PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon

[TheCountAlucard]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

I was unaware of this particular hypocrisy, just as I'm beginning to get the impression that I've missed a few more of their real zingers.

Like that they have literal domestic terrorists on their payroll? That they are against providing insulin for diabetics because years and years back, we were getting it from pigs? That they'd likewise be against a cure for AIDS if we had to test it on animals even once?

[CoffeeIncluded]

Originally Posted by TheCountAlucard

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

...They what.

...

...............

I was aware of everything else. I didn't know this. This is just too much. I spent the past several minutes staring at my screen when I read this. Maybe it's just the last straw, but I can't think of anything to say to this. Except that I don't hate easily. And even the people I can't stand, I would still try to help out if they really needed. But if I was walking by a lake and saw these people drowning, and I mean the fanatics, not the people tricked into donating to what they believe is a good cause, I don't know if I would wade in to save them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by TheCountAlucard

Like that they have literal domestic terrorists on their payroll? That they are against providing insulin for diabetics because years and years back, we were getting it from pigs? That they'd likewise be against a cure for AIDS if we had to test it on animals even once?

I was aware of most of that. PETA really is a bunch of whack-jobs, by most accounts.

Originally Posted by CoffeeIncluded

...They what.

...

...............

I was aware of everything else. I didn't know this. This is just too much. I spent the past several minutes staring at my screen when I read this. Maybe it's just the last straw, but I can't think of anything to say to this. Except that I don't hate easily. And even the people I can't stand, I would still try to help out if they really needed. But if I was walking by a lake and saw these people drowning, and I mean the fanatics, not the people tricked into donating to what they believe is a good cause, I don't know if I would wade in to save them.

Wade in to help 'em? Hell, I'd start taking pot-shots while standing along the shore to make sure there are no survivors.

I don't hate easily, but when I do it tends to intersect with my rather notable violent streak.

[lobablob]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

I've yet to see a compelling argument about where they -do- come from that doesn't rely almost entirely on moral philosophy

Surely any argument about where rights come from would essentially be moral philosophy. If you want a compelling argument about rights and morality not being merely social constructs, I would recommend Natural Law and Natural Rights by Finnis.

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Moral philosophy being a social construct, if rights come from moral obligation, they come from a social construct and therefore must be a creation of man.

The act and study of Moral Philosophy, in so far as it is a possible human activity and as it is something which is usually pursued socially, could perhaps be termed a social construct. However, Moral Philosophy as a discipline is distinct from and presupposes an object of study which is, loosely speaking, morality. The fact that the study of Moral Philosophy could be called a social construct does not mean that morality is necessarily a social construct, anymore than the fact that the study of Science could equally be called a social construct means that the things Science studies are social constructs.

It may well be morals are social constructs, but that conclusion doesn't follow merely from establishing that Moral Philosophy is a social construct as the two are distinct.

[Kelb_Panthera]

One can certainly argue that morality is part of human nature as an extension of the social instinct and compassion, but any philosophy based on morality is an inherently subjective construct based on the culture surrounding it. This is self-evident in the wildly varying moral value of an innumerable multitude of human behaviors throughout the world and its cultures and the way that the moral value of those behaviors has changed and continues to change over time.

It is for this reason that basing any idea on a moral philosophy means the idea is part of a social construct. By then building a construct around that idea you've created one social construct based on another. The very fact that there is more than one moral philosophy prevents any idea based on one from being universally true for all of humanity, much less all of the other creatures in nature.

Even the few things that most of humanity can nearly agree on; killing other people for example; are rife with exceptions and caveats in any given philosophy.

The notion that any idea that is inherently unprovable applies universally to all of humanity is absurd in itself, much less the assertion that such an idea is a natural law.

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by TheCountAlucard

Like that they have literal domestic terrorists on their payroll? That they are against providing insulin for diabetics because years and years back, we were getting it from pigs? That they'd likewise be against a cure for AIDS if we had to test it on animals even once?

What's worse is that MaryBeth Sweetland, a senior vice president of PETA, still takes insulin, despite allegedly being against it.

Frankly, I don't think they care even about changing society in their image.
What I think they care about is staying in the spotlight as much as possible.

[Xondoure]

So while I myself eat meat, I thought I'd come in and say a few kind words about vegans since it seems they're being treated a little harshly. I recognize most of this is an annoyance of being judged by people who choose that lifestyle, but that's really no reason to lash back out.

First there's the energy problem. To put it simply, meat is a lot more expensive in just about every way as opposed to vegetables. The reason is simple, the animals also have to eat. Thus when you eat meat you're part of a pyramid of energy where all of the corn necessary to keep that chicken alive is now also a part of sustaining you (for one maybe two meals.) Eating plant products directly cuts away a stepping stone on the pyramid and massively reduces energy expenditure. Thus becoming a vegetarian is about the fastest and most effective way of going green.

Second, while humans as omnivores is a natural part of evolution we do have a rather unique position in that by attaining this level of intelligence we are allowed choices most animals would not even think to make. On top of that many of us have the opportunity to not need to eat meat, whereas a predator in nature does not. Therefore claiming because it is okay for a wolf to kill for food makes it okay for a human (with access to other dietary options) to kill for food is a logical fallacy on two fronts.

TL;DR being a vegetarian is much better for the planet, and is a moral choice each of us has to make unlike other species. Now, not judging what choices you do make (as I said, I eat meat) but it's hard to argue that the world wouldn't be at the very least a more sustainable place if more people cut down on meat and other animal products.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

What's worse is that MaryBeth Sweetland, a senior vice president of PETA, still takes insulin, despite allegedly being against it.

I'm against vegetables but they're good for you.. so I've learned to eat an acceptable number of them.
whilst there are many things PETA that are laughable and worthy of corner time with the donkey hat, this doesn't strike me as one..
If she needs it to survive, I'd rather have her alive and spouting idiocy than dead and a martyr to a cause that is otherwise misrepresented and mis-managed at best

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

So while I myself eat meat, I thought I'd come in and say a few kind words about vegans since it seems they're being treated a little harshly. I recognize most of this is an annoyance of being judged by people who choose that lifestyle, but that's really no reason to lash back out.

Let me start by saying I also don't have a problem with people making whatever dietary choice they please, as long as they don't try and tell me what I should be eating.

First there's the energy problem. To put it simply, meat is a lot more expensive in just about every way as opposed to vegetables. The reason is simple, the animals also have to eat. Thus when you eat meat you're part of a pyramid of energy where all of the corn necessary to keep that chicken alive is now also a part of sustaining you (for one maybe two meals.) Eating plant products directly cuts away a stepping stone on the pyramid and massively reduces energy expenditure. Thus becoming a vegetarian is about the fastest and most effective way of going green.

As a provable statement, I have to ask for citations to back this up. My gut tells me there's something not quite kosher there. I'm not saying you're lying or making it up, but this sort of statement trips my propaganda sensor.

Second, while humans as omnivores is a natural part of evolution we do have a rather unique position in that by attaining this level of intelligence we are allowed choices most animals would not even think to make. On top of that many of us have the opportunity to not need to eat meat, whereas a predator in nature does not.

This -can- be true, but at current market values, at least in the US, an entirely animal free diet is more expensive than a traditional diet, and can consequently be out of reach for low-income families.

Therefore claiming because it is okay for a wolf to kill for food makes it okay for a human (with access to other dietary options) to kill for food is a logical fallacy on two fronts.

Here I have to disagree. Having alternative options, which is by no means guaranteed, doesn't change the fact that it's only natural for humans to eat meat. There are canines in your head for a reason and pretending they're not there doesn't change that. Choosing not to eat meat, while it is sometimes possible, is a step -away- from how nature built us.

In any case, the statement is based in the idea that killing another (non-human) animal is morally objectionable. If my morals don't match that, then there is no logical fallacy in the notion that it's okay to kill another animal for food. My personal morals say it's perfectly fine and the moral outlook of the majority of my culture agrees with that. You're the one committing a logical fallacy by basing part of your argument on the assumption that all people share the same moral values, when even a casual study of the differences between a few cultures shows this to be untrue; and basing another part of your argument on the idea that the lifestyle choice is a choice that all people in a given culture have, when this is also not the case.

TL;DR being a vegetarian is much better for the planet, and is a moral choice each of us has to make unlike other species. Now, not judging what choices you do make (as I said, I eat meat) but it's hard to argue that the world wouldn't be at the very least a more sustainable place if more people cut down on meat and other animal products.

As I said above, there are some notable holes in your assertion that need patching.

If someone wants to make a choice to refrain from animal products because their own moral philosophy or understanding of how it will impact the world for the greater good that's their perogative and I bear them no ill will for that choice.

I do, however, get annoyed when they get preachy and tell me I'm wrong for making a different choice, especially when they try and convince me with partially unsubstantiated and partially fallacious arguments. Note that this comment isn't directed at you personally. All of the arguments I've heard for switching to veganism/vegatarianism have had one or both of those flaws.

I also absolutely hate it when their argument calls on a division between man and nature when they can make no compelling argument to actually support any such division and then in direct contradiction to their own claim of such a division try to apply something of man to something of nature when they're supposedly seperate.

I'd be far more receptive to the idea if I were presented with a carefully thought out claim that was backed by actual data and didn't engage inherently subjective factors that don't necessarily apply at all, much less to me personally.

[THAC0]

There's no such thing as a no-kill veggie farm anyway (beyond maybe your own backyard). Lots of deer shot so they don't eat your broccoli.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by THAC0

There's no such thing as a no-kill veggie farm anyway (beyond maybe your own backyard). Lots of deer shot so they don't eat your broccoli.

Even if they never so much as saw a deer, much less shot one, that'd still be true. Just because broccoli can't yelp when you pluck it doesn't mean it's not alive.

You're killing a living organism every time you eat anything. In the case of many fresh veggies you're even eating them while they're still alive.

[Aedilred]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

As a provable statement, I have to ask for citations to back this up. My gut tells me there's something not quite kosher there. I'm not saying you're lying or making it up, but this sort of statement trips my propaganda sensor.

It's pretty uncontentious. In any reaction you lose energy (second law of thermodynamics). Plants get their energy directly from the sun; animals get their energy from eating plants. If humans eat plants, rather than animals, they're cutting out a stage in the food chain and increasing efficiency. Of course, we still have to grow all the crops to feed our livestock. It would be much more efficient if we just ate the crops.

It's one of the reasons why, in nature, you don't get many animals who feed on other carnivores, and those which do do so opportunistically (most of them are reptiles or fish, too).

That's without taking into account the volume of greenhouse gases produced by livestock. The meat and dairy industry is one of the biggest contributors to overall greenhouse gas.

Like you, I have no problem with vegans/vegetarians unless they're preachy about it. This rule pretty much applies to every group of people on the planet, actually. I'm happy for them to live their way as long as they're not interfering with me, or anyone else, who doesn't agree with them.

Inasmuch as eating animals is a moral choice about whether it's wrong to kill and eat them, for me that's a no-brainer. I'm a fairly unapologetic carnivore in that regard. I do try to eat meat that's been more ethically produced where possible, though (free-range, etc.).

The environmental impact, though, is harder to justify to myself. I now try to moderate my meat intake a little more, although I've by no means eliminated it altogether. I'd be lying if I said it was entirely down to green concerns, but they are a factor. There's no way I'm going to cut meat (or associated animal products) out of my diet completely, though.

Even if they never so much as saw a deer, much less shot one, that'd still be true. Just because broccoli can't yelp when you pluck it doesn't mean it's not alive.

You're killing a living organism every time you eat anything. In the case of many fresh veggies you're even eating them while they're still alive.

Except fruit.

[lobablob]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

One can certainly argue that morality is part of human nature as an extension of the social instinct and compassion

This isn't exactly what I was arguing and I would perhaps take a subjectivist position on morality myself, although I'm not entirely sure of the matter. What I was arguing was that there are be arguments for an objective morality that are worth considering and that your arguments were fallacious.

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

but any philosophy based on morality is an inherently subjective construct based on the culture surrounding it.

In that sentence, you predicate being a 'subjective construct based on the culture surrounding it' of a 'philosophy based on morality'. This is essentially the same problem as before, you argue that Moral Philosophy or a 'philosophy based on morality' is a social or subjective construct and then proceed as if you had established the morality itself a social or subjective construct. This is an equivocation, morality and Moral Philosophy are not identical terms; they cannot be used interchangeably and there are some situations where the one term is appropriate and the other is not and it doesn't follow from establishing that Moral Philosophy is a social construct that morality is a social construct. The two terms denote something different and so what is true of one is not necessarily true of the other.

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

This is self-evident in the wildly varying moral value of an innumerable multitude of human behaviors throughout the world and its cultures and the way that the moral value of those behaviors has changed and continues to change over time.

It is self-evident to us (though not necessarily in itself), from the fact that intelligent people with a deep understanding of morality can disagree as to whether morality is subjective or objective, that the answer to the question of whether morality is subjective or objective, is not self-evident. The argument here is essentially circular, it attempts to prove that morality is subjective, but it proceeds from implied premises that only a subjectivist would accept. I can show what I mean from this sentence;

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

the way that the moral value of those behaviors has changed and continues to change over time.

Your argument takes as a premise that the moral value of particular behaviours has changed over time. This premise is questionable. I'm sure that no one would doubt that the view of the moral value of particular behaviours has changed over time, I would consider that obvious, but it is impossible to logically infer from this fact alone that the moral value itself of those behaviours has changed, unless one adds the additional premise that the view of the moral value of particular behaviours is identical with the moral value itself, but this additional premise is the same as saying that morality is subjective. Therefore the claim that the moral value of particular behaviours has changed over time, which you take as the premise for your argument, is only acceptable to someone who already believes that morality is subjective and so the argument is circular.

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

It is for this reason that basing any idea on a moral philosophy means the idea is part of a social construct.

Just as Moral Philosophy is distinct from its object of study, so is an idea distinct from what it is an idea of. If Moral Philosophy were a social construct, it doesn't follow that morality itself is a social construct, because the two terms are not identical and so you cannot infer from something being true of one that it is true of the other. If my idea of morality were a social construct (which is not something an moral objectivist would necessarily deny, as a moral objectivist would recognise that there have been differing views as to what is moral) it does not follow that morality itself is a social construct.


"The very fact that there is more than one moral philosophy prevents any idea based on one from being universally true for all of humanity, much less all of the other creatures in nature."

Why? If one is a moral objectivist, then someone's moral views are not the same thing as morality itself and so the existence of different moral views does not necessarily conflict with there being objective morality, that conflict only arises if you take the subjective stance that moral views are the same as morality. (I would also add, that most of this argument proceeds from the view that a moral objectivist has to hold that there is only one morality, which is not necessarily so, it is a theory about the source of morality)

[Blightedmarsh]

The fastest way to go green is to become a humanitarian

All I can say is thak god I live in the UK. The more vocal section of our lunatic fringe tend to be a little more eccentric and a little less psychotic.

[Eldan]

As for the vegetarianism: I think this short presentation sums it up pretty well and gives a good alternative to total vegetarianism.

But in essence, it's quite a simple equation. You need about 10 times as much energy in plant material to produce the same energy in meat. That plant matter could be fed to humans. It's mostly lost in animal body heat and metabolism.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Aedilred

It's pretty uncontentious. In any reaction you lose energy (second law of thermodynamics). Plants get their energy directly from the sun; animals get their energy from eating plants. If humans eat plants, rather than animals, they're cutting out a stage in the food chain and increasing efficiency. Of course, we still have to grow all the crops to feed our livestock. It would be much more efficient if we just ate the crops.

It's one of the reasons why, in nature, you don't get many animals who feed on other carnivores, and those which do do so opportunistically (most of them are reptiles or fish, too).

That's without taking into account the volume of greenhouse gases produced by livestock. The meat and dairy industry is one of the biggest contributors to overall greenhouse gas.

Like you, I have no problem with vegans/vegetarians unless they're preachy about it. This rule pretty much applies to every group of people on the planet, actually. I'm happy for them to live their way as long as they're not interfering with me, or anyone else, who doesn't agree with them.

Inasmuch as eating animals is a moral choice about whether it's wrong to kill and eat them, for me that's a no-brainer. I'm a fairly unapologetic carnivore in that regard. I do try to eat meat that's been more ethically produced where possible, though (free-range, etc.).

The environmental impact, though, is harder to justify to myself. I now try to moderate my meat intake a little more, although I've by no means eliminated it altogether. I'd be lying if I said it was entirely down to green concerns, but they are a factor. There's no way I'm going to cut meat (or associated animal products) out of my diet completely, though.


You're killing a living organism every time you eat anything. In the case of many fresh veggies you're even eating them while they're still alive.

Except fruit.[/quote]

I fully understand that consuming plants directly means less loss of energy as you move up the food chain. That's not the energy I'm concerned with. I'm doubting that the overall energy cost in growing and moving those plants so that people can get them and eat them is notably lower than it is for animals. A human needs and can only take about the same amount of energy no matter its source, plant or animal. If plant matter has a lower energy density than meat; I'll have to check that; then that means that more of it needs to be transported to feed the same number of people than if you fed those people with animals, or a combination of plants an animals.

I have seen the numbers on the emmisions of the livestock, but that's a natural biological emission. If that animal had never been domesticated and was roaming free in the various plains and praries they'd be putting out at least similar if not the very same amount of green house gasses. Eliminating that emission is calling for that animal to be driven to extinction.

Anyway, I'm just not convinced that the overall energy cost and the associated green-house emissions are significantly lower in the production of an amount of plant-based foods that would provide a given value of useable-by-humans energy than in the production of animal based food products with an equal amount of energy. The number of variables for determining those values in any given community are staggering.

I'm pretty sure you can't get all of the necessary vitamins and nutrients necessary to maintaining peak health from only fruit, though I must concede that an all fruit diet does indeed avoid killing anything, as long as you only take fruit that's naturally fallen and never pluck a one.

[Eldan]

See, slowing the Greenhouse effect has never been much about what's "natural", even with a term as loaded and ultimately useless as that one. It's about saving our own asses.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Eldan

See, slowing the Greenhouse effect has never been much about what's "natural", even with a term as loaded and ultimately useless as that one. It's about saving our own asses.

Nominally at least, slowing or reversing the green-house effect is about reversing the damage man has done since "his departure from nature." That is to say, it's about putting the world back to its natural state because we screwed it up.

Of course, it's also about saving our own butts too. Probably moreso than the "fixing the nature we broke" thing; by a significant margin for some.

[GolemsVoice]

Here I have to disagree. Having alternative options, which is by no means guaranteed, doesn't change the fact that it's only natural for humans to eat meat. There are canines in your head for a reason and pretending they're not there doesn't change that. Choosing not to eat meat, while it is sometimes possible, is a step -away- from how nature built us.

See, I get that argument often (being a vegetarian myself). It often outright states that "we are meant to eat meat, so not eating meat is unnatural". Guess what, we are also not build to live in houses, fly planes and drive cars, but I am build to kill you and take your wife as my own, ensuring the survival of my offspring. I just HATE that argument, at least when it implies that earing meat is the "better choice" because it's "meant to be that way". I have nothing against the argument in this case, and certainly not against the poster in question, though I myself fully realize that canines are there to eat meat, and that's what humans do. They can also NOT do it, and anyway is fine.

Which brings me to my philosophy on vegetarianism, and to some extend, on life in general: I do what I want, you do what you want. I don't tell you how bad meat is and spoil your meal, you don't pester me to eat meat. Everybody wins.

[Eldan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Nominally at least, slowing or reversing the green-house effect is about reversing the damage man has done since "his departure from nature." That is to say, it's about putting the world back to its natural state because we screwed it up.

Of course, it's also about saving our own butts too. Probably moreso than the "fixing the nature we broke" thing; by a significant margin for some.

You know, that's a very strange argument. Greenhouse "sceptics" are right in one thing: Earth has been significantly warmer before, Greenhouse gases were significantly higher, and there have been events when 99% of all species died out. What's different is that we are probably responsible for this one (but then, so were cyanobacteria for the first one) and that it's happening much faster than most of them.
Nature changes. The problem is not that it does, the problem is that we can't adapt quickly enough if it does it this fast. So, slowing down the Greenhouse effect is mostly in our own interest.

Personally, I'm not a vegetarian because I like meat. I also freely admit that I'm a selfish bastard. Though I try to eat only little meat, at least. Once, twice per week.

[Elemental]

Originally Posted by GolemsVoice

Which brings me to my philosophy on vegetarianism, and to some extend, on life in general: I do what I want, you do what you want. I don't tell you how bad meat is and spoil your meal, you don't pester me to eat meat. Everybody wins.

You, Good Sir, have a philosophy most highly evolved.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Choosing not to eat meat, while it is sometimes possible, is a step -away- from how nature built us.

how come your propaganda-sensor didn't ring?
I mean..nature didn't build us to fly either..or indeed navigate the seas.
other than that, I pretty much agree with most of what you say.

my perspective is that of an average individual who hasn't done a too in-depth research of the subject and isn't particularily well versed in medical, scientific and biological fields... but has still got to decide what to put in his basket when he goes shopping for food
I love meat and fish too much to give up either of them. I have been teased about my health by my dad's wife who insisted that I get blood tested because I hadn't in at least a decade..and according to her I ought to have cholesterol issues and a few more..
After the blood test results were in, it was with no little amount of glee that I returned home with the words "healthy like a teenager", spoken by my doctor, ringing in my ears (I'm 34).
In other words, my not really regular diet (I tend to eat at random hours and not always a structured meal or meal sequence) doesn't seem to cause me any noticeable health issues, despite being somewhat lacking in the veggie department. I don't smoke, drink very rarely and don't have other self-harming habits other than a rather couch-friendly lifestyle.

I have always shrinked away from even considering a vegan lifestyle because it's just not practical at all (especially so in Italy where avoiding meat based products or ingredients is really hard)
Also, but this may well be ignorance on my part, I am under the impression that a total vegan diet just isn't really a healthy option for quite a number of people out there, many of them suffering from one or the other condition, although I could probably pull it off without major consequences to my health.
That alone however, would tell me that a vegan option just isn't the universal answer, and by extension, cannot become a universal moral imperative.
There's also the consideration that I am somewhat suspicious about the reasons for which we should choose to go the vegan route.
Is it economically the most sensible thing to do? On a macro-economic level this remains to be seen. on a personal level.. no it isn't.
Is it the best thing to do from an ecological pov? I have heard arguments in favour and against the idea. Mass farming and similar solutions that we are living on today are not really cool and don't seem particularily healthy in the long run (I'm thinking slow mutations/adaptation of species which nowadays affect the animals themselves through selective breeding, but may tomorrow affect us by some other means..as a result of that selection... but again, that's purely hypotetical and impossible to speculate upon).. but there are other options.. naturally farmed (free range?) animals are more and more the coming thing.
So all that seems to be left is the moral imperative the "because it's right" "because it's cruel to animals" "because it's evil to grow animals in inhuman(?) conditions"

To the people who think this way..and many of the more militant vegans seem to be of this group.. I say..good for you, but don't tell me what to do.
Where does it stop anyway? aren't insect also to be protected and sheltered? because I can guarantee you that plenty of insects are gotten rid of every year to protect the crops.. don't they deserve our sympathy as well? Is intensive farming in any way better for the planet than it is to breed chicken or cows intensively? Can we even produce the amount of vegetable and fruit we would need if everybody switched to a vegan diet? What about mice and rats and other critters that affect the health of our crops? I guess we could file away their extermination (not as a species but localized/temporary extermination) as a necessary evil..but isn't killing a cow for it's meat just as much a necessary evil?
Have a look at all the dozens of different things that are done with the different parts of a pig..and I don't mean food-wise..anything from medicine to toothbrushes and glue can and is fashioned using some part of the animal. That to me is a justified sacrifice. Can it be avoided? yes.. is it immoral not to avoid it? I think not.. I apply morality to my own species..to other beings who are or should be familiar with the concept.
Talking about morality with an irredeemable sociopath or with a pig would be equally pointless.
The only moral imperative that could make me go vegan or vegetarian was an uncontrovertible proof that everybody going that route would really affect the future of our ecosystem and by extension the future quality of life of my eventual offspring.
whilst I am 100% behind the people who want to do something against the melting of the icecaps and would love for certain countries to man up and sign the international treaties that most other countries have already signed.. I don't know that there is enough evidence that eating veggies over eating meat is going to alter the balance of our ecosystem sensibly. There are plenty of things that we currently make using animal matter that we would have to make using much less eco-friendly materials instead.
If I have to choose a "green" cause, I'd rather talk about green cars, clean energy sources, research in hydrogen as fuel, deforestation, desertification and planetary climate changing levels of gasses, poisonous waste and such.. they'd all have priority over giving up meat.

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

I have seen the numbers on the emmisions of the livestock, but that's a natural biological emission. If that animal had never been domesticated and was roaming free in the various plains and praries they'd be putting out at least similar if not the very same amount of green house gasses. Eliminating that emission is calling for that animal to be driven to extinction.

I see a flaw in this reasoning. if cows, chicken and pigs had never been domesticated, there would most likely be a lot less of them around..we breed them for quantity, not just size...they'd be out in the wild, liable to get eaten by natural predators (including us..because that's what we were before we started domesticating stuff)..so they'd produce a lot less gas.
on a sidenote: if there were as many cows and pigs roaming free as we now keep in stables and farms,..we would see herds capable of bringing massive devastation to a lot of green areas of the world, simply by grazing. We'd be forced to kill them off to protect our crops. Might as well eat them then...In Italy one of the issues vineyard owners face are wild boar.. of which there are relatively many (they are hunted periodically).. can you immagine the kind of devastation free-roaming pigs would bring to vineyards and cultivations in general?

Originally Posted by Blightedmarsh

The fastest way to go green is to become a humanitarian

THE HULK DISAGREES!!

Spoiler

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by GolemsVoice

See, I get that argument often (being a vegetarian myself). It often outright states that "we are meant to eat meat, so not eating meat is unnatural". Guess what, we are also not build to live in houses, fly planes and drive cars, but I am build to kill you and take your wife as my own, ensuring the survival of my offspring. I just HATE that argument, at least when it implies that earing meat is the "better choice" because it's "meant to be that way". I have nothing against the argument in this case, and certainly not against the poster in question, though I myself fully realize that canines are there to eat meat, and that's what humans do. They can also NOT do it, and anyway is fine.

Which brings me to my philosophy on vegetarianism, and to some extend, on life in general: I do what I want, you do what you want. I don't tell you how bad meat is and spoil your meal, you don't pester me to eat meat. Everybody wins.

Actually, there's an argument to be made that living in houses and such -is- something we're made to do; hence the higher order intelligence combined with posable thumbs. There are a number of creatures with one or the other but, for the moment at least, we seem to be the only ones with both.

Of course, that goes back to the argument that all of human society is a natural evolution of humanity, effectively erasing the distinction between man and nature. On the bright side, this completely nullifies any argument based on whether a particular behavior is or isn't natural. On the not so bright side, it can be used as an excuse for almost any behavior, by claiming that you're just following your nature.

As for whether a diet with meat or a diet with no meat is "better," objectively speaking, both can get your body the energy and nutrients it needs. Since any other consideration is either subjective or unknown neither is the objectively better choice. Subjectively though, I think the diet with meat is better because many animals are delicious. Given that and the fact that it doesn't tickle my concience in the least to kill and eat them, it's the diet I pick. In all honesty I'd probably eat meat more often if I could afford it....... damnit, now I'm hungry.

[Aedilred]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

I fully understand that consuming plants directly means less loss of energy as you move up the food chain. That's not the energy I'm concerned with. I'm doubting that the overall energy cost in growing and moving those plants so that people can get them and eat them is notably lower than it is for animals. A human needs and can only take about the same amount of energy no matter its source, plant or animal. If plant matter has a lower energy density than meat; I'll have to check that; then that means that more of it needs to be transported to feed the same number of people than if you fed those people with animals, or a combination of plants an animals.

I don't know how that would work out, but I doubt it would be any less efficient. An awful lot of energy in animal-rearing goes into building parts of the creature that don't get eaten (especially in larger animals) - bones, brains, viscera, skin and so on. Only a relatively small part of the animal is actually getting eaten, so even if the energy density of the meat is enough to make up for the wasted energy in producing it [citation needed] the wasted energy accrued in the products that never get eaten would probably eliminate any gain.

It would be possible to eat meat more efficiently than we do by increasing the scope of the meat sources we were prepared to consume. Hence why I got annoyed at PETA earlier in the thread for their "pet food is made from offal - shock horror!" There's nothing wrong with eating offal, and people can - and probably should - eat more of it. It's just that an overabundance of lean steak meat and a general modern cultural feeling that offal is "icky" means that most people don't.

I have seen the numbers on the emmisions of the livestock, but that's a natural biological emission. If that animal had never been domesticated and was roaming free in the various plains and praries they'd be putting out at least similar if not the very same amount of green house gasses. Eliminating that emission is calling for that animal to be driven to extinction.

Indeed, but domestication has led to a massive increase in numbers of those species. In the numbers they lived in in their wild state, they weren't causing such a problem. Even if we don't exterminate domestic species in a quest for vegetarianism, any reduction in numbers of those animals would benefit greenhouse emissions.

I'm pretty sure you can't get all of the necessary vitamins and nutrients necessary to maintaining peak health from only fruit...

I expect you're right.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Aedilred

I An awful lot of energy in animal-rearing goes into building parts of the creature that don't get eaten (especially in larger animals) - bones, brains, viscera, skin and so on.

ahem..no.
bones are ground and used for a number of purposes, cattle-food component, for instance..brains are eaten or used as components for various kinds of salami, viscera are used to stuff salami in (the film that surrounds the meaty part you eat..is in fact just that)..and I'm sure there are other uses too.. skin..cowhide and pighides are..well.. leather.. and used for other stuff too...
it's a centuries old saying/truism, in Italy at least, that you don't throw away any part of a pig.

so..no.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by dehro

ahem..no.
bones are ground and used for a number of purposes, cattle-food component, for instance..brains are eaten or used as components for various kinds of salami, viscera are used to stuff salami in (the film that surrounds the meaty part you eat..is in fact just that)..and I'm sure there are other uses too.. skin..cowhide and pighides are..well.. leather.. and used for other stuff too...
it's a centuries old saying, in Italy at least, that you don't throw away any part of a pig.

so..no.

They feed the cows the ground up bones of other cows? That's kind of messed up. It's not messed up enough for me to skip my next burger, but it was a genuine wtf moment.

[dehro]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

They feed the cows the ground up bones of other cows? That's kind of messed up. It's not messed up enough for me to skip my next burger, but it was a genuine wtf moment.

kinda... they make protein-rich flour with ground bones..which are then used as ingredient in the various forms of animal feed...including, if I'm not mistaken, what our pets eat

[Eldan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

They feed the cows the ground up bones of other cows? That's kind of messed up. It's not messed up enough for me to skip my next burger, but it was a genuine wtf moment.

Where did you think Mad Cow Disease came from? Cannibalism is usually the main cause if prion diseases like that.

[Socratov]

well, only for a part, most of the bones go to the glue industry as ground bones are perfect for making glue. On the other hand, seeïng how ashes and burials go, women discovered that washing in a stream near a burial site would help their textiles be cleaner, so we have been washing our clothes in our forefathers for ages. Who knows what ashes and remains have provided the much needed nutrients for plants and trees to grow our food, by proxy making us cannibals. One could see it is the circle of matter. In some way we all eat/drink/use/exist of our forefathers.

@Golemvioce: I applaud your view, but then again, it's virtually the same as mine: I eat meat and as long as you don't bother me I don't care about what you eat. I don't mind making something vegetarian for you as long as you are willing to return the pleasure with meat when cooking for me

I lived with a couple of vegetarians in my dorm for years. One just didn't like the taste and texture of it (and slightly the moral implications, later we discovered it was the main reason, but ok) the other didn't eat meat becuase of serious moral reasons. The first didn't mind cooking meat for us as long as we remembered to make him something not having meat, the second tried every opportunity to guilt us into not eating meat. Our reaction was to each get a steak and eat it in front of her, while loudly commenting on what great part of cow it was. After a while she stopped commenting and all was well again.

if I have the money (which, sadly, at the moment is not as I'm a student now on a low budget), I would like to buy 'responsible' meat to insure the animals haven't suffered

@Eldan: that si becuase they nt ony fed ground up bones to other cows, but the brains too, and that's the big problem (it happened with cannibals too when they eat a lot of human brainmatter, they would get a condition called Creutzveld Jacob disease).

[Herpestidae]

I'm pretty sure gelatin and jelly beans contain ground-up animal bones as well.