Why are you NOT vegetarian

[Aught3]

The naturalistic fallacy?

I accept this characterization of my position. It certainly applies and I am unrepentant.

Is that because you think the naturalistic fallacy isn't a problem?

If not, isn't it worse to knowingly hold an unreasonable position that to unknowingly hold one?

 

[SpaceCDT]

I have been vegan for about 8 months now, while it gives me great pleasure to eat nothing but plants (and fungi yes) The other day I was discussing my veganism with a friend (for some reason everybody feels they can give me nutritional advice) and I asked why he felt he had the right to murder animals so he could chew on them; after a while it boiled down to his god given right to do use the earth and the animals as he saw fit because he has human and not some souless panda....

From a christ..g I see where this is comming but then I thougt, "So what is an atheist rationalization?"

I completely reject the vegan assertion that the consumption of meat is somehow immoral. You would first have to demonstrate that eating meat is immoral before I would have any need to rationalise my participation in meat - eating.

 

[MRaverz]

I do not believe a multicellular organism without a brain has less right to life than its animal counterpart. If you are willing to kill something to eat it, then to me it doesn't matter if it's a cow or a carrot. In fact I'd go far as to say that if you are a vegetarian/vegan solely because you don't like the thought of animals dying then you are being illogical.

As far as I'm aware plants are not sentient, nor do they have a central nervous system. Animals do. Although I accept that all organisms are related, however there is a big difference between and intelligent sentient creature like a pig, and a brainless plant without a nervous system.

It might be illogical to you, but to me, pulling a carrot out of the ground is not the same as keeping a pig in a dark room with no space to move, simply waiting till its fat enough to be killed.

So by this logic, it's perfectly ok to kill a person in a coma?

 

[Memeticemetic]

I accept this characterization of my position. It certainly applies and I am unrepentant.

Is that because you think the naturalistic fallacy isn't a problem?

If not, isn't it worse to knowingly hold an unreasonable position that to unknowingly hold one?

Well, there are certain behaviors I wouldn't bother to question based solely on the fact that they are typical, or natural, human behaviors or characteristics. I don't seek to justify being bipedal, bilaterally symmetrical, sentient, sapient, social, or omnivorous. These are defining qualities of what it is to be human, and it seems rather absurd to be expected to justify any of them.

I liken the debate to one between celibates and sexually active adults. Yes, there may be some questionable moral quandaries to be considered in having an active sex life, but the celibacy solution goes so far against human nature it collapses in inherent absurdity.

But I don't generally like getting into debates with vegans/vegetarians because it is completely within their rights to eat or not what they please and none of them in my social circle hassle me about my dietary choices so I see no reason to hassle them over theirs.

 

[Memeticemetic]

So by this logic, it's perfectly ok to kill a person in a coma?

Only if you eat them and are careful not to waste any part of the body.

 

[CVBrassil]

I'm late onto the train.

I like meat. Steak is fantastic. Steak-sandwiches are fantastic. Everything about it is fantastic.

If you want a somewhat better argument, I suppose I like food-culture. The history behind food and "local dishes", that sort of stuff. I'm going to be traveling a lot in the near-future, and I think I'll enjoy sampling dishes from around the world, as they were meant to be.

On the moral argument... urhghegh. I am horrified to watch something like Food Inc, I really am. The conditions these animals are subject to are just... awful. So I do support better living conditions for these creatures. But I am not phased by eating something, say, free-range, or grass-fed cow, stuff like that. If it lived a decent life I'm happy.

Mainly though, I like meat and all the substitutes I've had haven't matched up.

 

[Caractacus]

I'd hate to waste all that delicious meat. If it's any comfort, I only eat animals that are already dead.

 

[Independent Vision]

I already said why I was NOT a vegetarian before I became one, so let me say why I AM a vegetarian today:

1. Most meats give me stomach aches. Pig and cow meat are the worse, wild game meat was tolerable, the same went for fish and most shellfish. Eggs and milk also make my stomach feel iffy and I don't feel as well when I eat them as when I don't eat them.

2. My general health did improve on a vegetarian/vegan diet. Less colds, less period cramps, less fatigue.

3. Ecologically speaking, it is more sustainable of a lifestyle and does require less energy to produce.

4. I have found no logical justification to eat other animals when I don't have to, or even need to. Appeals to nature will get you nowhere, since a lot of us can live very well on a meat free diet. We're technologically advanced and agriculturally advanced enough to allow for it.

5. It's more economically viable for me. Lentils cost less than a steak. A slab unflavored firm silken tofu is barely 2 dollars. The same weight mass of, say... pork is more expensive.

6. I have been a vegetarian for so long that, I admit it, most of the time the smell of meat cooking turns my stomach. Chicken, to me, smells like chicken poop.

7. I don't want to contribute to the meat industry and the horrible way we treat animals for the sake of taste buds. We only buy free range and ecological dairy and egg products. Sure, they cost more, but they taste better.
My husband does eat meat, but only certain types and 99.9 percent of the time he only eats free-range and ecological ones.

8. I find it yummier. Not that I can remember what meat tastes like. Most kinds I haven't tried for... wow... a decade.


I have to say, though, that the extreme condescending attitude towards people who are vegetarians and vegans in here is just as bad, if not worse than the condescending attitude veggie-idiots spew over people who eat meat. It's making me chuckle, hypocrisy usually does, even my own.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I'd also like to point out that I have no problems with veggies/vegans per se. I don't eat most fish, but that's just 'cos I don't like it. My wife eats very little dairy for the same reason. What anyone else chooses to put in their stomach is no concern of mine. I just don't buy the ethical argument when ethically produced meat is available. All that said, the OP's geographical location has an effect on these arguments as in my experience it's much harder (perhaps impossible) to find such produce in Mexico.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

In all seriousness.

If I think that a type of animal qualifies as permissible foodstuffs and that humans do not, it is only because I view humans as having a greater range of experience than said animal.

More bluntly, I do not think that cows or chickens are particularly aware of their predicament, nor generally any less fulfilled as individuals because of it. And, indeed, as a species their lot has certainly improved because of human appetites. Fish, crustaceans, and insects, may not benefit quite so much from our consumption of them; but then, I think even less of their range of experience (they're simply too stupid to attract my sympathies.) Pigs, on the other hand, I feel bad about eating. Both because I gage them to have a similar range of experience to humans, and because the conditions in which they are typically kept as livestock are clearly distressing to them; I empathize with their suffering.

I suppose if an animal were endangered or somesuch I might also abstain.

 

[Aught3]

Well, there are certain behaviors I wouldn't bother to question based solely on the fact that they are typical, or natural, human behaviors or characteristics. I don't seek to justify being bipedal, bilaterally symmetrical, sentient, sapient, social, or omnivorous. These are defining qualities of what it is to be human, and it seems rather absurd to be expected to justify any of them.

Well the first point is there is an important difference between some of the items on your list and the others. Being bilaterally symmetrical, sentient, and sapience are not things we can choose. Behaviours including bipedalism, sociality, and eating habits are areas which can be changed. I could understand a person who hadn't thought about the issue going with the default position of a justification of 'natural', 'tradition', or 'populum' - but once you have thought about the issue doesn't it become incumbent upon you to at least find a non-fallacious way to justify your choice?

 

[Independent Vision]

I'm actually genuinly interested how many people who stated taste as a reason for eating meat actually like the taste of unseasoned meat?

I mean, how many actually just... grill a piece of meat without adding salt, pepper, marinade, herbs and similar things and enjoy it that much?
I am very curious, if someone would like to answer the question. I've always wondered about that.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I'm actually genuinly interested how many people who stated taste as a reason for eating meat actually like the taste of unseasoned meat?

I mean, how many actually just... grill a piece of meat without adding salt, pepper, marinade, herbs and similar things and enjoy it that much?
I am very curious, if someone would like to answer the question. I've always wondered about that.

I do that sometimes. I tend to prefer to taste the meat not just the seasoning.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm actually genuinly interested how many people who stated taste as a reason for eating meat actually like the taste of unseasoned meat?

I mean, how many actually just... grill a piece of meat without adding salt, pepper, marinade, herbs and similar things and enjoy it that much?
I am very curious, if someone would like to answer the question. I've always wondered about that.

It depends on the cut of beef. There are some cuts that I do not think are that good unless they are seasoned and some are okay unseasoned. However, I have never been a fan of beef either. However, chicken and pork are wonderful. Neither of those needs anything for them to taste great to me. Adding seasoning to them is only icing (or sometimes ruins it).

There are other things, like deer and pronghorn, which are very delicious with out any seasoning. In fact, I think seasoning ruins a lot of their taste. However, than you have things like elk, which in my opinion needs to sit in a bowl of beer for a night in order for it to taste good.

 

[SagansHeroes]

I don't quite understand the whole hating on people's "use" of animals. Vegitarians/Vegans claim we're murderers, but they don't go picket lions for "murdering" Gazelle... I mean yeah, we have a conciousness that allows us to draw logical conclusions and reason.

Here are my brief thoughts on the topic

- Farm animals may be "murdered" before they're ready to die, but they also enjoy a life where they get all the food, rest and medical treatment they need. Animals in the wild often suffer from starvation, cold, fear (of predation) and disease/parasites that they cannot do anything about.
- I don't know specifics about the slaughterhouse industry but as far as I'm aware they are killed quickly, and I believe there are techniques used to calm them before they are killed. This sounds like a nicer death than struggling for your life, being exhausted, scared and dying slowly as a predator/micro-organism tries to bring you down
- Plants (vegetables) are living things too, sure they don't cry and yelp, but you're still ending something's life in order to sustain your own.

But meh, I'm a "eat-whatever"ian, because if it tastes nice and is nutritional I will consume it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't wish animals to be treated cruelly and care about their welfare. But nature is what nature is, and almost ALL life eats other forms of life in order to survive, and because not eating certain portions of it appeases your concious, that's fine, just don't try and attack my "values" because I don't deny my natural instinct and an important part in our evolutionary origin.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Well, there are certain behaviors I wouldn't bother to question based solely on the fact that they are typical, or natural, human behaviors or characteristics. I don't seek to justify being bipedal, bilaterally symmetrical, sentient, sapient, social, or omnivorous. These are defining qualities of what it is to be human, and it seems rather absurd to be expected to justify any of them.

Well the first point is there is an important difference between some of the items on your list and the others. Being bilaterally symmetrical, sentient, and sapience are not things we can choose. Behaviours including bipedalism, sociality, and eating habits are areas which can be changed. I could understand a person who hadn't thought about the issue going with the default position of a justification of 'natural', 'tradition', or 'populum' - but once you have thought about the issue doesn't it become incumbent upon you to at least find a non-fallacious way to justify your choice?

Grrr. My point is that I don't feel the need to justify myself, yet here I go freakin' justifying myself when pressed. Dammit.

Okay, we can toss the examples I used that preclude choice on their face. But how much choice is really involved in accepting the default behavior of your species? Do we really choose to be bipedal? And, if so, do we really feel the need to justify that decision? I really view an omnivorous diet as being just that natural to humans. I'd find it just as absurd to tell a lion it ought to have a salad instead. Or people who insist on making their dogs vegan (yeah, I know a guy who does that). I know it's technically fallacious reasoning but, ffs, I just don't have the energy to deconstruct every aspect of every decision I make. And yes, I see the irony in that last sentence. I'm a bundle of contradictions, what's a man to do?

I'm actually genuinly interested how many people who stated taste as a reason for eating meat actually like the taste of unseasoned meat?

I mean, how many actually just... grill a piece of meat without adding salt, pepper, marinade, herbs and similar things and enjoy it that much?
I am very curious, if someone would like to answer the question. I've always wondered about that.

I never season meat at all if I have the choice. And I eat it as close to raw as it can be while still calling it "cooked". I genuinely and enthusiastically enjoy the taste of meat.

 

[DepricatedZero]

The OP's reasoning is guilt-based. E feels that e is doing good by not killing animals, and uses the typical reducto ad absurdum fallacy of vegans: "I asked why he felt he had the right to murder animals so he could chew on them."

This sets the tone for the rest of the post. No longer am I interested in a sincere discussion of why I'm not a vegetarian, but instead e's changed the topic from vegetarianism to morality. These are two separate topics, and I cannot in good faith respond to the topic e said e wanted to discuss, while the topic e presents is so disparate from it. So I will first address morality:

I'm saving the rain forest by not eating it. I'll have a couple cows with a side of shrimp. If you use the logic that you can survive with just eating plants, then why eat plants at all when you can get all your vitamins and essential nutrients from pills and water? You're destroying the environment with all these cabbage farms.

Or lets look at morality, and really look at it. It's simple: I'm more important to me than the bird is. You can make whatever claims you want about this statement, but nowhere is it false. I will eat the bird to survive. I will eat the bird because it is sufficiently beneath me. I require no further moral justification - what happens to the bird is unimportant, it's a fucking bird.

And assuming you had any sincerity in the question, I would respond with something I said in another thread recently:

We're omnivores. We are capable of eating both meat and plants. Why should I deny what I am? I embrace my humanity to its fullest, including the enjoyment of meat - it's part of the human experience. I enjoy eating meat, it's delicious.

 

[Aught3]

Okay, we can toss the examples I used that preclude choice on their face. But how much choice is really involved in accepting the default behavior of your species? Do we really choose to be bipedal? And, if so, do we really feel the need to justify that decision?

Well if you don't ever think about it then I suspect we would would walk around on two legs without ever making a concious choice to do so. But as soon as the question got raised I was trying to think of reasons why would should walk on two legs rather than crawl on four. At that point I have made a choice to continue with bipedalism or make use of all four limbs for moving about.

I really view an omnivorous diet as being just that natural to humans. I'd find it just as absurd to tell a lion it ought to have a salad instead. Or people who insist on making their dogs vegan (yeah, I know a guy who does that). I know it's technically fallacious reasoning but, ffs, I just don't have the energy to deconstruct every aspect of every decision I make. And yes, I see the irony in that last sentence. I'm a bundle of contradictions, what's a man to do?

The difference between lions and humans is that if a lion was put on a vegetarian diet it would die from malnutrition. Humans can survive, quite well, on a vegetarian diet. For dogs it depends on the breed, so I hope your friend knows what he's doing. As for the last bit my position is that it's worse to have thought about an issue and embraced fallacious reasoning than it is not to have thought about it at all. Sorry

 

[Memeticemetic]

Okay, we can toss the examples I used that preclude choice on their face. But how much choice is really involved in accepting the default behavior of your species? Do we really choose to be bipedal? And, if so, do we really feel the need to justify that decision?

Well if you don't ever think about it then I suspect we would would walk around on two legs without ever making a concious choice to do so. But as soon as the question got raised I was trying to think of reasons why would should walk on two legs rather than crawl on four. At that point I have made a choice to continue with bipedalism or make use of all four limbs for moving about.

Well, sure you can make a choice about it and you can seek to justify bipedalism. But why on earth would you? At a certain point a thing becomes so intuitively obvious that it's just plain silly to muck about with justification. I'm all for doing it as a thought experiment, or for the lulz, but I wouldn't seriously try to justify bipedalism. Not out of any solid philosophical basis, but for the sheer lack of utility for such justification.

I really view an omnivorous diet as being just that natural to humans. I'd find it just as absurd to tell a lion it ought to have a salad instead. Or people who insist on making their dogs vegan (yeah, I know a guy who does that). I know it's technically fallacious reasoning but, ffs, I just don't have the energy to deconstruct every aspect of every decision I make. And yes, I see the irony in that last sentence. I'm a bundle of contradictions, what's a man to do?

The difference between lions and humans is that if a lion was put on a vegetarian diet it would die from malnutrition. Humans can survive, quite well, on a vegetarian diet. For dogs it depends on the breed, so I hope your friend knows what he's doing. As for the last bit my position is that it's worse to have thought about an issue and embraced fallacious reasoning than it is not to have thought about it at all. Sorry

Well, I would amend that a bit to 'extraordinarily wealthy by historical human standards' humans can survive quite well on a vegetarian diet. The capability for humans being able to live, let alone thrive, on a purely vegetarian diet is a relatively new phenomenon. Dogs are carnivores just as much as lions and other cats. Most carnivores can digest some plant matter, the amount varies with the species. And this guy is an idiot, I doubt he knows what he's doing and will most likely end up killing the poor beast.

No need to apologize for bringing up valid criticisms, mate. I could easily have ignored your initial thrust instead of offering a light-hearted riposte. I was, as I'm sure you've gathered, being a bit tongue in cheek by owning the naturalistic fallacy. It's not as if I haven't considered these questions in the past, and I don't actually consider an appeal to nature as being a valid justification. But it can be fun to play around with, no?

 

[Aught3]

But it can be fun to play around with, no?

Yep, all a bit of fun for me too