The redneck strike again.

[FatAndFaithless]

.. and others, like L'l Ricky here, just have trouble believing anything which isn't a certified fact regardless of what arguments and facts anyone else may care to mention. Whatever doesn't fall into place is explained away as irrelevant, a lie or just the unenlightened blindness of the un-elect.

We are really so lucky that he deigns to cast his loft pearls our way.[/sarcasm]

You just stupid redneck.

[bennyboy]

Try again. In the meantime, let me take a crack at it-

You don't eat meat because it feels icky. You've rationalized this ickly feeling post hoc, but the rationalization was not as important as the icky feeling - so you didn't take the time to research the issue in order to form a thorough understanding of it. Instead, you looked for snips of text and argument that would appear to support the initial icky feeling regardless the veracity of the snips and arguments -intentionally manufacturing validation for a deeply personal experience. You further vested this icky feeling with spiritual heft and weight, and as such it has become an item of sacred importance to you. This capped it, and made it "true forever, all over the cosmos" as any spiritual thing is experienced to be.

How did I do? There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian just because eating meat makes you uncomfortable. That's a valid reason. There -is- something wrong with offering shitty arguments that 5 minutes worth of google could have dispelled for you before you ever had the displeasure of talking to me.

Your misquoting of me as the source of those arguments, and your delusions of grandeur (in thinking that your arguments are unique or coherent enough to make me feel any discomfort) notwithstanding, you haven't done very well.

My main reason for not eating meat is a moral one, stemming from two primary points. 1) There's nothing magi-special about human beings that makes their suffering or death worthy of moral consideration while that of other animals is not-- UNLESS you believe in the soul. 2) Much of the meat production and consumption is unnecessary, and given global environment issues, this excess represents a moral failure. In the USA, for example, you have a nation consisting almost entirely of morbidly overweight people, claiming that eating meat is a "necessity." This overconsumption is insulting both to the animals and to nature in general, as well as to the many families starving around the world. It is this disgusting state of waste that makes me feel "icky." Show me a population which eats for nutrition, rather than for gastronomic masturbation, and show me cattle which are exclusively grazed on natural terrain, and my opinions might change.

[FatAndFaithless]

Try again. In the meantime, let me take a crack at it-

You don't eat meat because it feels icky. You've rationalized this ickly feeling post hoc, but the rationalization was not as important as the icky feeling - so you didn't take the time to research the issue in order to form a thorough understanding of it. Instead, you looked for snips of text and argument that would appear to support the initial icky feeling regardless the veracity of the snips and arguments -intentionally manufacturing validation for a deeply personal experience. You further vested this icky feeling with spiritual heft and weight, and as such it has become an item of sacred importance to you. This capped it, and made it "true forever, all over the cosmos" as any spiritual thing is experienced to be.

How did I do? There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian just because eating meat makes you uncomfortable. That's a valid reason. There -is- something wrong with offering shitty arguments that 5 minutes worth of google could have dispelled for you before you ever had the displeasure of talking to me.

Your misquoting of me as the source of those arguments, and your delusions of grandeur (in thinking that your arguments are unique or coherent enough to make me feel any discomfort) notwithstanding, you haven't done very well.

My main reason for not eating meat is a moral one, stemming from two primary points. 1) There's nothing magi-special about human beings that makes their suffering or death worthy of moral consideration while that of other animals is not-- UNLESS you believe in the soul. 2) Much of the meat production and consumption is unnecessary, and given global environment issues, this excess represents a moral failure. In the USA, for example, you have a nation consisting almost entirely of morbidly overweight people, claiming that eating meat is a "necessity." This overconsumption is insulting both to the animals and to nature in general, as well as to the many families starving around the world. It is this disgusting state of waste that makes me feel "icky."


See? And I didn't even need to invoke a soul-- except to point out that anthropocentrism is based on Biblical ideas about the uniqueness of humans.

Speaking of delusions of grandeur, thanks for speaking for an entire country of vastly different opinions, and speaking for underprivileged families as if we don't do anything to help them, and assuming that you know what is 'insulting' to nature, as if it could be insulted.

Oh, and there's nothing about humanism that requires any sort of woo-ey soul talk.

[bennyboy]

Speaking of delusions of grandeur, thanks for speaking for an entire country of vastly different opinions,

Never happened.

and speaking for underprivileged families as if we don't do anything to help them,

Also never happened. I didn't say we don't make a gesture of helping poor people. I said the degree of overconsumption by Americans is an insult to nature and to hungry people in other countries.

and assuming that you know what is 'insulting' to nature, as if it could be insulted.

It's a figure of speech. The point is that human excess causes an increase in our impact on nature-- and you'd be making a pretty strange argument if you suggest that our impact on the Earth is a positive one.

Oh, and there's nothing about humanism that requires any sort of woo-ey soul talk.

Nor is there any logical or rational basis to it. Selfishness is selfishness, whatever it's called. Anyway, I didn't say anything about woo. I said that the Western idea that humans are intrinsically more deserving of moral consideration than animals reflects Biblical ideas about our uniqueness. Don't believe me? Go ahead and explain why human suffering matters, but that of animals does not.

[Natachan]

Actually obesity and diabetes is due to metabolic rate syndrome, caused by starches and processed carbs. If you're going to pull the obesity card don't blame meat. Blame potatoes and wheat.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, Benny, calm down.....looks to be a quote tag issue(the embedded riketto quote tag probably should have tipped you off...sigh).

Don't forget corn Natachan. It's in everything, after all.

On item 1, agreed, not sure how a "soul" crept it's way in here, it's uneccessary to either side of that POV. 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.

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. Agriculture -itself- is a global environmental issue, regardless of what you choose to eat. Integrated ag (that is, livestock feeding veggies feeding livestock) does offer a way to minimize this damage, but the current economic situation prevents it from becoming the norm (and you wouldn't sign on for it anyway, amiright?). Overconsumption is overconsumption, whether it's the beef or the beans. Your comment about waste making you feel icky as part of any justification is mystifying. Maybe you should become a breatharian? If waste puts you off meat it ought to put you off veggies to, but it doesn't. I know, I know, a mans gotta eat. In any case, even if americans cut back on consumption that wouldn't actually get any more food to starving mouths. Fortunately, we -could- all have plenty to eat, more than we need, it's just not in the cards at present, slaved to the market as it is. If american dietary habits were a driving force, rather than an effect, then perhaps we'd be on to something - but they aren't. Americans consume what has become available due to half a century's worth of breathroughs in ag. Some of those benefits have spilled over to others, but not many - and that isn't the fault of the consumer. Interesting aside, producers actually have their nuts in a vice trying to sell "more food" to anyone. We can only eat so much....so how do you sell a product that has an upper limit on consumption? How do you ensure financial growth for your firm in light of this? The guy who makes shiny plastic baubbles can sell as many as the market will consume (mountains and mountains of them..until the money runs out), not so for the man growing the food. Add to the mix that food is a perishable product and it starts to get really complicated.

You can get all the grass fed free range beef you want, try walmart. There are walmarts in regions that simply can't afford to engage in "gastronomic masturbation", so maybe you should get a ticket to one of those places and buy your beef at one of those walmarts? I don't think that it's availability, or the existence of such people will actually change your dietary habits, and I wouldn't argue that it should, or that you should - but 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.

[bennyboy]

Actually obesity and diabetes is due to metabolic rate syndrome, caused by starches and processed carbs. If you're going to pull the obesity card don't blame meat. Blame potatoes and wheat.

I think a lof of the stuff about hormones, thyroid conditions, etc. is symptomatic of the kind of diet you're talking about. But the fact is, if you are severely overweight, you are eating too much food. And the reason that people in impoverished countries are not overweight is that they cannot get enough food. I think the average 5 year-old could take these two facts and tell you what needs to be done.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[bennyboy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

. . . 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."

---

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Actually, benny, that would impoverish yet more people. The people that grow that food. Impoverished people have a habit of being slightly less than well-fed.

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.

Already been handled in this thread, but I don't mind repeating myself. Corn for cattle is not corn fit for human consumption. The areas in which those two very different commodities can be grown and the manner in which they are grown is vastly different. Land that can't handle production for human consumption is very often used to produce feed. They aren't competitors, they're collaborators.

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.

People actually starve with money in their pockets. It's an issue of energy, logistics, and incentive for producers, processors, and shippers. For instance, it;s corn that;s fattening us up, and corn is probably the only thing that we could realistically send to those people...but we'd just be consuming more energy (read: oil) causing more environmental damage (because:energy) while exporting our health issues to people who are already suffering. A 5 year old just might come up with an idea like that - but I'd put her silly ass in the corner for suggesting it.

Meanwhile, the producers would just raise the price of food for the american consumer...they wouldn't produce less of it - they can't, they would just find some other stream to plug into. Like animal byproducts, or biofuels.

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?

I'll rephrase for you. The justifications you've offered for your moral stance are non-factual. They are misconceptions. Any justification that flows from misconceptions isn't a very good one - even if your moral stance is.

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?

-and if you want to persuade people, it helps not to get caught with your pants down. I'm an activist. I actually sell other people on the idea of activism. I want to reduce the suffering of animals, the damage done to our environment, the hunger and suffering we experience. But I actually have to overcome the very objections you've offered, entirely vacuous objections..... to successfully do so. Let that sink in.