90 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

Sorry, but using "farming ethics" as an umbrella to cover two completely different stages in the process is dumb.

As far as I'm concerned, from birth until it hits the shelves, an animal is farmed. You can dispute that if you want, but it's a ridiculously irrelevant argument in semantics that frankly, I couldn't care less about.

You don't see me pointing out over-exaggerations in your arguments and calling you a "failure" but I digress.  I apologize that English is my third language and I may not have a grasp on whatever terms you come up with, but that doesn't mean you're right (sorry, but you cannot use a term loosely to cover different topics in different situations irrelevant to the actual debate, hur dur).

If English is your third language, it's your responsibility to make sure it's up to scratch in order to participate in a conversation.
My congratulations on learning three languages, but that's not an excuse for lazy argumentation.

Because we all know that cats, dogs, hamsters, birds, snakes, etc, are all bred to satisfy peoples meat cravings.

More semantics.
I was clearly referring to domesticated farm animals. You'll note that I even deliberately excluded dairy cows.

If more people became vegetarians, they would be processing less meat because there would be less demand for it, rather than cutting corners (which they can't really do, the next stage would be to just have a guillotine behead all animals, but that's just cheaper and not really cutting corners, it's more effective).

I don't dispute that. However, an immediate effect will be a drop in income, and a surplus of stock.
Not even the most rigorously maintained farm can react to an impact on profit margins preemptively.

Eventually, if everyone in that area did become vegetarians, they would either supply to a more demanding area or sell it to foreign countries.

I don't believe we were discussing an isolated area. I'm talking about a global, uniform change, for simplicity.
In your example, you're correct, although increased shipping rates would still create a knock in profits.

It wouldn't make animals "suffer" any more than they already did, just less of them would, or perhaps more when they start shipping to a more profitable area.

Since you like picking up on my language, I shall first point out that you should use the term "fewer", not "less", when talking about discrete units.
I agree, that eventually, fewer and fewer animals would suffer. In the end, there would be none left. You'll note that I've already said that.
In the short term however, the likelihood is that the standard of living (and death) would decrease.

Don't know why you took the original question out of context, it was originally "what do you think of veganism" not "if everyone was a vegan animals would suffer more".

Don't know why you don't understand my reply.
What I initially said, or implied, was that vegetarianism/veganism is pointless, an opinion which I then backed up with argument.
The argument is what you have disputed, and that brings us to this point in the debate. Not a difficult chain of events to follow.

Although all your information is wrong on how business works for slaughterhouse owners (you have no relation to any meat industries at all, do you?), you still insist on trying to prove you're somewhat right.

For now, there are simply two conflicting points of view. Neither of us have provided any supporting evidence. You may not know this, but personal experience is not a valid form of evidence in a debate, as it is unsupportable.
My side of the argument is simply based on a short-term logical reaction to a decrease in profits.

[skinnjazz]

^^ I like the way you think.

but, I do also think that, if more and more people became vegetarians, there would be more influence on the meat industry etc that would prevent the kind of scenario that you're talking about.

I know of a lot of vegans who still own farms with all the sorts of animals that you're saying would be wiped out. I don't think you could have the sort of global enlightenment that would lead to mass-vegetarianism, without the corresponding increase of awareness of animal rights?

i find your argument a bit narrow - it doesn't take into account how humanity would change if everyone was vegetarian, how standards and ethics etc would change.

Edited by skinnjazz, 20 September 2010 - 12:01 PM.

[Mikes]

I feel that if you are able to make up for the gaps in nutrition, veganism is perfectly fine. It is pretty hard to do though > <

[skinnjazz]

It is pretty hard to do though

not so true anymore, yeah? there have been major advances in this respect over the past few years, and there are far more vegan products on the market - and far more restaurants that cater to vegans - than there were in the past.


true, it's not the easiest thing to do, but it's not as difficult as a lot of people make it out to be.

[Risey]

for me. it's a personal thing. i would never kill an animal, therefore, i don't eat animals.

i've milked cows before, so i drink milk. i collected eggs, so i eat eggs (only from certain farms).

I am a vegetarian too, for pretty much those same reasons. Also, I like the health benefits. Humans don't need meat to survive, so I am not going to eat it, especially if it means less harm is done to animals.

i admire people who are vegans, I just don't think I could be one right now.

[MsRose]

Well, replying to a topic that you haven't read the entirety of is a little daft.

I know, I know. I'll just sit in the corner here.

[Trichomes]

I was never a vegetarian, but I was a pescetarian for almost 2 years because I couldn't give up sushi or shellfish, pretty much my favorite foods. I didn't give up meat for any ethical reasons because animals are going to be slaughtered regardless of whether I eat meat or not. I mean, what impact is a single person going to have in a world where most people eat meat? I love animals, and I would love for them to be killed humanely 100% of the time, but it's not going to happen. I think I stopped eating meat because I started to enjoy it less and less, and it was almost a challenge to see how long I could go without it. I finally started eating poultry again, simply out of convenience (I was gaining a lot of weight by eating mostly carbs) and because I missed it. My boyfriend has been a vegetarian for about 5 years, and it's really not a big deal. There are plenty of restaurants that cater to non-meat eaters...I'm just lazy and was sick of making unhealthy decisions as a result.

Oh, and I really hate when people use the terms vegetarianism and veganism interchangeably, and also when people refer to themselves as vegetarians when they "occasionally" eat meat, including fish.

[redlion]

Oh, and I really hate when people use the terms vegetarianism and veganism interchangeably, and also when people refer to themselves as vegetarians when they "occasionally" eat meat, including fish.

I would apologize, but you really have no right to be angry at someone over a difference in semantic preference. I didn't want to seem like a snob for calling myself a pescatarian, even though it's the most correct term for my diet. Although I do agree that vegan and vegetarian are used far too often interchangeably.

To clarify, I don't occasionally eat meat. Meat and fish are separate things. I know this because of the risk of microbial infection. You can't get a parasite from sea fish - salt water organisms can't survive in our bodies. Whereas microbes from mammal flesh can easily survive a 'rare' or even 'medium rare' cooking. Meat doesn't include fish. Ask the catholic church or the Jews.

[Trichomes]

I would apologize, but you really have no right to be angry at someone over a difference in semantic preference. I didn't want to seem like a snob for calling myself a pescatarian, even though it's the most correct term for my diet. Although I do agree that vegan and vegetarian are used far too often interchangeably.

To clarify, I don't occasionally eat meat. Meat and fish are separate things. I know this because of the risk of microbial infection. You can't get a parasite from sea fish - salt water organisms can't survive in our bodies. Whereas microbes from mammal flesh can easily survive a 'rare' or even 'medium rare' cooking. Meat doesn't include fish. Ask the catholic church or the Jews.

I never said I was angry, and what I said wasn't even directed towards you. I didn't quote anyone, so what makes you think I even read your post in the first place? Perhaps "hate" is too strong a word, because it's really just a pet peeve of mine. Either way, I don't see how using correct terminology makes you a snob. I don't expect everyone to know what pescetarianism is, which is why I tried to make it clear. I also think the definition of "meat" is pretty subjective, so that's like arguing whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. I agree with you, but I wouldn't exactly consider the Catholic church a reliable source of scientific information.

[iargue]

I read the first 3 posts. Realized that Sweeney fucking pwned any argument the retarded veganist can put up, and skipped the rest :|

I've thought about becoming a vegetarian, but then I thought about the poor defenseless carrots being plucked from their happy homes in the warm soil of the land and I was so SO sad until my mom took me to Applebee's where I had a nice juicy steak dinner. It was phenomenal. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

[MKB]

not so true anymore, yeah? there have been major advances in this respect over the past few years, and there are far more vegan products on the market - and far more restaurants that cater to vegans - than there were in the past.

Just because more people cater to veganism doesn't mean the lifestyle is any healthier than it was when the idea was first around. Sure, it may sound healthy, eating lots of fruits, veg and cereals, but it doesn't cover the lack of nutrition you would get from Meat, so you're losing quite a lot in that aspect.

For the sake of argument, Sweeney, we're talking about an exclusive, isolated area where the community demands affect the buisnesses around. If there were more vegetarians/vegans than carnivores, there will be a profit loss but this doesn't mean that it leads to more animals suffering. In this case, it would be the opposite; if there are less and less animals being bred, they could use that money to improve the quality of their lifestyle, improving the quality of their meat and as a result could make more money from it. A "general" rule to apply to this would be that the more meat that needs to be supplied, the more corners they would have to cut so that they can actually meet the demand. When you have less demand, you can make longer deadlines to make the stock a better quality, as a result in this situation, less animals would be suffering (if they would be "suffering" at all, since they would have quite a luxurious lifestyle).

I don't like how vegetarians use "suffer" as a term to breeding animals for food. As far as they would be concerned, using an extreme american slaughterhouse as an example, they are all together, eating together, and they die together. It's not like they are seperated from each other and cannot do anything.

p.s I thought the morals of veganism was to exclude yourself from harming any lifeform, and to use the products naturally grown on the planet. So fish would come in with that.

[skinnjazz]

they could use that money to improve the quality of their lifestyle, improving the quality of their meat and as a result could make more money from it.

they could, but they wouldn't. if we're talking about the meat industry as it stands today, then chances are that sweeney is right and they would just cut costs, and increase advertising. the meat industry doesn't give a damn about the animals living conditions etc.

When you have less demand, you can make longer deadlines to make the stock a better quality, as a result in this situation, less animals would be suffering (if they would be "suffering" at all, since they would have quite a luxurious lifestyle).

no, i don't agree. they would find areas of higher demand that are within range. they wouldn't waste time improving the product - unless it was by making it more tender, or pumping it full of stimulants and hormones (both of which would cause more suffering)


all in all, it seems like you're basing your entire argument on a flawed understanding of both humanity, and the meat industry.

As far as they would be concerned, using an extreme american slaughterhouse as an example, they are all together, eating together, and they die together. It's not like they are seperated from each other and cannot do anything.

this is the most deluded sentence i have ever heard. the people in Hitlers death-camps were all together etc - are you telling me they didn't suffer?

I thought the morals of veganism was to exclude yourself from harming any lifeform, and to use the products naturally grown on the planet. So fish would come in with that.

vegans don't use/eat any animal products or by-products. fish aren't vegetables.

[redlion]

I never said I was angry, and what I said wasn't even directed towards you. I didn't quote anyone, so what makes you think I even read your post in the first place? Perhaps "hate" is too strong a word, because it's really just a pet peeve of mine. Either way, I don't see how using correct terminology makes you a snob. I don't expect everyone to know what pescetarianism is, which is why I tried to make it clear. I also think the definition of "meat" is pretty subjective, so that's like arguing whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. I agree with you, but I wouldn't exactly consider the Catholic church a reliable source of scientific information.

The bit about meat or fish 'occasionally' was almost word for word in my post, so I took it to heart. Using correct terminology always makes you a snob to the poor ignorant masses, didn't you know?

Well, meat is a subjective term. Personally I discern a difference between big, fatty cuts of beef and a lean, pared down fish. One animal was caught and killed by virtue of not breathing our air. The other was factory-farmed, fed an unhealthy diet to quickly gain weight, and then slaughtered. But that's just me.

I understand calling all animal flesh meat. Technically, we all should. But in America... beef is meat. If you don't eat beef, you don't eat meat. "Beef: It's what's for dinner." Remember?

[MKB]

within range

read the post again

all in all, it seems like you're basing your entire argument on a flawed understanding of both humanity, and the meat industry.

Seems like your basing your entire argument on "meat people are bad".  What "flawed" understanding do I have of my own family business?  I'm pretty sure I know well more than you do about the history of the meat industry, the methods available and how many people go about doing these because my family has generations of experience doing this.  Your idea of meat industries is "gather up cattle, feed them shit, kill them, profit", not everyone is like this, and the only reason people do this is to meet the overwhelming demand for meat in the country.

the people in Hitlers death-camps were all together etc - are you telling me they didn't suffer?

So you're comparing meat producing to the holocaust now?  Riddle me this - have the animals ever been taken away from a "normal" life? no.  Do the animals have any idea about the "outside world" if they were born and raised in a slaughterhouse? no.  Comparing the holocaust to animals dying to feed people is the dumbest thing you could have said, and you should just stop posting because you're a twat.  How do you know, for example, cows have this emotion?  Especially if their entire life was around this, they wouldn't have developed the emotion to feel this is suffering because this is the normal situation in that case.

vegans don't use/eat any animal products or by-products. fish aren't vegetables.

I'm saying fish falls into "vegans won't eat", you're reading the sentence wrong on purpose.

the meat industry doesn't give a damn about the animals living conditions etc.

   because you have a major insight into all the activities of every butcher, slaughterhouse and farmer out there.

[skinnjazz]

baaaaaaaww. ok. this is obv going to turn into one of those name-calling arguments...

the only thing i'm gonna say is, re: the fish thing - i was just agreeing... lol

[MsRose]

I read the first 3 posts. Realized that Sweeney fucking pwned any argument the retarded veganist can put up, and skipped the rest :|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

Why is everything Sweeney says automatically right? He's not a fountain of truth or something. He's simply good at debate. Truthfully, it's not all that hard to make a good argument for practically anything.

Have any of you read "Thank you for smoking"? The fact that debate isn't really about who is "right" and who is "wrong" but rather a game of wills and wits is the entire point of that novel.

[Sweeney]

For goodness sake, there're three "e"s in my username.

[redlion]

Have any of you read "Thank you for smoking"? The fact that debate isn't really about who is "right" and who is "wrong" but rather a game of wills and wits is the entire point of that novel.

It's a game of set the agenda. Notice how we're not debating about the morals of going vegan? Or about vegetarianism vs carnivorism? Instead we went off on a tangent about farming, which is much more concrete and arguable.

I didn't read the book, but I saw the movie. Still think I got the gist of the original content though.

For goodness sake, there're three "e"s in my username.

And there's no capitalization in mine. But who gives a shit?

[MsRose]

For goodness sake, there're three "e"s in my username.

But I like saying Sweeney :C Can I still call you Sweeney and not Sweeney? pretty please with sugar on top.

Also, I've already stated I'm retarded. You can expect as much from here on out.

Edited by MsRose, 21 September 2010 - 05:15 AM.

[luvsmyncis]

 

One animal was caught and killed by virtue of not breathing our air. The other was factory-farmed, fed an unhealthy diet to quickly gain weight, and then slaughtered. But that's just me. 

Fish are farmed too. We just don't associate them with being loveable like a pretty cow or adorable little baby chicken so we don't give a fuck about their 'feelings'.
But I will agree with you that OMG THEY ARE DELICIOUS.

[Faval]

Fish are farmed too. We just don't associate them with being loveable like a pretty cow or adorable little baby chicken so we don't give a fuck about their 'feelings'.
But I will agree with you that OMG THEY ARE DELICIOUS.

And for the better looking/smarter type of fish, we put them on display and make them work such as with dolphins and whales. No one really cares that they're basically in a prison like setting and not even getting paid for their work

The fact is humans are basically on the top of the food chain and we do whatever we want to animals.

Edited by Faval, 21 September 2010 - 10:31 AM.

[Frizzle]

And there's no capitalization in mine. But who gives a shit?

Technically, it's a name and basic English would dictate that a capital letter is due.

[Warriors]

I don't get how people call themselves vegetarian yet they eat fish or eggs and what not...I hate to skeptical and pessimistic but I doubt turning vegetarian will have any impact on how meat is distributed...

[iargue]

Why is everything Sweeney says automatically right? He's not a fountain of truth or something. He's simply good at debate. Truthfully, it's not all that hard to make a good argument for practically anything.

Have any of you read "Thank you for smoking"? The fact that debate isn't really about who is "right" and who is "wrong" but rather a game of wills and wits is the entire point of that novel.

Clearly you know nothing about me if you believe that I think Sweeney is Always right....

But in this case, Sweeney is clearly right, and even I, know very name states that I argue, do not see the point in arguing :|

[Trichomes]

And for the better looking/smarter type of fish, we put them on display and make them work such as with dolphins and whales.

This is really besides the point, but neither dolphins nor whales are actually fish...

I don't get how people call themselves vegetarian yet they eat fish or eggs and what not...

This is what I meant in my earlier post. Since there's a name for a "vegetarian" who eats fish, more people should use it. However, I disagree with the egg thing. The chicken eggs we eat are unfertilized, with no chance of ever becoming a baby chicken since fertilization takes place internally, so we're essentially just eating a cell. That's almost like considering the consumption of semen unethical.

Edited by Trichomes, 21 September 2010 - 02:03 PM.