RE: The redneck strike again.
July 16, 2014 at 9:20 pm
(This post was last modified: July 16, 2014 at 9:30 pm by bennyboy.)
(July 16, 2014 at 7:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I don't advocate for the suffering of animals any more than you do. I think that it's extremely tiresome to have to explain this to every vegetarian who rides in on a high horse with their moral arguments.No, I wouldn't want to abuse a horse of any height just to show off.
Quote:On Item 2, I disagree, but only partly. There is no such thing as unnecessary food production until there are no human beings going hungry.Unless the extra food is actually being sent to hungry people, then there's definitely unnecessary food production. You could cut all the food production involved in keeping Americans obese, and that would have a total of zero effect on already-starving families around the world.
Quote:Overconsumption is overconsumption, whether it's the beef or the beans.Yes, that's right. But if you're feeding the beans to fatten up a cow, then you get the double whammy. I doubt cows eat beans, though-- so lets say corn and wheat.
Quote:In any case, even if americans cut back on consumption that wouldn't actually get any more food to starving mouths.Probably not, because those starving mouths have no money. But at least it would minimize the animal suffering and minimize our impact on our OWN environment to a degree.
Quote:. . . I would argue that you shouldn't make a claim that is so transparently fatuous while pushing moral vegetarianism. That last bit applies to your entire post, btw. I appreciate that these are your reasons, but you really don;t need any other reason than that it makes you uncomfortable. If you -are- going to offer up reasons, then make them good ones, give your position the respect it deserves.I don't think there are good moral reasons, because that idea leads straight into circular thinking-- what's a good way to decide what's good?
Let me ask you this-- would you speak up or even campaign for the rights of black people, given your current stance on human morality? I'm guessing you would. Almost all white people have accepted that non-white people belong under the umbrella of protection offered by the extension of moral ideas. Do you think Southerners ever talk about this extension with the term "high horse?" You bet!
The fact is that if you see reason to draw someone (or something) under that moral umbrella, you have a duty to pursuade others to do so as well-- otherwise, why did you adopt the more in the first place? You wouldn't stand by while a man beat a woman, while a mother badly beat a child, while a black person was being racially attacked, while animals were being mistreated, etc, would you? No. So why would you expect vegetarians to take the position "Well. . . vegetarian works for me, but I shouldn't impose it on anyone else-- even if it means inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals, which I dislike."
(July 16, 2014 at 8:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We're eating the wrong food....and the wrong food, even in lesser quantities - the sorts of quantities someone on public assistance can afford - will make you obese. That's why we're obese -and- malnourished.Yes, it's terrible. But I don't see how this justifies producing more meat. What it DOES justify is better health care and a more fair distribution of meat (or preferably a plant-based protein source) to fit actual dietary requirements. Overproduction is not the solution for a poorly organized food production and distribution system.
I'm for regulation of all those shitty foods, requiring that they be protein-supplemented based on the % of caloric requirements they represent. Eggo waffle? Fine-- put some soy protein in it.