Do you eat meat? Poll # 5

[Sentinel]

This is the 5th poll on this, you can find the past ones here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t20091/index.html) (#1), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t54001/index.html), (#2), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t71026/index26.html) (#3), and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/index.html) (#4). Vote again, and participate in one of the oldest debates on Revleft!

The results from the last poll:



Yes, I have no problems with eating meat 560 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2955) 66.67%
Yes, but I won't buy it (freeganism) 26 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2955) 3.10%
Yes, but only certain types (specify) 80 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2955) 9.52%
No, but I use milk products and eggs (lacto-ovo-veg.) 62 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2955) 7.38%
No, I'm a vegetarian 64 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2955) 7.62%
No, I follow the vegan philosophy and lifestyle 48 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2955) 5.71%

Voters: 840


Feel free to continue any discussions from the last thread in this one.

[Sentinel]

Personally, I follow the LCHF (Low Carb High Fat) diet -- see my thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lchf-t170263/index.html) about it. This means that the vast majority of the things I eat come from the animal kingdom, even though I do eat certain vegetables that grow above the ground (and don't contain as much starch).

A lot of my views have changed since I started posting here, but I'm still as unapologetic a meat eater as ever. Therefore I voted for option 1.

[Ostrinski]

Amen. It just doesn't seem to taste as good if it wasn't once walking and breathing. Voted 1.

[Drosophila]

I don't eat red meat because I don't like it.

[Ostrinski]

Red meat is the reason for my existence.

[NewLeft]

I only eat leaves.

[Q]

I've seen many incarnations of this poll over the years and I can confirm that I still eat meat.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I eat meat here and there and by 'meat' I assume we're talking about beef, chicken, sheep and so on; it's kind of like a luxury to me as mainly my diet consists of noodles, rice, fish, eggs and the like and some dollar menu items at a Macdo though I don't really consider that 'meat.' I'll eat it when I have the money or after I've gone hunting of which I feel like a king for a couple of weeks. I have no moral objections to eating meat but I feel that factory butchery is a bit inhumane and needs to be reformed.

[Left Leanings]

Yes I eat meat (and fish too), of all kinds.

I have experimented with vegetarianism, cos I actually quite enjoy 'veggie' food, and still eat that way sometimes.

I suppose I'm an omnivore :D

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I consume meat and dairy, yes. However, I do so guilty knowing the fact that I contributed towards the systematic slaughter of animals.

[Zav]

I am vegan because of ethical, economic, environmental, health and palatal concerns.

[Niall]

I voted option one because I just like to eat meat

[Blanquist]

I used to eat at least 3 pounds of animal a day. No carbs, I bought vegetables but never ate them.

This went on for many years but then I realized that it was going to catch up with me, and I started eating a really high-fiber diet.

I moved to China and beef was very pricey and very low quality. Even pork now is 82% more expensive then in America and I rarely ate pork preferring quality steaks.

Now I eat a lot of vegetables and have really cut back my meat consumption, eating hardly any beef or pork. I mostly eat seafood, and when I do eat animals it's usually something like ox organs or stomach and things like turtles.

I don't eat any dairy for hygiene reasons. Also avoid eggs.

[Blanquist]

The problem for me was the American supermarket. There really aren't many choices outside beef and pork.

Everything downs the aisle's is processed junk, the same for all those frozen meals.

The choice for me was, beef or different packaging of soy and corn garbage.

Now I have discovered many other foods that I never knew existed. Really, the American supermarket is terrible.

[ParaRevolutionary]

I eat meat and agree with eating meat, we have canines for a reason, were omnivores, meaning we consume both vegetation as well as meat. With that said i think that if we do consume meat that the animals need to be raised and slaughtered in a humane manner, just because an animal is being raised for consumption doesnt not mean it does not deserve a good life.

[garymeyer]

Yes i like the meat i am every time ready to eat it but the bit it must tasty

[garymeyer]

There is no problem with me i am laways eat meat. Is is very energatic for health
Yes i like the meat i am every time ready to eat it but the bit it must tasty

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I'm a carnivore because meat tastes good, and Gandhi tried a vegan diet and almost died.

MAHATMA GANDHI AND 22 COMPANIONS FAIL AS VEGANS : But all attempts were failures. In 1929, Gandhi and 22 companions went on a diet consisting of a limited selection of uncooked plant foods. Whereas the diet worked out well for a time and led to marked improvement in consumptive cases, it failed to prove adequate on a long-range sustenance basis. One by one Gandhi's companions were forced to depart from the diet, and Gandhi himself had to add goat milk to his fare in order to regain health.

"For my companions I have been a blind guide leading the blind," declared Gandhi after the experiment was over. Gandhi still felt, however, that "the hidden possibilities of the innumerable seeds, leaves and fruits" of the earth could be explored and found to provide mankind with adequate nourishment. He never stopped trying to experiment along these lines, but he always had to turn back to goat milk to regain his strength.

In the end he had to acknowledge the necessity for animal food. In 1946 he declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."

These are strong words from a man who devoted most of his life to the search for a satisfactory vegetarian diet. But Gandhi's experience is not unique in the field of nutrition. Many others have also gone through the experience of believing that man could thrive exclusively upon a limited selection of uncooked plant foods, only to find in the end that animal products were necessary for sustenance. ...."

[garymeyer]

Meat is great source of energy and dont ignore the importance of it.

[garymeyer]

Is there any recipe of meat cocking dishe

[Grenzer]

Also an unapologetic meat eater.

I don't care what people like, so long as they keep their vegetarianism to itself. Say no to anti-meat evangelism!

[names_r_hard]

Vegan for reasons that are obvious.


Also an unapologetic meat eater.

I don't care what people like, so long as they keep their vegetarianism to itself. Say no to anti-meat evangelism!

Why do people also feel the need to add this? It should be just assumed but apparently you feel the need to let us know that you think some of us are okay?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I won't eat veal because I think it causes unnecessary suffering for an animal and I've stopped eating fish because of the ridiculously harmful fishing industry that is completely ruining the world's oceans (and, yes, I'm completely aware of the liberal 'consumer power' of this stance but for some reason I've just decided to cut it out of my diet regardless). However, I don't think I could enjoy meals as much if I didn't eat meat regularly, especially with my budget.

[Grenzer]

Why do people also feel the need to add this? It should be just assumed but apparently you feel the need to let us know that you think some of us are okay?

For the same reason you felt the need to add this, more or less.

Vegangelism is a big thing on the left.

[WanderingCactus]

I eat a lot of meat.

all sorts of meat up in here yo

[Psychedelia]

I'm an vegetarian for 1,3 year now its the best dessision i ever made!

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I'm a vegetarian, and once I live on my own, (it's hard enough to be vegetarian with a meat eater), I'll go vegan.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

For the same reason you felt the need to add this, more or less.

Vegangelism is a big thing on the left.

That's pretty funny, I might change my "revolutionary" to vegangelist.

[Crux]

If fish is meat I eat meat. I don't eat red meat or white meat. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

[eyeheartlenin]

I was a vegetarian for years and felt great, but I became anemic, so, on doctor's orders, I started eating chicken, which is the only meat I consume. I still enjoy vegetarian meals, but not exclusively. When I told my office mate I felt guilty about eating chicken, she informed me that chickens have brains the size of peas. That didn't make me feel much better; they are sentient beings, after all.

They don't tell you about anemia, when you embrace vegetarianism.

But I don't think vegetarian vs. carnivorous is a political question; it's a personal decision, and defending (and expanding) the (non-political) realm of the personal is useful, so that we don't all end up in some kind of Oceania or Korean "People's Democratic Republic." Let's hear it for absolute autonomy in personal matters! :)

[Goblin]

I stopped eating meat 5 months ago. Heard that vegetarian diets makes you feel better so i decided to try it out for myself, and yeah it had a very positive effect on my health.

[Caj]

I stopped eating meat for about a year and just started eating it again in the last week.

[Robespierres Neck]

No, I'm a vegetarian.

[NewLeft]

I stopped eating meat for about a year and just started eating it again in the last week.
why did you start again?

[Caj]

why did you start again?

Why not?

[brigadista]

now and again can't afford it regularly - feel healthier not eating it but i like a bit of steak

[fabian]

I'm somewhat an orthopath, I don't consume meat, egg yolks, milk and dairy (except the non-fat ones), chocolate, coconut, olives and olive oil, peanut or peanut butter, or sunflowe or pumpkin seeds and similar; and besides avoiding anything with saturated fats, I also don't eat anything containing rafined sugar, or any chemichal emulgents, conservatns and the like.

Sprouted wheat, sprouted wheat or integral flour bread, oat, beans, other cereal and legumes, in general veggies and fruits- that's basically my diet, I have soy, seitan and non-fat milk when working out.

[Crux]

Oh since people are listing how long as well, I've been veggie for about 8 years now. I did eat a hamburger (which barely passes as meat anyway) a few months ago because I was drunk and the person holding the burger was taunting me saying "yooou can't eat this!". So I snatched it to prove a point.

[wsg1991]

Meat is great source of energy and dont ignore the importance of it.

no meat is a great source of full protein , and fat soluble vitamins ( ex : vitamin D) , protein is not good source of energy

[wsg1991]

my diet consist on low processed food , i eat rarely eat red meat but mostly chicken , eggs and specially fish ( my father sell those )

[KrimsonV]

I've been a lacto-ovo vegetarian for over two years now, and I definitely feel much healthier.

[Comrades Unite!]

Went two weeks being a vegetarian and felt extremely fragile so I reverted back.

[MuscularTophFan]

Morally I'm against murdering anything. However I still eat meat. It's part of nature to eat dead things. If I was dead I would expect my body to be eaten by bugs and wolfs if left out in the woods.

[lenin1988]

Meat is the main part of my diet.

[Quail]

I voted that I "follow the vegan philosophy and lifestyle" although I'm not entirely sure what that means. I'm guessing it just means that I don't wear leather or use animal products for anything other than eating. I've been a vegan for over a year (kind of drifted into it as opposed to making a decision one day) and vegetarian for 3 years.

My reasons are ethical and environmental. I don't want to cause unnecessary suffering to animals; the meat and dairy industries are extremely wasteful and environmentally destructive, and the fishing industry is ruining the ecosystems in the oceans.

I eat mostly beans, pulses, fresh veg, etc. and cook everything from scratch so my diet is generally pretty cheap. It's only expensive not to eat meat in this country if you eat a lot of meat substitutes and vegan junk food.

My health is as good as ever though. Despite having an eating disorder, going veggie didn't suddenly make me malnourished as people seem to expect it to for some reason. I had a vegetarian pregnancy and was told that my iron levels were good when I gave birth. I sometimes take a multivitamin but I try to eat a variety of foods anyway so it's not really necessary.

[Jazzratt]

I eat meat and, obviously, don't find ethical arguments against doing so to be compelling.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A meal without meat is like a day without sunshine.

Apart from a brief period during childhood when my Mum flirted with lacto-ovo-vegetarianism, and various instances such as free food at a vegan festival, I've been omnivorous all my life.


I eat mostly beans, pulses, fresh veg, etc. and cook everything from scratch so my diet is generally pretty cheap. It's only expensive not to eat meat in this country if you eat a lot of meat substitutes and vegan junk food.

Really? Am I the only person in the entire country who finds that fresh vegetables are often the second-biggest expense on the food shopping list after fresh meat?

£1 for two bell peppers, you must be having a laugh Mr Tesco.

[MaximMK]

It is not possible for me to stop eating meat. I dont eat lots of vegetables only few. Meat is what i mainly eat.

[RedHammer]

I eat any meat except pork. Pork is just nasty.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I eat any meat except pork. Pork is just nasty.

Are you mad? It is the flesh of the swine that gives us the most holy of holies, bacon!

May your bottom be pricked by a thousand BBQ forks, heretic! :lol:

[Positivist]

I honestly don't remember the last time I ate a vegetable.

[RedHammer]

Are you mad? It is the flesh of the swine that gives us the most holy of holies, bacon!

May your bottom be pricked by a thousand BBQ forks, heretic!

It's just so...gross, and dirty.
I love BBQ though, as long as it's beef or chicken :D
And lamb....:lol:

[Quail]

Really? Am I the only person in the entire country who finds that fresh vegetables are often the second-biggest expense on the food shopping list after fresh meat?

£1 for two bell peppers, you must be having a laugh Mr Tesco.
Supermarkets can be a bit of a rip off for fresh veg. When I first went to a greengrocer I was really shocked at how much cheaper everything was.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's just so...gross, and dirty.
I love BBQ though, as long as it's beef or chicken :D
And lamb....:lol:

It's really easy to cook pork badly, not to mention that unless you're willing to pay through the nose the quality of the meat can be a bit crap anyway. That's why I tend to prefer swineflesh in the form of sausages, black pudding and bacon.


Supermarkets can be a bit of a rip off for fresh veg. When I first went to a greengrocer I was really shocked at how much cheaper everything was.

Problem is I'm a lazy git and the thought of walking around town with a bunch of shopping makes me think "fuck it, I'll grab some cheap pies and pasties and stuff".

[Le Libérer]

No meat very little dairy. I make an eggplant mushroom meat(less) ball that will make you want to slap your momma!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I like meat.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Love steak...yummy....

Yes was my answer

[The Jay]

I eat meat but not veal. Veal is just fucked up.

[Quail]

I eat meat but not veal. Veal is just fucked up.
Where do you draw the line between fucked up meat and non-fucked up meat?

[The Jay]

There is a difference in my opinion between killing and torture. I'm fine with killing most animals. I'm not a fan of torturing them. If I could afford free-range meat I would buy that over the factory-raised variety.

[Skyhilist]

I'm vegan for both ethical reasons and for health reasons.
These pretty much sum it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS2Yp-UgI0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4

[Quail]

There is a difference in my opinion between killing and torture. I'm fine with killing most animals. I'm not a fan of torturing them. If I could afford free-range meat I would buy that over the factory-raised variety.
I find it hard to get my head around the idea that up to a point, cruelty is okay, but then past that point cruelty is bad.

Say you gave the cruelty involved in different types of meat a number on a scale from 1-10, and beef was rated 5 and veal was rated 9, would there be a particular number where suddenly the amount of cruelty became unacceptable? Say for example anything above a 7. In which case, would a 6.99 be okay but a 7.01 not be? Or would it depend?

[The Jay]

You are positing that killing animals is cruel. You also are probably using a different definition of cruelty. My views on cruelty involve a lot of grey areas. My definition of cruelty takes the mental capacities of both parties into account. It has a lot to do with self-awareness or the capacity for it. Even if the person/animal on the receiving end is smart like a dog, killing one is not cruel, only it's torture. If, however, the dog would have been tortured that would be cruel.

Another example would be that I could consider chimps and dolphins as persons or person-like. This means that I would not consider eating or killing one if my life did not depend on it.

Another assumption that you made is that free-range cattle are treated cruelly in all cases. I do not agree.

Frankly, I developed these views when considering the abortion issue.

[Quail]

You are positing that killing animals is cruel. You also are probably using a different definition of cruelty. My views on cruelty involve a lot of grey areas. My definition of cruelty takes the mental capacities of both parties into account. It has a lot to do with self-awareness or the capacity for it. Even if the person/animal on the receiving end is smart like a dog, killing one is not cruel, only it's torture. If, however, the dog would have been tortured that would be cruel.

Another example would be that I could consider chimps and dolphins as persons or person-like. This means that I would not consider eating or killing one if my life did not depend on it.

Another assumption that you made is that free-range cattle are treated cruelly in all cases. I do not agree.

Frankly, I developed these views when considering the abortion issue.

Well here's a dictionary definition of cruelty:


1. Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.
2. Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal.Killing an animal definitely fits into this definition because it causes the animal pain and suffering. Killing an animal for food is cruel, but also unnecessary in a lot of cases. Most people eat meat for pleasure, not for survival.

So with that in mind, why is a short period of pain and suffering not cruel (i.e. when you kill an animal), but a longer period of pain and suffering (i.e. torture) is cruel and unacceptable? How long must the suffering go on for you to consider it cruel and unacceptable?


Edit: Wait a second...

Even if the person/animal on the receiving end is smart like a dog, killing one is not cruel
So it's not cruel to kill a person either?

[The Jay]

Well here's a dictionary definition of cruelty:
Killing an animal definitely fits into this definition because it causes the animal pain and suffering. Killing an animal for food is cruel, but also unnecessary in a lot of cases. Most people eat meat for pleasure, not for survival.

It depends on what you call callous indifference. I would say that killing for a purpose is not necessarily callous indifference as it depends on the situation and motive. Causing pain for pain's sake is torture and wrong in my opinion.



So with that in mind, why is a short period of pain and suffering not cruel (i.e. when you kill an animal), but a longer period of pain and suffering (i.e. torture) is cruel and unacceptable? How long must the suffering go on for you to consider it cruel and unacceptable?
It depends on motive as indicated by the very definition that you provided. The interpretation of the validity of that motive is another manner entirely. Torture requires cruelty, killing does not.


Edit: Wait a second...

So it's not cruel to kill a person either?Again, it depends on the motive. Killing a person in self-defence is not cruel if that is what is required. Killing to satisfy a sadistic need is.

[human strike]

Freegan.

[Quail]

It depends on what you call callous indifference. I would say that killing for a purpose is not necessarily callous indifference as it depends on the situation and motive. Causing pain for pain's sake is torture and wrong in my opinion.

When animals are killed for food, a lot of the time it's possible to get nutrition from elsewhere, so this "purpose" isn't necessary. This means that animals suffer and die for people's pleasure rather than any necessary purpose. So the way I see that situation is that people cause animals unnecessary pain and suffering for their pleasure. They might not be directly taking pleasure in the animals' suffering, but they are taking pleasure in consuming a product that could not exist without making animals suffer. Causing pain for your own pleasure seems pretty cruel to me.

[The Jay]

When animals are killed for food, a lot of the time it's possible to get nutrition from elsewhere, so this "purpose" isn't necessary.

It would be good for you to expand on this, but I agree that people can survive without meat. The question of optimal health is different from survival though.


This means that animals suffer and die for people's pleasure rather than any necessary purpose.


I agree that they die, but do not support the suffering. A bullet to the head doesn't allow for pain. Without pain there is no suffering. Without suffering the issue boils down to the value of different kinds of life.



So the way I see that situation is that people cause animals unnecessary pain and suffering for their pleasure. They might not be directly taking pleasure in the animals' suffering, but they are taking pleasure in consuming a product that could not exist without making animals suffer.

This pain and suffering is the point of contention, not a given.


Causing pain for your own pleasure seems pretty cruel to me.

See above.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't know why anyone would eat meat, it's unhealthy, promotes cruelty (factory farmed meat), and is a waste of resources.

[Caj]

I don't know why anyone would eat meat, it's unhealthy, promotes cruelty (factory farmed meat), and is a waste of resources.

Because it's delicious! :drool:

[cynicles]

Meat is awesome when eaten properly, especially some young lamb at teh perfect tenderness in a curry. mmmmmmmmm

[RedHammer]

I find it hard to get my head around the idea that up to a point, cruelty is okay, but then past that point cruelty is bad.


You can't eat without killing something. Fruits and vegetables are living things, too, you know.

So, that being the case, what standard separates animals from fruits and vegetables? That would be the existence of a nervous system in animals, and therefore the ability to feel pain.

It is, therefore, not the act of killing animals for food that is cruel, but the act of inflicting pain upon them that is cruel. And I agree: we should treat them humanely and we should have painless methods of slaughter.

Then the question arises: by what standards do we separate cattle from, say, human beings as viable meat? I think the standard is the existence of self-awareness and consciousness on the part of human beings and a few other creatures. Chickens probably don't know what's going on half the time.

I don't have an ethical problem with eating meat, but if we can grow meat without the need for livestock, that would be the ideal situation. Some scientists are researching that.

[The Jay]

You can't eat without killing something. Fruits and vegetables are living things, too, you know.

So, that being the case, what standard separates animals from fruits and vegetables? That would be the existence of a nervous system in animals, and therefore the ability to feel pain.

It is, therefore, not the act of killing animals for food that is cruel, but the act of inflicting pain upon them that is cruel. And I agree: we should treat them humanely and we should have painless methods of slaughter.

Then the question arises: by what standards do we separate cattle from, say, human beings as viable meat? I think the standard is the existence of self-awareness and consciousness on the part of human beings and a few other creatures. Chickens probably don't know what's going on half the time.

I don't have an ethical problem with eating meat, but if we can grow meat without the need for livestock, that would be the ideal situation. Some scientists are researching that.


This is exactly what I was saying.

[Jazzratt]

I'm a meat eater and I don't get the mental gymnastics people go through to avoid "cruel" meat. I don't think animals are entities that should be given the same consideration as sapients when discussing morality. Soi dissant "cruel" meat is often cheaper whilst being just as nutritious.

[RedHammer]

I'm a meat eater and I don't get the mental gymnastics people go through to avoid "cruel" meat. I don't think animals are entities that should be given the same consideration as sapients when discussing morality. Soi dissant "cruel" meat is often cheaper whilst being just as nutritious.

What about the more intelligent animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees?

I'm a meat eater too, but unnecessary cruelty and suffering on the part of an animals is not right. I think, "What if an advanced extra-terrestrial species viewed human beings as food and farmed and slaughtered us?"

[Rafiq]

Fuck picky diets.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Jazzratt]

What about the more intelligent animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees?I'll agree that it gets slightly more fuzzy there. However it's worth noting in the case of chimpanzees that there is often need to treat them in ways some would call "cruel*" in order to advance out own learning - their genetic similarity to us makes them too useful as test subjects to avoid doing things which may harm them.


I'm a meat eater too, but unnecessary cruelty and suffering on the part of an animals is not right.Unnecessary cruelty is someone kicking dogs about for fun or setting kittens on fire. I think that it demonstrates a certain level of callousness and an empathy shortfall that indicates a person could be dangerous - it should be censured on those grounds. I do not think that conditions imposed on animals in order to make their meat/offal/other products more delicious (like foie gras or veal) or more cheap (like battery farming) is ipso facto unnecessary.


I think, "What if an advanced extra-terrestrial species viewed human beings as food and farmed and slaughtered us?" My morality is anthropocentric. I would obviously object to that treatment, although the aliens' point of view is understandable and if there was such a gulf between us that it would be literally impossible to communicate our objections or meaningfully fight them then it would probably be a moot point.

*It should be noted that when animals are tested on every effort is made to ensure their comfort outside of whatever test conditions have to be imposed on them.

[Quail]

It would be good for you to expand on this, but I agree that people can survive without meat. The question of optimal health is different from survival though.

Eating a lot of red/processed meat is associated with a variety of illnesses. A vegetarian diet is likely to be higher in fibre so good for digestion and contain a wider variety of fruit and vegetables. My diet is a lot better than it used to be, perhaps because I'm more aware of what goes into food now and I cook everything from scratch.


I agree that they die, but do not support the suffering. A bullet to the head doesn't allow for pain. Without pain there is no suffering. Without suffering the issue boils down to the value of different kinds of life.

Well first off, I don't think an animal can die without suffering unless it is killed entirely painlessly without any prior warning, which doesn't happen. Animals in slaughterhouses are not stupid; they know what's coming and they don't want to die. Suffering doesn't have to be physical. For example cows mourn for their calves when they're taken away so that we can take their milk. Besides, I don't know if a bullet to the head is painless. The pain would probably be short-lived, unless the person doing the shooting messed up and just blew the animal's face off (this happens to people trying to commit suicide).

There's also the life that the animals live. Currently welfare standards don't really mean that much. Even supposed free-range animals can legally be kept inside in small enclosures for a proportion of their lives. I can't imagine that being sold at a market or being transported is very pleasant for the animals either. The animals that are farmed for meat now have been specially bred so that they grow very quickly, so even if they are on a farm which has a better standard of welfare and they're allowed to live longer before being slaughtered, they may still experience health problems because they grow too quickly for their bodies to keep up.

One of the problems with higher-welfare animal products is that the better life the animal has, the more resources they waste. For example, organic chickens by regulations have to live longer than normal chickens before they're slaughtered, which means the animals drink more water and eat more food. This is a problem if you care about the welfare of animals and the state of the environment. Diets high in animal products use far more water than plant-based diets and crops that could feed humans are fed to animals and a high percentage of the energy from those crops is wasted by the animals instead of being converted into food. If higher-welfare products are even more wasteful then if you want to protect the environment and be kind to animals (ignoring the fact that you don't think slaughtering animals is unkind) then the only options are to greatly reduce your intake of animal products to reduce the extra waste or stop eating them.


You can't eat without killing something. Fruits and vegetables are living things, too, you know.

So, that being the case, what standard separates animals from fruits and vegetables? That would be the existence of a nervous system in animals, and therefore the ability to feel pain.

It is, therefore, not the act of killing animals for food that is cruel, but the act of inflicting pain upon them that is cruel. And I agree: we should treat them humanely and we should have painless methods of slaughter.

I don't know why people always bring up fruit and vegetables, but anyway. Plants aren't sentient (or have a very low level of sentience compared to most animals). It wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view for plants to suffer when we pick their fruit either, since a lot of plants rely on animals picking their fruit and transporting the seeds elsewhere for reproduction.



Then the question arises: by what standards do we separate cattle from, say, human beings as viable meat? I think the standard is the existence of self-awareness and consciousness on the part of human beings and a few other creatures. Chickens probably don't know what's going on half the time.
I think animals are more aware than people give them credit for. I read an article a while ago which said there was evidence that chickens could experience empathy, for example. A lot of animals show quite complex behaviour. For example dogs who have been abused might fear people who look like their abuser. Animals show emotions too and experience fear.


I don't have an ethical problem with eating meat, but if we can grow meat without the need for livestock, that would be the ideal situation. Some scientists are researching that.
If you don't have any problem with meat, why would it matter how it was produced?

[The Jay]

Eating a lot of red/processed meat is associated with a variety of illnesses. A vegetarian diet is likely to be higher in fibre so good for digestion and contain a wider variety of fruit and vegetables. My diet is a lot better than it used to be, perhaps because I'm more aware of what goes into food now and I cook everything from scratch.[QUOTE]

That's not necessarily true.


[QUOTE]Well first off, I don't think an animal can die without suffering unless it is killed entirely painlessly without any prior warning, which doesn't happen.Animals in slaughterhouses are not stupid; they know what's coming and they don't want to die.Proof please. Mooing cows in a factory don't count, since I already disapprove of how they do things, which I clearly stated before.


Suffering doesn't have to be physical. For example cows mourn for their calves when they're taken away so that we can take their milk. Besides, I don't know if a bullet to the head is painless. The pain would probably be short-lived, unless the person doing the shooting messed up and just blew the animal's face off (this happens to people trying to commit suicide).
You keep ignoring the distinction between suffering and pain and seem to refuse to talk about it. I doubt that the cow would have time to be psychologically distressed if a farmer simply took it to the side and shot it in the head. The rest of the last quote is simply a critique of farming practice and speculation of a mistake.


Currently welfare standards don't really mean that much. I can't imagine that being sold at a market or being transported is very pleasant for the animals either. The animals that are farmed for meat now have been specially bred so that they grow very quickly, so even if they are on a farm which has a better standard of welfare and they're allowed to live longer before being slaughtered, they may still experience health problems because they grow too quickly for their bodies to keep up.I don't like that either. People don't need to eat that much meat, but should have the option. I support raising the standard of living (right words?) for animals being raised for slaughter.


This is a problem if you care about the welfare of animals and the state of the environment. I wasn't arguing that it was environmentally friendly.

[teflon_john]

low carb high fat for life. i stay eatin' hella meat all day.

[smellincoffee]

My ancestors evolved to chow down on baby monkeys, and by god I'm not going to question the wisdom of millions of generations of eating.

[Igor]

Voted freegan even though it doesn't really fit. But I pretty much exclusively cook vegetarian, and but when I'm eating out I'm not that strict about stuff, nor do I refuse meat dishes when they're offered. It's not really a big ethical question for me, eating primarily veggie is just something I prefer to do for many reasons; more health and ecological questions and affordability than animal rights.

[leaveuskidsalone]

I'm a vegan. I really really don't think humans need to eat meat and dairy at all, but I guess it just tastes too damn good for some. I don't have a problem with anyone that eats it though, I'm a vegan more for health, environmental and political reasons rather than ethical (there is compassion for the animals, of course, but it's definitely not my driving motivation).

[John Lennin]

I eat meat, but i avoid eating "industrial produced" animals.

[VDS]

Recently I've given up red meat and pork altogether. I've cut down on my consumption of chicken and fish as well, trying to eat poultry if I can find free range chickens or something of the sort.

Reasons are part ethical, part health reasons.

[xcore777]

I am a vegan. It's healthier for both humans and animals.

[one10]

I am a vegan. It's healthier for both humans and animals.

Medical studies actually show that Vegans are prone to suffer from Vitman B12 deficiency. Being vegetarian may be healthier, but vegan certainly isn't.

I was once a vegan, purely based on ethical reasons. Since then, I've become a meat eater. I avoid red meat and pork, but if offered, I won't refuse it. I try to incorporate as many vegetables and fruits into my diet as well.

I blame capitalism and some religions for the unethical treatment of animals. Capitalism because billions of animals are slaughtered yearly strictly for profit, this results in plenty of slain animals that are never consumed, not to mention the harsh conditions that they are farmed under.

Religion because some religions teach man that he is above nature and animals. This results in people viewing animals as nothing but objects put on Earth by their god for the purpose of serving them.

What I'm implying is that a Socialist society that promotes state atheism would be healthier for humans and animals.

[VDS]

Medical studies actually show that Vegans are prone to suffer from Vitman B12 deficiency. Being vegetarian may be healthier, but vegan certainly isn't.

I was once a vegan, purely based on ethical reasons. Since then, I've become a meat eater. I avoid red meat and pork, but if offered, I won't refuse it. I try to incorporate as many vegetables and fruits into my diet as well.

I blame capitalism and some religions for the unethical treatment of animals. Capitalism because billions of animals are slaughtered yearly strictly for profit, this results in plenty of slain animals that are never consumed, not to mention the harsh conditions that they are farmed under.

Religion because some religions teach man that he is above nature and animals. This results in people viewing animals as nothing but objects put on Earth by their god for the purpose of serving them.

What I'm implying is that a Socialist society that promotes state atheism would be healthier for humans and animals.

You can't blame religion if atheists themselves see themselves above animals and are anthropocentric.

Moreover a Socialist Society need not get involved in religion. What it needs to do is set the clear boundaries and assure that there's no merging of religion and state (though in an actual socialist/communist society, there's no actual state). To get the establishment involved is arrogant as the existence of a god (or gods) can be neither proved or disproved. The state sponsoring atheism is as arrogant as the state sponsoring any particular religion. Any society should focus its attention elsewhere.

But that's a discussion for another thread. To further expand on the question of eating meat. I'm undecided if I'll continue to cut out meat more and more from my diet, or if I'll stick to no Red Meat/Pork but will continue to eat Poultry/Fish. For health reasons, red mean/pork make sense, as well as for ethical reasons, but I haven't researched the subject enough to come to a final conclusion on whether or not I'll still eat poultry/fish or not.

[Asmo]

Medical studies actually show that Vegans are prone to suffer from Vitman B12 deficiency. Being vegetarian may be healthier, but vegan certainly isn't.

People who eat meat are prone to have high cholesterol levels. This is because most people don't eat healthily, not because that class of diet is unhealthy. There are some plant-based foods with active B12 in them, and B12 harvested from bacteria cultures is often used to fortify vegan-friendly foods. If I recall correctly the necessity of B12 has only been known for a few decades, and those studies are a bit old. Regardless, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about being vegan. It is a bit harder than being an omnivore, but it makes you pay attention to what you eat.
I've been vegan for a bit over two years now. I was vegetarian before that but switched for my health, environmental reasons, and because milk, eggs, and cheese are gross (in my opinion, of course). I don't have a problem with people eating animal products, especially if they produce them themselves because the preservatives and other chemicals used in processed food are quite often bad for the body and a skilled hand with a pistol is a lot less cruel than meat factories. I do have issues with factory farming and sport hunting, but other than that I say do what you want and enjoy all the delicious food! :)

[Fourth Internationalist]

Medical studies actually show that Vegans are prone to suffer from Vitman B12 deficiency. Being vegetarian may be healthier, but vegan certainly isn't.

This is a common argument presented in the veganism vs omnivorism debate, usually to say, "Veganism is unnatural!" or "Veganism is not healthy!" First off, I'd like to say that a B12 supplement is a necessity. That way, vegans are healthy. So no, veganism is not less healthy (I'd say it's healthier but that's a whole different subject). But if we need supplements to be healthy vegans, wouldn't it mean veganism is unnatural? Nope! B12 is a vitamin from bacteria. That's how herbivores, such as cows, obtain B12. Of course, they don't wash, clean, or cook their food. That leaves tons of bacteria for them. Plus, they aren't exactly good with sanitary practices, too, which also causes lots of ingestion of bacteria. If humans, in a natural setting, were to go on a vegan diet, provided that they eat enough other food, could get their B12 without eating animal products. Unfortunately, in our sanitary life-styles, B12 is a necessity for vegans, and even many non-vegans (vegetarians and meat-eaters) aren't getting enough, especially after the age of 50 or if you're pregnant, whether or not you eat meat.

[one10]

This is a common argument presented in the veganism vs omnivorism debate, usually to say, "Veganism is unnatural!" or "Veganism is not healthy!" First off, I'd like to say that a B12 supplement is a necessity. That way, vegans are healthy. So no, veganism is not less healthy (I'd say it's healthier but that's a whole different subject). But if we need supplements to be healthy vegans, wouldn't it mean veganism is unnatural? Nope! B12 is a vitamin from bacteria. That's how herbivores, such as cows, obtain B12. Of course, they don't wash, clean, or cook their food. That leaves tons of bacteria for them. Plus, they aren't exactly good with sanitary practices, too, which also causes lots of ingestion of bacteria. If humans, in a natural setting, were to go on a vegan diet, provided that they eat enough other food, could get their B12 without eating animal products. Unfortunately, in our sanitary life-styles, B12 is a necessity for vegans, and even many non-vegans (vegetarians and meat-eaters) aren't getting enough, especially after the age of 50 or if you're pregnant, whether or not you eat meat.

I'll support anyone who is vegan on the basis of ethics (I've been there), but not health.

A well balanced diet is the best way to go if you want to be healthy. When I was Vegan, I had to rely on products such as tofu, soy milk, and other soy based products for certain supplements, products which in fact aren't natural.

I'm not arguing against veganism, I see nothing wrong with making such a lifestyle change, I just acknowledge that it is not healthier than eating what you are naturally supposed to be eating.

[Quail]

It depends what you mean by "natural." There are lots of things that are good for us that aren't "natural" (such as vaccines, for example), so I don't think that is really a valid argument. Really, as long as you're getting all the nutrients you need, it doesn't matter where they come from, you're going to be healthy.

[slum]

only meat i eat is fish

because they don't have any feelings

[Quail]

only meat i eat is fish

because they don't have any feelings
I knew what that spoiler tag was going to say.

[bcbm]

only meat i eat is fish

because they don't have any feelings

chickens never struck me as especially sensitive

[Zukunftsmusik]

only meat i eat is fish

because they don't have any feelings

they do, though, despite what Kurt Cobain might have said

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

These last few posts remind me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV4Jl0Q-beE

[slum]

oddly enough fish are the only animal i've ever caught, cleaned and eaten so yeah i am familiar with their death throes

but i can eat them and not other animals, idgi

have you ever seen a panicked chicken tho? it's heart wrenching. all that fear in so stupid and helpless a mind.

[Fourth Internationalist]

A well balanced diet is the best way to go if you want to be healthy.

Great, so go on a well-balanced vegan diet! :laugh:


When I was Vegan, I had to rely on products such as tofu, soy milk, and other soy based products for certain supplements, products which in fact aren't natural.Why did you each so much processed foods? Why didn't you eat a wide variety of healthy foods to create a well-balanced vegan diet?


I'm not arguing against veganism, I see nothing wrong with making such a lifestyle change, I just acknowledge that it is not healthier than eating what you are naturally supposed to be eating.A vegan diet and a non-vegan diet are such broad terms that to say one is healthier than the other isn't, well, a smart thing to do. Mr Non-Vegan over here, for example, can eat 95% fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, with some meat and junk food, whereas Mr Vegan can eat tons of processed mock-meats and junk food. However, Mr Vegan could eat tons of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains with little to no junk food while Mr Non-Vegan can eat a standard western/American diet (SWD or SAD).

How do we determine what we are 'naturally supposed to be eating'? Diets, even non-vegan ones, vary greatly from one another, sometimes with little of the same food, but both provide the nutrients required. Which foods are we supposed to eat to fit the 'natural' category? No one, at least in the First World, is on a diet with purely natural foods, nor are they living in a world where everything is 'natural'. Nor does 'natural' always equal good. Often, it's quite the contrary. Many 'unnatural' things are good for us. Nor is veganism necessarily 'unnatural'. While vegan diets, along with all others being practiced right now in the First World, are not currently 'natural', that does not mean they can't be 'natural' (though impossible to do in developed countries). What matters is what is in the diet itself, rather than just the lack or addition of a certain type of food(s).

[VDS]

I'm a carnivore because meat tastes good, and Gandhi tried a vegan diet and almost died.

MAHATMA GANDHI AND 22 COMPANIONS FAIL AS VEGANS : But all attempts were failures. In 1929, Gandhi and 22 companions went on a diet consisting of a limited selection of uncooked plant foods. Whereas the diet worked out well for a time and led to marked improvement in consumptive cases, it failed to prove adequate on a long-range sustenance basis. One by one Gandhi's companions were forced to depart from the diet, and Gandhi himself had to add goat milk to his fare in order to regain health.

"For my companions I have been a blind guide leading the blind," declared Gandhi after the experiment was over. Gandhi still felt, however, that "the hidden possibilities of the innumerable seeds, leaves and fruits" of the earth could be explored and found to provide mankind with adequate nourishment. He never stopped trying to experiment along these lines, but he always had to turn back to goat milk to regain his strength.

In the end he had to acknowledge the necessity for animal food. In 1946 he declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."

These are strong words from a man who devoted most of his life to the search for a satisfactory vegetarian diet. But Gandhi's experience is not unique in the field of nutrition. Many others have also gone through the experience of believing that man could thrive exclusively upon a limited selection of uncooked plant foods, only to find in the end that animal products were necessary for sustenance. ...."

I've seen this, but now with supplements and all that, does that argument still hold up? I still eat Poultry/Fish don't get wrong, I'm not bashing your point, but I am trying to get somewhere with this. Today a Vegan diet would be a lot easier to accomplish than before.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm vegan unless there's a specific, rare, situation that necessitates otherwise (eg some very poor Salvadorian communists generously offer me meat - not being a condescending white man takes precedence once in a blue moon).

[one10]

A vegan diet and a non-vegan diet are such broad terms that to say one is healthier than the other isn't, well, a smart thing to do. Mr Non-Vegan over here, for example, can eat 95% fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, with some meat and junk food, whereas Mr Vegan can eat tons of processed mock-meats and junk food. However, Mr Vegan could eat tons of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains with little to no junk food while Mr Non-Vegan can eat a standard western/American diet (SWD or SAD).

How do we determine what we are 'naturally supposed to be eating'? Diets, even non-vegan ones, vary greatly from one another, sometimes with little of the same food, but both provide the nutrients required. Which foods are we supposed to eat to fit the 'natural' category? No one, at least in the First World, is on a diet with purely natural foods, nor are they living in a world where everything is 'natural'. Nor does 'natural' always equal good. Often, it's quite the contrary. Many 'unnatural' things are good for us. Nor is veganism necessarily 'unnatural'. While vegan diets, along with all others being practiced right now in the First World, are not currently 'natural', that does not mean they can't be 'natural' (though impossible to do in developed countries). What matters is what is in the diet itself, rather than just the lack or addition of a certain type of food(s).

Studies in Anthropology and Biological science have proven that humans are omnivorous in nature, hence our natural diet is to eat both plants and animals. However, humans can reason, and that is why I don't see anything wrong with going vegan for ethical reasons. Do you understand now?


You can't blame religion if atheists themselves see themselves above animals and are anthropocentric.

Moreover a Socialist Society need not get involved in religion. What it needs to do is set the clear boundaries and assure that there's no merging of religion and state (though in an actual socialist/communist society, there's no actual state). To get the establishment involved is arrogant as the existence of a god (or gods) can be neither proved or disproved. The state sponsoring atheism is as arrogant as the state sponsoring any particular religion. Any society should focus its attention elsewhere.

But that's a discussion for another thread. To further expand on the question of eating meat. I'm undecided if I'll continue to cut out meat more and more from my diet, or if I'll stick to no Red Meat/Pork but will continue to eat Poultry/Fish. For health reasons, red mean/pork make sense, as well as for ethical reasons, but I haven't researched the subject enough to come to a final conclusion on whether or not I'll still eat poultry/fish or not.

Your generalization on atheists being anthropocentric is incorrect. Some are and some aren't, you can't generalize with atheists as views vary among people whose only common belief is dismissing the existence of a god.

However, you can generalize the major religions. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all anthropocentric.

With advancements in modern science, there is clearly enough evidence to suggest that there is no god(s) while there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that there is. The concept of gods were created when humans didn't have the means to answer such questions. All that has changed now.

I'm not calling for the abolishment of religion but for the suppression of it.

I strongly agree with Karl Marx's and Vladimir Lenin's views on religion. It is negative to human development and is a tool utilized by the ruling class to give the oppressed false hope; and it is by no means revolutionary.

And for the sake of this argument, lends itself to the unethical treatment of animals.

Stick to no red meat/pork. Poultry and especially fish are great for you.

At the end of the day, it's all about making sure you are receiving the necessary supplements to remain healthy, how you do so is completely up to you.

[Narodnik]

I'm an organic vegetarian, and besides plant-foods I eat eggwhites and drink skimmed milk. It's healthy, it's cheap, it helps the environment, world economy, and it's ethical.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, I do indeed eat meat.

[VDS]

Studies in Anthropology and Biological science have proven that humans are omnivorous in nature, hence our natural diet is to eat both plants and animals. However, humans can reason, and that is why I don't see anything wrong with going vegan for ethical reasons. Do you understand now?



Your generalization on atheists being anthropocentric is incorrect. Some are and some aren't, you can't generalize with atheists as views vary among people whose only common belief is dismissing the existence of a god.

However, you can generalize the major religions. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all anthropocentric.

With advancements in modern science, there is clearly enough evidence to suggest that there is no god(s) while there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that there is. The concept of gods were created when humans didn't have the means to answer such questions. All that has changed now.

I'm not calling for the abolishment of religion but for the suppression of it.

I strongly agree with Karl Marx's and Vladimir Lenin's views on religion. It is negative to human development and is a tool utilized by the ruling class to give the oppressed false hope; and it is by no means revolutionary.

And for the sake of this argument, lends itself to the unethical treatment of animals.

Stick to no red meat/pork. Poultry and especially fish are great for you.

At the end of the day, it's all about making sure you are receiving the necessary supplements to remain healthy, how you do so is completely up to you.

The thing is, that the generalization goes both ways. I know Christian vegans, and I know atheist meat eaters. In reality, the Atheists I know (most, not all obviously) are the ones that most advocate eating meat.

Next, advancements in science do nothing to disprove a God, the same way religion does nothing to prove a God. To claim to know either is a lie. To suppress religion IS to try and abolish it. Again though, best left to another thread.

And yeah, I haven't reached a final conclusion on my diet, though with time I'm confident I will. Still a lot of research and soul searching to do.

[one10]

The thing is, that the generalization goes both ways. I know Christian vegans, and I know atheist meat eaters. In reality, the Atheists I know (most, not all obviously) are the ones that most advocate eating meat.

Next, advancements in science do nothing to disprove a God, the same way religion does nothing to prove a God. To claim to know either is a lie. To suppress religion IS to try and abolish it. Again though, best left to another thread.

And yeah, I haven't reached a final conclusion on my diet, though with time I'm confident I will. Still a lot of research and soul searching to do.

The generalization does not go both ways. What I am saying is that in the teachings of said religions are in fact anthropocentric. One can be a devoted christian and choose not to eat meat, nothing in their bible implies it as blasphemous, but the fundamental teachings of their religion are anthropocentric.

There is no set of teachings which atheists live by that include anthropocentricism.

Most of the people I know are meat eaters, religious views aside. Being a meat eater isn't synonomous with being anthropocentric.

I don't support an immediate abolishment of religion, it is something that will be done through suppression. You educate the masses and promote atheism. As a humanist, I believe people will eventually abandon religion, promoting state atheism only speeds up the process. It is also difficult to ignore the damage and corruption that occurs within religious institutions.

Jump into the state atheism discussion comrade - http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-atheism-t179623/index.html?t=179623

[Fourth Internationalist]

Studies in Anthropology and Biological science have proven that humans are omnivorous in nature, hence our natural diet is to eat both plants and animals.Why does meat cause many health problems that plant based foods do not? If we were meant to eat meat, we should be able to eat it without bad health effects. That's the one problem I see with the whole idea that we are omnivores, or at least omnivorous to a point where meat makes us more than 5% of our diet, or even less. And I have never seen an explanation from a human biologist.

Here's a video that I think brings up a lot of interesting points, just for anyone reading this who may be interested. (read description of video for more info)

sH-hs2v-UjI

[one10]

Why does meat cause many health problems that plant based foods do not? If we were meant to eat meat, we should be able to eat it without bad health effects. That's the one problem I see with the whole idea that we are omnivores, or at least omnivorous to a point where meat makes us more than 5% of our diet, or even less. And I have never seen an explanation from a human biologist.

Here's a video that I think brings up a lot of interesting points, just for anyone reading this who may be interested. (read description of video for more info)

sH-hs2v-UjI

It has to do with cooking our meat. Some anthropologists believe that cooking of our food, especially meat, is what makes us human and has paved our evolutionary path. This separates us greatly from other omnivores. It is certainly an interesting topic. I'll have to find you some articles/books on the subject.

[VDS]

It has to do with cooking our meat. Some anthropologists believe that cooking of our food, especially meat, is what makes us human and has paved our evolutionary path. This separates us greatly from other omnivores. It is certainly an interesting topic. I'll have to find you some articles/books on the subject.

This I've seen. It's a way to explain how we're natural meat eaters despite our stomach not supporting the theory, and our teeth not supporting the theory, and the fact that we don't have claws, and that our teeth can't rip into freshly killed animals.

The argument then becomes did we become smarter and use more tools because of eating meat, or was it due to the fact that those who survived were the smarter humans who could use tools to kill animals (and thus have more food)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anthropology, as a disciplene, is disproportionately people who ought to be hunted down, killed, and eaten, prionic diseases be damned.

[Narodnik]

On the omnivorous question- just to mentioned that you can abstain from meat and be omnivorous, and vegetarians are omnivorous, it's vegans that are herbivorous.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I am so loving meat! Sorry to all Vegetarians and Vegans, but that shit tastes great!

On another note, i don't want to see it get killed and am kinda opposed to killing animals. I would never kill an animal for food unless absolutely necessary. Buying it in the store...no probs there.

I know, i'm probably the biggest hypocrit that ever walked the face of the earth.

As a little, teeny tiny comfort (maybe): if i had to kill animals myself or watch them get killed, i probably wouldn't eat meat.

[Ele'ill]

Vegan although in some situations I would (and have) consume animal products if I needed food from a kitchen or at friends or for survival.

[VDS]

I am so loving meat! Sorry to all Vegetarians and Vegans, but that shit tastes great!

On another note, i don't want to see it get killed and am kinda opposed to killing animals. I would never kill an animal for food unless absolutely necessary. Buying it in the store...no probs there.

I know, i'm probably the biggest hypocrit that ever walked the face of the earth.

As a little, teeny tiny comfort (maybe): if i had to kill animals myself or watch them get killed, i probably wouldn't eat meat.

Shouldn't beat your self up and call yourself a hypocrite, I mean this is the case with MOST people. I grew up around farms watching animals get killed so for me it's not a big deal to see it. Most people that see something like that, at least that I know, stop eating meat, even if for a bit.

But I am TRYING to cut down on as much meat as possible. Not because it's easy or convenient, but because it's right.

[one10]

This I've seen. It's a way to explain how we're natural meat eaters despite our stomach not supporting the theory, and our teeth not supporting the theory, and the fact that we don't have claws, and that our teeth can't rip into freshly killed animals.

The argument then becomes did we become smarter and use more tools because of eating meat, or was it due to the fact that those who survived were the smarter humans who could use tools to kill animals (and thus have more food)


I believe it to be a combination of both. Developing tools to kill animals and knowing how to utilize these tools definitely made us smarter. You should also consider what sort of impact developing tools to cook these animals and learning how use such tools had on the brain.

In return, this has made our stomachs vulnerable as we've seperated ourselves from the wild and nature.

[Dropdead]

I don't eat meat but I have no problems with someone else eating meat, for example my cousin, if he eats meat I just let him eat meat.

[Ele'ill]

I have been sticking to an extensively vegan diet including alcohol :)

[Goblin]

Vegetarian. I eat some diary, but not much.

[Calvin]

I have been vegan since the age of 12 for ethical reasons alone. As a communist, it makes sense to not support something that causes wholly unnecessary exploitation that is the cause of billions of non-human deaths each year. I don't understand a lot of leftist's affinity with trying to discredit the case for animal rights/and or liberation at every chance they get.

It baffles me that people that are so articulate and intelligent seem to want to shut their eyes and turn away from a truth that is right in front of them. It isn't really people's faults, we live in a consumer based society that completely separates us from how our food is put on the table. No one wants to accept something that they are doing is wrong or problematic even though it may be. I understand it's not a viable option for everyone, but especially in first world countries if you are financially independent or have the means to do so I believe you should be vegan.

[Bardo]

I went with the "only certain types" option simply because there are meats that I dislike. I don't have any problems with eating meat (although I find factory farming to be a terrible industry), but I don't eat it all. I dislike most pork products, like bacon and pork chop. I do like ham.

My live in girlfriend is a (tolerant) vegetarian, so being a meat eater interesting sometimes.

[Nicolas_Cage]

I only eat meats that belong to a species which is dignified in how it carries out its sexual habits. I won't eat pork but I will eat fish or birds.

-NC

[Red Economist]

"Yes, I have no problems eating meat", but I have recently begun to think about vegtarianism as a potentially healthier and more environmentally freindly alternative.

[evermilion]

How can you have yer puddin' if you don't eat yer meat?!

[Quail]

"Yes, I have no problems eating meat", but I have recently begun to think about vegtarianism as a potentially healthier and more environmentally freindly alternative.

It was the environmental rather than the animal cruelty issues that really pushed me towards vegetarianism at first. I'd always cared about the environment and began to feel like a hypocrite for eating such unsustainable food. If you think going completely vegetarian is too much of a big step you could try cutting down on the animal products you consume, like for example switching to non-dairy milk or cooking vegetarian meals a few days a week.

[Nicolas_Cage]

It's not a morality issue for me, I just only like putting meat in my mouth if I know that the animals are civilised in how they have sex.

[beardie]

I´ve quite recently (~less than a year) turned into a full vegetarian, and if I´m cooking only to myself then it´s usually fully vegan. The first thing that got me thinking was the deteriorating quality of meat. I mean, I noticed I was thinking every time I ate meat about what kind of a wretched mis- treated being it had been that I was now eating. I never had money to buy organic meat, and nowadays I´m not so sure how much "happier" those "organic" animals are (pun acknowledged). So I guess I just didn´t want to eat bad quality food anymore.

Now that I haven´t eaten meat for some time, I´ve had time to think about it more and ecological and ethical reasons have started raising their heads as well. Most of all, I think that the ecological argument is such a strong one that no socialist should be able to ignore it in the "me man, give meat"- strain of thought. In a decade or so only the rich will be able to afford eating real meat, all the cheaper produce will be made of the stuff that the slaughterhouse workers scrape of their boots with a wooden stick at the end of the day.

[Quail]

It's not a morality issue for me, I just only like putting meat in my mouth if I know that the animals are civilised in how they have sex.

What counts as "civilised" animal sex and why does that make it less gross to eat certain animals?

[juljd]

I eat meat and I always have been, but I think vegetarianism is a good thing. Would probably be a vegetarian myself if I didn't like eating meat as much as I do (most of my favorite dishes include meat). Who knows how it will be in the future

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

If I can't have fried chicken, I don't want to be in your revolution.:D

Seriously though, the reason I haven't fled my native South for more northern pastures is because the food here is so goddamn delicious.

[VDS]

When I first posted here, I still ate meat, chicken and fish really. Lately though, I've been thinking about at least trying a full vegetarian diet for a month or two. See how it goes for me.

I don't think "I like the way the flesh of another animal tastes" is sufficient reason for me to contribute to their slaughtering in awful slaughter houses, and to contribute to their suffering on the farms where they're cramped and over fed.

I personally don't have any emotional reaction to an animal being killed. I've grown up around farms most of my life, and have myself helped kill pigs and cows. However, at the same time, I strive every day to try and be a better person. I don't always succeed, but it's an effort I give. I reflect on my habits/behavior and so on and question it often. And I cannot come up with a logical reason besides "but if fucking tastes good bro, and Me Is Man!" to justify my actions here. To each his own, but that's my way of looking at it.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

It's like my dad always says: I only eat meat of dead animals.

[Red Nightmare]

I consider myself a second-hand vegetarian, cows eat grass and I eat cows.

[Crixus]

I eat meat. Eating meat is not the same as murdering a human being. Eating meat is not the same as raping a human being. Eating meat is not the same as supporting the holocaust. Animals are not humans.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I eat meat. Eating meat is not the same as murdering a human being. Eating meat is not the same as raping a human being. Eating meat is not the same as supporting the holocaust. Animals are not humans.

This is stupid. Killing one human being is not the same as killing another human being. Shooting a moose is not the same as mass industrialized slaughter. This moralistic "humans are special!" bullshit is the worst (and it's just the flip-side of the coin to moralistic PETA veganism).

Materialist Veganz!

[Nicolas_Cage]

What counts as "civilised" animal sex and why does that make it less gross to eat certain animals?

Some animals just aren't dignified in how they have sex.


-NC

[evermilion]

Some animals just aren't dignified in how they have sex.


-NC

What in the actual fuck does that mean?!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I consider myself a second-hand vegetarian, cows eat grass and I eat cows.

:laugh::laugh: ROFL! I nearly chocked to death, LOL!

[Nicolas_Cage]

What in the actual fuck does that mean?!

I don't want to go into grizzly details but let's just take a pig as an example. Pigs will fuck anything. They're filthy and undignified. This is why I don't eat pork.

-NC

[Crixus]

This is stupid. Killing one human being is not the same as killing another human being.

This makes no sense.




Shooting a moose is not the same as mass industrialized slaughter.


We once hunted to eat meat. Then started farming to eat meat. With population growth and industrialization humanity began this "mass slaughter" as you put it. With industrialization we also began this "rape of the earth". Marx supported this "rape" as the driving force behind future human liberation and a means to end scarcity. This isn't to say we should blindly industrialize the globe with no regard for the earth and this also isn't to say we should blindly slaughter animals with no regard for animals.





This moralistic "humans are special!" bullshit is the worst (and it's just the flip-side of the coin to moralistic PETA veganism).

Materialist Veganz!

Materialist Vegan? It's a material fact a rat is not the same as a human. Those of you who would place a rat's life on the same level of a human's life are living in the world of idealism which began with Eastern Idealism. The Buddhist 'sentient beings' argument. Science (materialism) isn't on your side no matter how hard you wish it.

[VDS]

Materialist Vegan? It's a material fact a rat is not the same as a human. Those of you who would place a rat's life on the same level of a human's life are living in the world of idealism which began with Eastern Idealism. The Buddhist 'sentient beings' argument. Science (materialism) isn't on your side no matter how hard you wish it.

In regards to the bolded/underlined. It isn't about this. It's about the fact that animals CAN suffer. That they have capacity to suffer, and then the question, why are we justified in causing them suffering? Just because it tastes good?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In regards to the bolded/underlined. It isn't about this. It's about the fact that animals CAN suffer. That they have capacity to suffer, and then the question, why are we justified in causing them suffering? Just because it tastes good?

Domesticated animals, that have had their DNA diddled over centuries or millennia (genetic modification is older than you think, we've just got a whole lot better at it recently) by deliberate breeding for the purposes of being livestock, aren't much good for anything else. As for wild animals, good hunting technique requires a quick kill and for our own sakes it should be done sustainably.

[Crixus]

In regards to the bolded/underlined. It isn't about this. It's about the fact that animals CAN suffer. That they have capacity to suffer, and then the question, why are we justified in causing them suffering? Just because it tastes good?
My mind was on the anti-animal testing thread. Sorry about the confusion. I'm for humane treatment of livestock. I'm open to this:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Compassionately-Raised-Meats-Poultry

[VDS]

Domesticated animals, that have had their DNA diddled over centuries or millennia (genetic modification is older than you think, we've just got a whole lot better at it recently) by deliberate breeding for the purposes of being livestock, aren't much good for anything else. As for wild animals, good hunting technique requires a quick kill and for our own sakes it should be done sustainably.

I don't completely disagree. For the sake of argument though, is the logic then that since we've already domesticated them for the purpose of inhumane slaughter, that we might as well keep rearing them only to to make them suffer from birth to death? Is it justified to make them suffer because "fuck it, it's what we've been doing."?

[VDS]

My mind was on the anti-animal testing thread. Sorry about the confusion. I'm for humane treatment of livestock. I'm open to this:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Compassionately-Raised-Meats-Poultry


I'm all for this. I'm not into lifestyleism in any way. For the sake of argument I'll raise points, but nothing beyond that. I do believe though, that regardless of anything, that these animals SHOULD be treated humanely, and slaughtered as quickly as possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't completely disagree. For the sake of argument though, is the logic then that since we've already domesticated them for the purpose of inhumane slaughter, that we might as well keep rearing them only to to make them suffer from birth to death? Is it justified to make them suffer because "fuck it, it's what we've been doing."?

Animal suffering contributes nothing to final product, and may in fact have a detrimental impact - I certainly don't see how stressed animals produce better meat and other products.

[VDS]

Animal suffering contributes nothing to final product, and may in fact have a detrimental impact - I certainly don't see how stressed animals produce better meat and other products.

Maybe it (as it inevitably always is) is a problem of capitalism. But I disagree. Animal suffering has EVERYTHING to do with the final product. Chickens are bigger than ever due directly to their suffering. They're fed so much that they can't walk. The final product would not be what it is without the chicken living a miserable existence filled with suffering.

[VDS]

Also, I'd like to bring up, what makes us justified in eating SOME animals but not in eating others?

[Akshay!]

Whatever you think, the second option is kinda silly. :blink:

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

This discussion is derailing fast and is probably reading toward closing by an admin.

Just saying.

[Yuppie Grinder]

This makes no sense.





We once hunted to eat meat. Then started farming to eat meat. With population growth and industrialization humanity began this "mass slaughter" as you put it. With industrialization we also began this "rape of the earth". Marx supported this "rape" as the driving force behind future human liberation and a means to end scarcity. This isn't to say we should blindly industrialize the globe with no regard for the earth and this also isn't to say we should blindly slaughter animals with no regard for animals.





Materialist Vegan? It's a material fact a rat is not the same as a human. Those of you who would place a rat's life on the same level of a human's life are living in the world of idealism which began with Eastern Idealism. The Buddhist 'sentient beings' argument. Science (materialism) isn't on your side no matter how hard you wish it.
It isn't a scientific fact that human beings are more valuable than animals.
Your using John Locke's argument that it's self-evident that beings with high reasoning ability are more valuable than animals with smaller brains, and it is equally idealistic.
I'm eating meat right now, just playing devil's advocate because I think you could think of a better argument.

[Ele'ill]

I can't view the poll results because it says I need to vote before hand even though I have already done so. It also says the poll must be closed first but I thought this was an open poll that we can view the results in (that's what it looks like on my screen anyways)


I am vegan.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I will admit one thing: Compared to the rest of the world, the quality of meat in the U.S. absolutely sucks. Pork, especially.

And yes, it is directly correlated with the factory farming practices of the American meat industry. The animals are crammed together in small spaces, forced to stand and lie down in their own waste. This results in low-quality, badly textured meat.

[zumacraig]

I'm surprised by the results of this poll. I'm a vegan for health and ethical reasons. Science definitely points toward whole food plant based diets as the most healthy; preventing heart disease etc. Alas, the food we eat is so fucked up, I'm not sure any diet ca cure our ails.

[BIXX]

Eh. I don't like meat. I also feel that being vegetarian (and hopefully soon vegan) is an important decision for me, cause even if I know logically it won't save an animal to abstain from eating meat, I feel like it at least won't support their murder.
Yeah fuckit whatever it's lifestylism. But I have no problem with anyone else eating meat.

[zumacraig]

Never heard of lifestylism. Makes perfect sense though. When you really get down to it, who knows anything in terms of what's healthy, moral etc. Everything is so fucked up by the profit motive. :(

I'm vegan, but at times, have a hard time sticking to it. I also have some compulsive issues with food. I've had some craving for meat lately, but I don't think I can do it.

Anyway, this is definitely where a dialectic look takes some of the emotionalism out of the subject and allows for different questions to be asked. I think awareness, dialogue and just waking up to what's really going on is the best work we can do these days. Being a radical, preaching vegan may or may not be part of it.

[Sotionov]

Organic vegetarian, for health and ethical reasons. There is no rational (/sound) argument that justifies killing animals for food, and there is no proof that meat is a neccessary part of diet of a healthy and stong human.

The only instances where I think eating meat is somewhat ok is by scavanging, and when there is no alternative, e.g. being lost in a jungle, war or being homeless with no income.

[D-A-C]

Isn't it scientific fact that in prehistoric times there were two types of people:

1. Those that hunted animals for food

2. Those that ate berries

The ones that ate meat were strong, intelligent and brave.

The ones that ate berries were scared of their own shadows.

I eat all meat btw :grin: .



In all seriousness, I am pretty sure that the above scientific point was outlined in some theoretical journals or documentaries (ok maybe not as simplified for humour purposes lol).

But I'm pretty sure that those amongst early mankind that ate meat were more intelligent as they had to craft weapons and such to trap their food.

Plus, I'm pretty sure they beatup and picked on the ones who started farming.

Just a thought lol.

[BIXX]

It was just the meat was an easier food source, once you were intelligent enough to hunt it. Once we got to farming, we had not more need to eat meat (under successful crop circumstances).

[Sotionov]

Also, the most probable theory is that the fist humans were not hunters, but scavangers. Being that "eating meat made us more intelligent" toghether with "being more intelligent allowed us make hunting tools" needs to go in that order.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We wouldn't have needed tools to catch animals for meat. We could have just doggedly pursued them like the fucking Terminator (https://www.toledoblade.com/Medical/2013/01/14/Physical-endurance-shaping-humankind.html) before bashing the exhausted animal's brains in with a rock.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anti-speciesist vegan, innit.

[SovietCommie]

Animals eat animals all the time. Humans need meat to survive, so it can strengthen our bodies and give us nutrients (like vegetables and fruit). It will be necessary to slaughter animals...

However, I don't think they should be mindlessly slaughtered and treated like they're inanimate objects. They deserve utmost care, and the right to at least have an enjoyable life of free will. They will inevitably be slaughtered, yes. But before they are, I still think they should be treated with dignity and humanity.

[Future]

Yes, I eat and enjoy meat. Human beings are omnivores and so a balanced meat diet is healthy. I strongly support animal rights and the humane treatment and killing of these animals however.

[Quail]

Yes, I eat and enjoy meat. Human beings are omnivores and so a balanced meat diet is healthy. I strongly support animal rights and the humane treatment and killing of these animals however.

You can't really "strongly support animal rights" and eat meat without being a massive hypocrite. The vast majority of animals raised for food are treated nowhere near "humanely" on farms partly because it's unprofitable to do so and also because with the amount of meat people consume, if it were all to be reared in the least cruel way possible, it would take up rather a lot of land. The phrase "humane killing" never quite sounds right to me, either. You're talking about regarding animals as commodities and objects for our gratification. Whichever way you look at it, it's not a "humane" way of treating them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Human beings are omnivores and so a balanced meat diet is healthy.

But can that be justified?


I strongly support animal rights and the humane treatment and killing of these animals however.

Killing something and then eating its flesh is not a humane thing to do, it is literally the opposite of that.

[IBleedRed]

No guilt, no shame, I'm a meat-eater.

Eating meat might not be humane, but I don't really give a shit.

[The Feral Underclass]

No guilt, no shame, I'm a meat-eater.

Eating meat might not be humane, but I don't really give a shit.

The fact you can embrace cruelty so willingly, while also being proud at your refusal to examine your attitude and behaviour, demonstrates the fundamental problem with human interaction with the natural world.

[IBleedRed]

The fact you can embrace cruelty so willingly, while also being proud at your refusal to examine your attitude and behaviour, demonstrates the fundamental problem with human interaction with the natural world.

Nature isn't sacrosanct. It does not exist to be worshiped or upheld at all costs. We can, and must, and do subjugate and take advantage of nature when it benefits us.

I am an environmentalist because I know that if we do not have any limits on our exploitation of nature, we won't have a future. I want to have clean air. I want to have clean water, and forests and parks because they are pretty to look at and camp in.

I'd prefer for animals to be treated better (which is why I eat organic free range meat). But animals aren't deities, and most of them lack self-awareness (although they do have an ability to feel pain, of course).

[The Feral Underclass]

Nature isn't sacrosanct. It does not exist to be worshiped or upheld at all costs.

It does if you want humans to continue living on the planet.


We can, and must, and do subjugate and take advantage of nature when it benefits us.

No we shouldn't. And your subsequent comments agree with me, since we can't just continue subjugating nature because sooner or later we will either run out of resources or we will fuck up the planet so badly there's no turning back.

This idea that we can and must subjugate the natural world is fundamentally flawed and requires examination.


I am an environmentalist because I know that if we do not have any limits on our exploitation of nature, we won't have a future. I want to have clean air. I want to have clean water, and forests and parks because they are pretty to look at and camp in.

Then you need to re-examine your attitudes and behaviour, especially since the meat industry contributes to 80% of agricultural green house emissions (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21175-eating-less-meat-would-keep-climate-change-at-bay.html)


I'd prefer for animals to be treated better

Why?


(which is why I eat organic free range meat).

So there is guilt and there is shame.


But animals aren't deities, and most of them lack self-awareness (although they do have an ability to feel pain, of course).

They don't have to be deities to be afforded respect and compassion.

[Islam Muslim Muhammad]

Yes, but only halal meat.

"He only prohibits for you the eating of animals that die of themselves (without human interference), blood, the meat of pigs, and animals dedicated to other than God. If one is forced (to eat these), without being malicious or deliberate, he incurs no sin. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 2:173

[The Feral Underclass]

I never saw anything unethical about it

Perhaps you should start.


we need protein to survive.

You don't need to eat meat to get protein. In fact, meat is probably the most unhealthiest way to get your protein requirements.

[Future]

You can't really "strongly support animal rights" and eat meat without being a massive hypocrite. The vast majority of animals raised for food are treated nowhere near "humanely" on farms partly because it's unprofitable to do so and also because with the amount of meat people consume, if it were all to be reared in the least cruel way possible, it would take up rather a lot of land. The phrase "humane killing" never quite sounds right to me, either. You're talking about regarding animals as commodities and objects for our gratification. Whichever way you look at it, it's not a "humane" way of treating them.


But can that be justified?


Killing something and then eating its flesh is not a humane thing to do, it is literally the opposite of that.

First of all, let me make it clear that I mean I support treating animals to be killed for human consumption in the most humane way possible. I believe that while they are alive they should be treated humanely and I believe that when they are killed it should be done in the most pain free way possible.

Now, I do not believe that "because it's natural" is a valid argument in favor of eating meat, but it is undeniable that eating meat is healthy for human beings and refusing to eat meat not only goes against our nature and our body's biological mechanisms, but doing so can be harmful to us in an ethically important way. All the research I've done on this matter over the years suggests that veganism is usually very unhealthy in most cases. It would be more immoral in my opinion to deny ourselves a proper diet than to kill the less sentient animals. In my opinion, killing a cow or a chicken is not much worse than killing a fly or a lizard or for that matter, killing the flu virus inside my body. It all comes down to sentience to me; degree of consciousness, degree of self-awareness, degree of intelligence, potential for advancement, etc. Where exactly that line should drawn (what is considered too sentient for eating?) I don't know, and it is a serious ethical concern, but I'm confident a cow and a chicken should not qualify as sentient enough to have earned certain rights that keep them from contributing to the health of our human species.

It would not be immoral to kill a parasite living inside my body, even if that parasite wasn't killing me. By that same reasoning, it should not be immoral to kill a chicken in order to contribute to my health as a being that requires such things for a proper survival. The parasite, the flu virus, and the chicken are not sentient enough to qualify for human rights. But being able to experience fear and pain to some degree, we must treat them well while they live (I will never eat veal for instance), and we must kill them in the most painless way possible.

[IBleedRed]

Future pretty much hit the nail on the head on this one


It does if you want humans to continue living on the planet.

No we shouldn't. And your subsequent comments agree with me, since we can't just continue subjugating nature because sooner or later we will either run out of resources or we will fuck up the planet so badly there's no turning back.

This idea that we can and must subjugate the natural world is fundamentally flawed and requires examination.

I already said that I am an environmentalist. The key difference, however, between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that my argument rests entirely on material considerations: pollution leading to poor health, inefficiency in feeding everybody (since meat production is less efficient than grain production), the spread of disease, etc

I am an environmentalist entirely for practical reasons. I do not have any moral concern for nature, since nature is indifferent to me. In fact, many of the things that go on in the natural world are quite horrible.



Why?
So there is guilt and there is shame.I've no guilt or shame about eating meat, but if we can give the animals a painless death or a better life while they're here, then why not?


They don't have to be deities to be afforded respect and compassion.They should be afforded enough respect and compassion to be given humane treatment in life and a painless death, but they don't deserve enough to be spared the slaughter in order to feed human beings. I'm sorry. Well, no, I'm not.

[Sinister Intents]

I don't remember if I've posted here my reply, but oh well I'll do it again. No, I do not eat meat, I try not to at all, but sometimes money is too tight and I cannot afford to buy my own food so I eat the very well prepared food my mom makes because I can generally avoid the meat and still continue to eat vegetarian. I try to remain strictly vegetarian

[CommissarNgugu]

I mostly eat chicken, turkey, (corned)beef and fish as meat intake. But I live on a "student budget", so meat isn't exactly very affordable.

[Ele'ill]

so you eat all meat because it's more expensive than veggies because you're on a budget

[RedWorker]

Well yes, though I think it should be made illegal to kill any animals for any reason (e.g. making meat food) if it is proven that meat is not neccessary at all for development, health, etc.

[motion denied]

It's tasty.

[Ele'ill]

It's tasty.

mmmmmmm wages/production mmmmmmm can't think outside tasty but communist anyways i think mmmm

[motion denied]

production will cease under communism, everything will fall from the sky, like god intended.

[Sinister Intents]

production will cease under communism, everything will fall from the sky, like god intended.

I hope there is a surplus of jesus :wub: *sarcasm*
Unfortunately I eat meat as of recently, but I'm buying all vegetarian stuffs when I go shopping soon :)

[Ele'ill]

god will fall from the sky

[The Feral Underclass]

Salt and chilli tofu ftw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rosa Partizan]

No, stopped eating meat and fish in 2007.

[Quail]

Salt and chilli tofu ftw


I feel sorry for the people who say that tofu tastes terrible. They must just not know how to cook it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

god will fall from the sky

We'll probably have to tenderise the bastard quite a bit before eating him, he must be billions of years old.

[Rosa Partizan]

I feel sorry for the people who say that tofu tastes terrible. They must just not know how to cook it.

Totally. I hardly know a food that is as versatile (would you say so?) as tofu. Look at this (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/1512597_10153592705870468_1227769667_n.jpg), who would say that the main ingredient for it is tofu?

[The Feral Underclass]

I feel sorry for the people who say that tofu tastes terrible. They must just not know how to cook it.


I know, right. It's probably the case that most people don't know how to make it taste. I just like pan fried slabs of tofu tbh, which is really easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mindsword]

Im trying to go vegan. No meat for at least one week :grin:

:o (im not very good at this)

Absolutely no pork or eggs. Trying to cut out sugar, dairy and coffee.

[Thirsty Crow]

We'll probably have to tenderise the bastard quite a bit before eating him, he must be billions of years old.
The question confronting us is: how to prepare him.

I sense much conflict over this.

[Rosa Partizan]

Eating God would be vegan to me, so go ahead.

[Thirsty Crow]

I just hope that the saying "lamb of God" holds true for what he tastes like also. I'd be able to get it right with cooking then.

No offense to vegans here.

[Rosa Partizan]

Lamb is the only meat I miss from time to time.

[Thirsty Crow]

Lamb is the only meat I miss from time to time.
Of course, cause you sense it is the flesh and taste of God in all his glory.

The best damn meat there is, apart from some kinds of fish.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

when you're poverty, it is hard to be ethical about food.

i will eat food that gets me through the day. today it was a scotch pie while i was working for less than the minimum wage and needed some energy.

it was a cheaper form of the necessary proteins and carbohydrates than the vegetarian alternative (which was more expensive).

[BIXX]

when you're poverty, it is hard to be ethical about food.

i will eat food that gets me through the day. today it was a scotch pie while i was working for less than the minimum wage and needed some energy.

it was a cheaper form of the necessary proteins and carbohydrates than the vegetarian alternative (which was more expensive).


In general it is cheaper to eat vegetarian (I don't yet know about vegan, but I assume it might be the same). The trouble comes in getting used to planning your new diet.

Once you've been doing it a while you can generally plan ahead long enough to not end up in a situation like what it sounds you were in.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The question confronting us is: how to prepare him.

I sense much conflict over this.

We drape the corpse over a burning bush and add a pillar of salt.


[Referring to lamb. - VW] The best damn meat there is, apart from some kinds of fish.

Seriously? Well, honestly I can't stand lamb - perhaps I'm a bit weird. But have you ever eaten venison or boar? Or pheasant?

(God, I sound like some kind of minor aristocrat.)

[Brutus]

I've had wild boar. That was beautiful.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

In general it is cheaper to eat vegetarian (I don't yet know about vegan, but I assume it might be the same). The trouble comes in getting used to planning your new diet.

Once you've been doing it a while you can generally plan ahead long enough to not end up in a situation like what it sounds you were in.
i have been a vegetarian.

if you're out working a lot and have to rely on eating on the go, or if you are street homeless (i have been both), it is actually cheaper to get the nutrition necessary to keep going whilst eating a non-vegetarian diet.

[RedAnarchist]

I eat some meat, but most meat I eat is stuff like fish or chicken.

[tachosomoza]

Yes, I eat meat, like humans have for thousands of years.

[Rosa Partizan]

Yes, I eat meat, like humans have for thousands of years.

So I suppose you hunt them down by yourself and use their fur to make clothing from it, like humans have for thousands of years.

[tachosomoza]

So I suppose you hunt them down by yourself and use their fur to make clothing from it, like humans have for thousands of years.

Hahahaha, you're hilarious.

[Comrade Jacob]

Stopped eating meat almost 2 months ago. Not had any temptations, it's very easy.

[Lanfear]

Yes, but only certain types. Thats a health reason though, not religion or ethics or anything like that

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Yup, love a good steak. I realize the environmental disaster that livestock farming causes, and I would be perfectly willing to cut back or give it up if everyone did. That is to say, if giving it up actually made a real difference. But I'm not going to be a figurative martyr and be among a handful of folks doing it to no real effect.

[Rosa Partizan]

Yup, love a good steak. I realize the environmental disaster that livestock farming causes, and I would be perfectly willing to cut back or give it up if everyone did. That is to say, if giving it up actually made a real difference. But I'm not going to be a figurative martyr and be among a handful of folks doing it to no real effect.

I don't know where you live, but it's not true that it has no effect. About 10-15 years ago, when you went to a supermarket, there was nothing for vegans: no soy milk, no "fake meat", no whipped cream, really nothing. There were only organic supermarkets for that kind of stuff and it was expensive as hell. Nowadays, every supermarket, I mean really everyone, at least over here, has some "vegan department" and it's ALL affordable. Even organic supermarkets dropped their prices for that stuff, compared to a decade or so ago. This worked out because vegans knew that their strongest weapon would be the way they consume. So supermarkets followed that trend and are offering vegan sauces, sausages, soy milk, spreads and really all kinds of stuff. And this could only happen because some people said "I don't care what the others do, I will start with myself, cause this is the only thing I can change for sure".

[theworks]

Yes, I am an avid meat-lover. Especially bacon.

[Celtanarchy]

Meat industry is kinda fucking the environment. Which is one of the main reasons I don't eat it. In fact I think it's No.1 cause for pollution and global warming etc, ahead of trans part and everything. So yeah, enjoy contributing to the death of mother earth.

[ProletariatPower]

Please add pescetarian to the list, for those that do not know it means to eat fish but no mammalian or bird meat.

[Quail]

Please add pescetarian to the list, for those that do not know it means to eat fish but no mammalian or bird meat.

Wouldn't that go under "Yes, but only certain types"? I'll add it to the next poll, but it might mess up the results a bit if I add it now.

[Red-Heathen]

I've been a Pescetarian for a few weeks now. Meaning I only eat fish for meat.

[ProletariatPower]

Wouldn't that go under "Yes, but only certain types"? I'll add it to the next poll, but it might mess up the results a bit if I add it now.
I suppose I can put it as that, although I think it should be a bit more specific, fair enough if it would mess it up.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I do eat meat, not very much though and I only buy from butchers I actually trust (i.e so I know the provenance of the meat) I eat or have at least tried most kinds of meat and offal (I stop short of eyes and faces thanks) tbh if you're actually going to eat meat the least you can do is avoid waste to whatever extent you can.

There's been a long-running battle in my head for years over whether I should eat meat or not, unfortunately the outcome has always been decided by love for food. In no way am I saying I prefer meat-based food over everything, some of the most amazing dishes I've eaten have been vegan or vegetarian (there's an amazing vegetarian/vegan restaurant in Hull) but the thought of missing out on food I like (no matter what it contains) has always been entirely unbearable to me. It's base, selfish and terrible but idk, it feels like I can't help it given that some things I've eaten have been as close as I feel I can get to a religious experience (duck dish at a really fancy indian c April last year - I dream about it.)

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Being a southerner, I've eaten pretty much every part of the pig that is edible (short of the eyes and genitals). I've eaten the belly, the trotters, the fatback, the pork shoulder (that's what's in Spam), the streak of lean, the intestine (chitterlings), the snout, the ribs, the brisket, and the jowls. Pork is so deliciously versatile! :wub:

Also chicken. I really really like chicken.

....But yeah, I'm a meat eater all the way. I've lived around farm animals all my life (lots of farms in my area). They're adorable....and adorably delicious!:laugh:

[Sinister Intents]

I'll be eating meat and vegetarian mixture from now on, I'll not ever be fully vegetarian lol

[Quail]

^ Isn't that just eating meat? I think most meat-eaters also eat vegetarian food. What made you decide to give up on vegetarianism?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I heard something about flexitarianism... Not eating meat all the time, just sometimes.

I even might be one by that definition. If meat was to vanish right now, i wouldn't have a real big problem with it...

[GimmieFire]

I do eat meat regularly, even though several members of my family are vegetarians or vegans.

[Maraam]

I used to be a vegetarian but I'm simply not anymore, I caved in too often. I try not to eat meat when there's an option not too, and in general try to not eat too much red meat. I don't have any justification for leaving vegetarianism aside from 'meat tastes nice', but I felt that my personal boycott of the meat industry was largely ineffective so I thought it'd be better that I just eat whatever I can afford and is healthy.

[Orange Juche]

I wish the answers were different, because I do eat meat, but a) I have problems with the fact that I personally eat meat, and b) I'd like to note that I rarely eat it anyway. I don't see why the answer had to add "and I have no problems". I have no self control, as far as that's concerned. :-P

My personal big issue with it is environmental reasons and how the industry contributes to global warming, and I very rarely eat meat - yet I still occasionally do.

So none of those answers really fit. A "Yes, rarely" would have been good.

[Five Year Plan]

Yes, I eat meat.

[Creative Destruction]

I chose the first option. I don't oppose eating meat, but I do question our methods of procuring meat. I think anyone interested in the ethics and efficacy of how we procure and consume our food would question it. David Foster Wallace's "Consider The Lobster" essay is probably the closest thing as I could suggest that would encapsulate my ambivalence toward how we kill and cook our food. Similarly, the industrialized system of beef and chicken production is insane. Even if you're not convinced by the moral argument, you can see how the product it puts out isn't that great, more over, it's a huge burden to the environment.

I would not be opposed if all of our meat products came completely from lab grown meat. (I still can't believe we've found a way to grow edible meat in a laboratory. That's just so fucking awesome to me.)

[LiaSofia]

Mostly vegan, always vegetarian. This extends beyond diet to an avoidance of animal products in general (leather shoes, fur, cosmetics tested on animals). I should point out that I'm not strict about being vegan. I follow the rules when I buy food for myself, but not always when I'm out or at a friend's place.

Basically I think that, as humans, we're in the unique position of being able to have some degree of dietary choice. I'm in agreement with the Buddhist idea that it's best to reduce suffering where possible. There are also environmental reasons.

I don't judge people who choose to eat meat; this is my personal choice and it doesn't have to be everyone's. My main political goal isn't to convert people to vegetarianism, it's to make sure that animals are treated as humanely as they can be. Having said that, it is a good idea to reduce the amount of meat eaten per week - for health reasons too.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

when I move out I'm going vegan. I know it's a weak excuse but I live at my parents' atm and I can't deal with being insulted for that ON TOP of what I'm already made fun of for. My sister is a vegetarian simply because she doesn't like the texture of meat and my mum has belittled her for it since she was 7 (13 fucking years ago it's not a phase mum) so I don't know how badly she'd react to me saying no longer want a part in killing animals for food. She hates me enough for being unemployed and unacceptably left of 70's labour and has clearly stated she wants me out of the house and as bad as it sounds i'm ok with sacrificing a few animals not to be thrown out.

[LiaSofia]

when I move out I'm going vegan. I know it's a weak excuse but I live at my parents' atm and I can't deal with being insulted for that ON TOP of what I'm already made fun of for. My sister is a vegetarian simply because she doesn't like the texture of meat and my mum has belittled her for it since she was 7 (13 fucking years ago it's not a phase mum) so I don't know how badly she'd react to me saying no longer want a part in killing animals for food. She hates me enough for being unemployed and unacceptably left of 70's labour and has clearly stated she wants me out of the house and as bad as it sounds i'm ok with sacrificing a few animals not to be thrown out.

That's not bad at all. Sorry you're in a crappy situation and good luck with the veganism. :( I became vegetarian when I was nine and got the same thing for ten years. Family members would say things like 'animals were made to be eaten'...it's better if you can laugh at the slightly crazy logic of that argument.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Fuck no

[Bala Perdida]

I'm doing it now.

[Five Year Plan]

You know, What with my dirty mind, and the recent spate of cannibalistic activity on this forum, the OP's question can be interpreted in a whole variety of ways. :o

[TheFox]

I do eat meat but I kind of feel guilty when I do. I hate the idea of something having to die for my own hunger. But humans are omnivorous (Most of us, vegans have made the choice not to be) it's in our nature to consume plants and animals.

[LiaSofia]

I do eat meat but I kind of feel guilty when I do. I hate the idea of something having to die for my own hunger. But humans are omnivorous (Most of us, vegans have made the choice not to be) it's in our nature to consume plants and animals.

I'm fine with the fact that you eat meat but can't you describe it as a personal choice rather than something our human nature compels us to do? ''It's in our nature'' is such a lazy justification. Sorry if I sound a bit douchey, I've just heard that phrase a lot and it's usually being used to support all kinds of bad ideas, from Hobbesian theories about authority to the continuation of war.

[Creative Destruction]

I do eat meat but I kind of feel guilty when I do. I hate the idea of something having to die for my own hunger. But humans are omnivorous (Most of us, vegans have made the choice not to be) it's in our nature to consume plants and animals.

You need to be careful about ascribing something as being "in our nature" because the fact of the matter is that anything is our nature, including veganism. If we can do it, it's in our nature to do so.

But that aside, humans have evolved well enough that they can sustain a vegetarian diet just as we can an omnivorous one. We don't have to eat meat, as many Asian cultures can attest to. In fact, the fact that we have such an abundance of meat to consume, at almost all classes of people, is a fairly recent thing -- like, within the last 150 years.

[RedBlackStar]

I eat Neo-Liberals and Anarcho-Capitalists.

The toxins from their ideas add flavour.

[Half Commie]

I remember the good ol'e days when there was no talk of ovo-lacto-veg, veg was just veg and there was no discrimination :lol:
On another note, I'm so young I probably just never heard it. Probably I'm just frustrated that discovering something new made me feel annoyed, since I've been a fish-nomming half veg for most of my life and never heard of the distinctions other than vegetarian and vegan.
Basically, I avoid eating all meats now, but I am not picky. I eat what I am served. If I see any conclusive evidence that beast "x" feels no pain, however, I will eat beast "x" with pride.

[theblitz6794]

I think only organic/grass fed/free range meat should be eaten. I think animals that are eaten have their role in society as food in the same way plants do (for the record, I think plants are conscious). On the converse, I think we have a role to provide them with a proper life and not waste anything.

Basically the Native American beliefs

[Lily Briscoe]

I eat meat and have no interest in justifying it to anyone. The 'politicization' of dietary habits is one of the most obnoxious things in the world IMO. Maybe when there's social control of production, there will be more of a basis to discuss these things, but as it stands, I don't feel that the foods other people choose to consume are any of my business whatsoever, and vegan moralism is IMO just another way for privileged university students to guilt trip working class people for making 'bad choices'. Which isn't to imply that all vegans do this either, and of course people who eat meat can also be obnoxious about it, but it doesn't tend to have this pseudo-political 'conscious consumer' dimension to it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Then you need to re-examine your attitudes and behaviour, especially since the meat industry contributes to 80% of agricultural green house emissions (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21175-eating-less-meat-would-keep-climate-change-at-bay.html)

this is a good point. the meat industry is one of the most nefarious products of capitalism. but how reasonable and effective is it to use our individual dietary choices as a means of fighting capitalism and it's destruction of the environment? or do you propose to organize a mass boycott? is that feasible? these are serious questions.

as i understand it, conscious consumerism is a marketing ploy and a way to commodify ethics. obviously it falls short of questioning or challenging capitalism in any meaningful way. so my question is does this really have anything to do with revolutionary class politics?

[The Feral Underclass]

this is a good point. the meat industry is one of the most nefarious products of capitalism. but how reasonable and effective is it to use our individual dietary choices as a means of fighting capitalism and it's destruction of the environment? or do you propose to organize a mass boycott? is that feasible? these are serious questions.

It's not effective and no I don't propose anything like it.


as i understand it, conscious consumerism is a marketing ploy and a way to commodify ethics. obviously it falls short of questioning or nchallenging capitalism in any meaningful way. so my question is does this really have anything to do with revolutionary class politics?

It depends what you consider the objective of revolutionary class politics to be. If we're talking about strategy and tactics, then no, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. If we are talking about how we want to build a classless society, then I think it has a great deal to do with it -- not just as an exclusive topic of meat-eating and animal liberation, but as a general issue regarding how we see ourselves as humans and how we see our relationship with the plant.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

and what has meat-eating got to do with that?
only in capitalism has the practice of meat-eating been tied to environmentally destructive practices. and i see no reason why it must continue being so after capitalism has been overcome.

of course killing sentient living beings is generally not necessary for human nourishment and maybe one day we'll reach a point where animals arent killed for food, but i dont really see this as a very pressing matter for the international proletariat. and i cant understand why you make such a big deal out of it in this and other threads. not to be confrontational or anything just trying to understand

[The Feral Underclass]

and what has meat-eating got to do with that?
only in capitalism has the practice of meat-eating been tied to environmentally destructive practices. and i see no reason why it must continue being so after capitalism has been overcome.

of course killing sentient living beings is generally not necessary for human nourishment and maybe one day we'll reach a point where animals arent killed for food, but i dont really see this as a very pressing matter for the international proletariat.

In order for me to justify why animal liberation is a "pressing matter for the international proletariat" I would first have to believe that it was a pressing matter for the international proletariat. All things considered it's not, but that doesn't mean the argument shouldn't be raised and defended, nor does it mean communists and others shouldn't engage with the ideas -- because they should.

The issue isn't just about the existence of the planet, it's a philosophical and aesthetic argument about how we build a future society and exist on the planet as a species. To expand a little I'm quoting from a post I made in the hunting thread.


It is not consistent for a communist society to preach compassion and then exploit animals. It is inconsistent to claim that compassion should be a principle, but only for humans. Especially when you consider that this inconsistency is justified based on ideas of [supremacy], [entitlement], dominance and difference. It is not a productive or progressive state of affairs that in a communist society human beings attribute a whole aspect of their behaviour to concepts like that. How can we be a compassionate society if we seek to use other living creatures unnecessarily for our pleasure based on the notion that we are different and therefore superior, and therefore entitled to dominate? How do those ideas correlate in any way with a principle of compassion?

[...]

...Ultimately, the nature of our society will be reflected in how we treat the planet and everything in it, not just how we treat each other. We cannot separate ourselves from these things.

To give some background on my animal liberation views (I'm not an "animal rightist," which you inaccurately described my views as), I should mention a book by Charles Patterson called Eternal Treblinka. It very expertly charts the history of human relationships with non-human animals and the development of our treatment and domestication of them alongside human development of our treatment of each other. It convincingly draws relationships between the methods we use to exploit and kill non-human animals and the methods we use to exploit and kill humans. These two things, in his view, have gone hand in hand.

What some detractors will argue is that he is trying to compare the slaughter of animals with something like the holocaust and that's not what he's doing. What he does is highlight facts, such as how the architects of Crematorium II and III in Birkenau used the blue prints of abattoirs to design the layout, specifically the tunnel between the undressing rooms and the gas chamber, which was an exact design of a tunnel used to push cattle to their deaths. He also highlights how many of the men we know about who worked in the Crematoriums and perpetuated "special actions" against Jews in Eastern Europe came from farming and meat industry jobs. He also highlights how human beings, throughout history, in order to justify the slaughter of human beings first set about turning those people into representations of animals in order to dehumanise them and to somehow legitimise their slaughter (Rwanda being a contemporary example). Is this just coincidence? Well maybe. But I think it would be foolish to dismiss it entirely. There has to be some serious reflection on these relationships (as a whole, not just the examples I gave) and their implication to human society, the conclusion of which is that our behaviour towards each other is inextricably linked to our behaviour to all living creatures. The history of humans and the history of non-human animals goes hand in hand and therefore the nature of our future society has to take into consideration that relationship -- we cannot divorce ourselves from it. Our behaviour towards non-human animals is evidently reflected in our relationship with each other.

Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2804639&postcount=134")


and i cant understand why you make such a big deal out of it in this and other threads.

You can't understand because you don't value the life of a non-human animal beyond how it can be of immediate benefit to you, since you don't actually believe it has value beyond that. It is unfathomable to you that any one could invest intellectual and political energy in defending the life of something that is not human.

And this is precisely what I am saying you should be reflecting upon: What is the basis for you lack of understanding? Why is it so difficult for you to conceptualise that the life of a non-human animal is worth defending as something valuable beyond your dietary desires?

In all the years I have supported animal liberation, I have never encountered an argument that cannot be deconstructed in the following way: ultimately human beings are superior to non-human animals or at least deserve nothing more than our indifference, since they are a different species and therefore it entitles us to dominate them as we see fit.

That thought process is fundamentally problematic to me. I don't see how it is justifiable for any one to be comfortable with legitimising violence based on those parameters.

[TC]

You can't understand because you don't value the life of a non-human animal beyond how it can be of immediate benefit to you, since you don't actually believe it has value beyond that. It is unfathomable to you that any one could invest intellectual and political energy in defending the life of something that is not human.

And this is precisely what I am saying you should be reflecting upon: What is the basis for you lack of understanding? Why is it so difficult for you to conceptualise that the life of a non-human animal is worth defending as something valuable beyond your dietary desires?

In all the years I have supported animal liberation, I have never encountered an argument that cannot be deconstructed in the following way: ultimately human beings are superior to non-human animals or at least deserve nothing more than our indifference, since they are a different species and therefore it entitles us to dominate them as we see fit.

That thought process is fundamentally problematic to me. I don't see how it is justifiable for any one to be comfortable with legitimising violence based on those parameters.

Its also the precisely same logic used by of bigots against human populations that they regard as inferior.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't necessarily disagree with you two, so I'm interested in knowing what steps you take to respect the lives on non-human animals in your day to day activities?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't necessarily disagree with you two, so I'm interested in knowing what steps you take to respect the lives on non-human animals in your day to day activities?

What do you mean by day-to-day activities?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Like what do you do in your daily activities to counter this logic you put forth:

ultimately human beings are superior to non-human animals or at least deserve nothing more than our indifference, since they are a different species and therefore it entitles us to dominate them as we see fit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Like what do you do in your daily activities to counter this logic you put forth:

The purpose of my question was to understand the scope of what "daily activities" means? Do you mean politically or in terms of my day-to-day existence?

Politically I don't do anything any more, except argue with people. In terms of my life, I'm a vegan and all that that entails...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You don't need to be so suspicious I'm not trying to pin you in on anything to win an argument, I guess I'm just interested in how you view your relationship towards animals vs. that of a meat eater. I was a vegetarian for 2 years and a vegan for one for what I considered moral reasons. I reached a point where I came to the conclusion that not eating meat was kind of an empty gesture on my part, something done just to make myself feel better. Sure I didn't consume flesh, but whole ecosystems were trashed in order to grow the soybeans and other vegetables I ate instead. Entire populations of animals are destroyed in the process of protecting the crop for market etc. In my view all of human society rests on the brutal exploitation of non-human life. Even in my daily life I exploited and disrespected animals constantly, either through direct actions or through passive consumption of items that required someone else to do the dirty work for me. I couldn't see how not eating meat changed anything in that equation. I still don't eat very much meat, but taking an explicit stance against it started to feel really hypocritical. How do you do you all deal with the cognitive dissonance?

[The Feral Underclass]

You don't need to be so suspicious I'm not trying to pin you in on anything to win an argument, I guess I'm just interested in how you view your relationship towards animals vs. that of a meat eater. I was a vegetarian for 2 years and a vegan for one for what I considered moral reasons. I reached a point where I came to the conclusion that not eating meat was kind of an empty gesture on my part, something done just to make myself feel better. Sure I didn't consume flesh, but whole ecosystems were trashed in order to grow the soybeans and other vegetables I ate instead. Entire populations of animals are destroyed in the process of protecting the crop for market etc. In my view all of human society rests on the brutal exploitation of non-human life. Even in my daily life I exploited and disrespected animals constantly, either through direct actions or through passive consumption of items that required someone else to do the dirty work for me. I couldn't see how not eating meat changed anything in that equation. I still don't eat very much meat, but taking an explicit stance against it started to feel really hypocritical. How do you do you all deal with the cognitive dissonance?

Those things occur because of capitalism, not because you made a decision to stop consuming meat. You are right that under capitalism there is no way of protecting the life of animals, whether they are human or not, but in my view, that's beside the point. Ultimately, that's just the nature of a capitalist society and yet another reason for why it needs to be abolished.

Your feelings of hypocrisy and inconsistency, however, remain predicated on the assumption that eating meat is par for the course of human interaction with the planet, i.e. if you can't solve the problems created by capitalism through a rejection of meat consumption, you revert to just following standard human behaviour anyway.

What I am trying to do is question meat eating as an assumption altogether. Why does eating meat feel okay to you under any circumstance, whether it's because you can't justify not eating meat or whether you can?

Also, I didn't mean to come across as suspicious, I just didn't understand what you were asking me.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Hmmm....so it looks like we meat eaters are in the super-majority. It wasn't even close!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

tat, communism isnt about compassion. it's about the working class taking power for itself. animal rights are negative rights that humans have conceded to some animals. two completely distinct scenarios, clearly.
as for animals lives, i do value them to some degree. but i question how feasible it is to protect animals' lives from humans in general. i cant even wash my clothes without killing some mites probably. so surely we cant make the blanket statement that all animals' lives must be valued and protected. and when you start to make up criteria for which animals and in what circumstances they may or may not be valued it all starts to sound kind of arbitrary imo. and increasingly absurd to compare it to human rights

[The Feral Underclass]

tat, communism isnt about compassion. it's about the working class taking power for itself. animal rights are negative rights that humans have conceded to some animals. two completely distinct scenarios, clearly.

You didn't read my post properly. I know that because if you had you wouldn't have started talking about animal rights, which I very clearly told you I was not a supporter of.

I don't accept that there is a choice that has to be made between the working class taking power for itself and compassion. We have to build a society, one that is communist, but one that also practices compassion. And it is disingenuous to say that communism "isn't about" compassion, when communists tend to be the most compassionate people on the planet, simply by virtue of being humanists. Our ability to empathise and show solidarity with all people is compassion.


as for animals lives, i do value them to some degree. but i question how feasible it is to protect animals' lives from humans in general. i cant even wash my clothes without killing some mites probably. so surely we cant make the blanket statement that all animals' lives must be valued and protected. and when you start to make up criteria for which animals and in what circumstances they may or may not be valued it all starts to sound kind of arbitrary imo. and increasingly absurd to compare it to human rights

There's no such thing as "rights" and I'm not talking about implementing "rights" for any animal, human or otherwise.

This argument about which animals should be protected and which animals shouldn't be protected and how are we going to protect them is designed to mystify the animal liberation argument that I'm making.

Simply, all that I am proposing is that we stop using animals as tools in our lives and change our attitudes towards their existence. An attitude that puts an emphasis on compassion and solidarity, rather than entitlement, supremacy, difference and domination.