of efficiency makes you less human.

And I like how you built into your argument the pitchforks and shit so you can claim that anyone who is bothered by your argument is just being irrational and emotional. Garbage rhetoric.

[Solmyr]

So meat or eggs being more expensive justifies animal cruelty to you, and you'd even encourage it if it made stuff cheaper. Makes your statement about 'not liking animal cruelty' seem kind of hollow if you actually place such a low priority on it. Your whole species traitor thing isn't rooted in any actual logic despite your X and Y equations crap. If anything, encouraging cruelty to animals in the name of efficiency makes you less human.

And I like how you built into your argument the pitchforks and shit so you can claim that anyone who is bothered by your argument is just being irrational and emotional. Garbage rhetoric.

How does it make me less human? Since when is being a human being about being nice to other species? Last I checked one of our defining characteristics is our tendency to wipe out entire species and ecosystems in the name of making our lives better.

You are yet to present your own point of view on the matter. So far your only argument is that my argument is false, peppered with snide remarks here and there. I don't see you elaborating on any theses of your own.

[Larry of the Lawn]

How does it make me less human? Since when is being a human being about being nice to other species? Last I checked one of our defining characteristics is our tendency to wipe out entire species and ecosystems in the name of making our lives better.

You are yet to present your own point of view on the matter. So far your only argument is that my argument is false, peppered with snide remarks here and there. I don't see you elaborating on any theses of your own.

Well if you want to boil it down to a moral or ethical argument, we probably don't have much to talk about. Some stuff is just right or wrong, and encouraging abuse in the name of efficiency, for me, is wrong.

As to the part I bolded, it's a blatant example of the is / ought fallacy, pretty much the exact same one that was just pointed out in another thread on the board listed right next to this one that I know you were posting in.* Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean it should be.

Not sure I need a thesis of my own, just pointing out that the one you're advocating is terrible.

edit: *Sorry, I apologize for that, it's in a thread you didn't just post in, I was all confused. But the point about it being a fallacy still stands, but sorry for implying the other stuff about it being just brought up in a thread you were in.

[Solmyr]

Well if you want to boil it down to a moral or ethical argument, we probably don't have much to talk about. Some stuff is just right or wrong, and encouraging abuse in the name of efficiency, for me, is wrong.

Actually most stuff is neither. The fact that society decides something is right or wrong doesn't make it so. It depends on what the end, meta goal is, for both the individual and society. I can accept that your own moral code dictates that animal abuse is wrong, but mine does not. And I have already presented a lengthy case (which I can make indefinitely lengthier, should you require) about why I believe it shouldn't be so. One question I must ask you tho is - where do you draw the line about animal abuse being wrong: cute fluffy animals, mammals, vertebrates, multicellular, all living matter, etc.?

As to the part I bolded, it's a blatant example of the is / ought fallacy, pretty much the exact same one that was just pointed out in another thread on the board listed right next to this one that I know you were posting in. Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean it should be.

Not sure I need a thesis of my own, just pointing out that the one you're advocating is terrible.

I do agree that just because we have wiped out species to make our lives better, it might not be required to do so. But you forget, your initial argument was that not caring about animal cruelty makes me less human. I used historical humankind characteristics to refute this accusation of yours. These characteristics can change (and probably will) in the future and so will the definition of being human.

You obviously have an opinion on the matter, given your vehement pursuit at disproving my argument. The difference is I am not reluctant to disclose my thesis in its entirety - I've thought it through. Kindly do likewise and we'll see if yours has more logical merit.

P.S. Link me the thread (or just say its name in your post edit), now I'm curious, even tho I'm not posting there (I saw your 1st edit).