Vegans and Vegetarianism and the Animal Rights Issue

[SpyderEdgeForever]

That is a very cool shirt :)

[Monocrom]

I want that shirt! :D

[tortoise]

...Hindus outnumber christians...

As an aside, is that correct?

I just did a quick search, and it doesn't seem to be even close. :confused:

[jackknifeh]

My thoughts. Are plands lesser life forms just because they can't talk? The world is here and it works. Animals eat other animals for survival. Do tigers have this issue? Human beings are animals JUST LIKE tigers and the rest. We are just smarter and have thumbs making it easier to pick up things and open Spyderco knives. It's amazing how much difference thumbs make when talking about being productive and able to just do things. Anyway I whole heartedly believe in HATRED for animal abusers. Killing and eating or using the hide for clothing or part of a shelter or whatever is needed to survive is ok. Even the millionairs who pay $100,000 for a coat. This is not an animal rights issue. This is a purely STUPIDITY issue IMO.

Wife is an animal lover. I believe I can say she loves animals more than people as a whole. Actually I know this to be true. Still, she has nothing against killing an animal for survival. She does think hanging an animal head on your wall is stupid. If you want to prove you are a man, kill the elk with your bare hands. That's her point. Not shooting it from a few hundred yards away. She does respect the skill it takes to do this though. It's just an unfair contest.

I believe this as far as general human needs go. We need something to be passionate about or believe in. It makes life more meaningful (and fun). So, people find something they love and take it to the next level (in some cases).

We had a surpris litter of kittens a few months ago. We put them on craigslist for free. MANY suggested we charge at least $20 for them to discourage the people who wanted the entire litter so they could train their fighting dogs. We had two people who wanted every kitten. They didn't get them. We gave them to people who came over with their kids. Oh yeah, we kept one.

As the op said this is a controversial subject and some people on both sides of the subject have very valid points and I agree with some points from both groups. But, my basic opinion is in the first paragraph.

Jack

[defenestrate]

My fiancee is vegetarian and a big animal welfare person for many years. She set up and we ran a benefit for the county Humane Society last October and it went well so we may do more. The 3 cats and one dog here were rescues/strays and we will probably have more animals in the future. I consider us both animal lovers, though I am certainly not a vegetarian. Nearly any product/consumable on earth could have potential ethical issues, and the least humane are generally weeded out and avoided. As "conquerors" of the Earth, I think we have found some animals all too easy to domesticate/cultivate. Indeed, most cattle would never exist at all if not eventually to be eaten. I hope that the one I eat part of next had a relatively humane life and one day when we have a little homestead, I've tentatively agreed not to eat anything with a name.

Food production is going to have some collateral damage, in the form that energy is expended, living things are altered/killed/etc, and while vegetarian diets are quite plausible (vegan a bit harder) and sometimes I go mostly veggie like VW, humans are and have been omnivores. We have more food choices now than in any time in human history, more or less, and quite a bit of convenience in its acquisition. In the past we would have had to have put more time and care into the acquisition of our food individually, and we ate because we were hungry, to survive, etc. That we are even capable of having this conversation is a credit to our food industry/culture and many thousands of years of practice in improving our ability to keep food available and accessible. I think that certain organizations capitalize on people's empathy and have long histories of poor treatment of animals themselves, and that is bloody unfortunate. In the end, I appreciate that different people have different reasons for their food choices, and I try to help animals out in many ways, but there are some folks who get a bit militant and I generally try to avoid them.

[Monocrom]

I love animals . . . especially when they're in front of me . . . on a plate . . . covered in BBQ sauce.

[BAL]

Call it God, evolution, Mother Nature, or pick your favorite Deity, make one up; whatever.

Notice those teeth that everyone has up front? Both top and bottom. Yeah, those teeth are specifically designed for tearing meat off bone. They're not designed to help folks chew vegetables into smaller and smaller pieces. Humans are omnivores by design. Intended to chow down on both meat and vegetables. Not one or the other.

I'll remember that the next time I am eating an apple or a carrot.
or a cookie, or a potato or chewing gum. Just because you have feet
does mean that you have to walk to work.

To each his own.

[Monocrom]

I'll remember that the next time I am eating an apple or a carrot.
or a cookie, or a potato or chewing gum. Just because you have feet
does mean that you have to walk to work.

To each his own.

No secret that humans are omnivores. The teeth towards the back are better for breaking down raw vegetables. But the ones up front are indeed designed for tearing meat off bone. You don't see anyone who only eats meat. Yet, so many try to go such an unnatural route of only eating vegetables, that it's no longer a surprising thing.

Humans = omnivores.

[mule skinner]

it just leaves more meat for me

[araneae]

No secret that humans are omnivores. The teeth towards the back are better for breaking down raw vegetables. But the ones up front are indeed designed for tearing meat off bone. You don't see anyone who only eats meat. Yet, so many try to go such an unnatural route of only eating vegetables, that it's no longer a surprising thing.

Humans = omnivores.

When hominids evolved several hundred thousand years ago we were certainly omnivorous and didn't think about it. It was survival. Today we have the ability to choose whether we feel the need to eat meat. It is a choice, not a necessity or requirement based on our dentition. Choosing to not eat meat is no more unnatural than driving a car or wearing clothes on a hot summer day.

[Monocrom]

When hominids evolved several hundred thousand years ago we were certainly omnivorous and didn't think about it. It was survival. Today we have the ability to choose whether we feel the need to eat meat. It is a choice, not a necessity or requirement . . .

And yet, I've known many vegetarians who have been hospitalized or have had to go back to eating meat because their bodies weren't getting the proteins needed. Known others who needed to take special supplements. When you have to do that, the terms "unnatural," "necessary," and "requirement;" fits.

As for cars, they're designed specifically to be operated by humans. Everything from placement of the steering wheel, pedals, and other controls. Nothing important is placed in an unnatural position. Clothes as well. All shirts have two sleeves located in the very same places. Once again, designed for the natural form of the human body. Not something designed to work against it. No one I've ever known has been hospitalized because their legs horribly cramped up from driving too much, instead of walking. Never known a person end up in the E.R. due to wearing too many shirts.

[Jeremy_A_Neel]

Good for them if they want to deprive themselves of tasty meats. I just don't want to be called immoral because of my dietary choices. Most vegetarians seem to mean well, but PETA and the like are a bunch of degenerate, numb-skull, domestic terrorists. PETA kills far more dogs than they "save", most on the same day they were let into their care, because they would rather the dogs die than be imprisoned by "oppressive" humans.

[SolidState]

As an aside, is that correct?

I just did a quick search, and it doesn't seem to be even close. :confused:

Holy Crap! Looks like you're right. I was running on numbers from a 1993 textbook on world religions, and the number of Christains has almost quadrupled since. :eek: I guess the infomercials work.

[The Deacon]

Hindus outnumber christians and don't eat meat because their gods say not to.

Neither statement is true. Both Christians and Moslems outnumber Hindus. All Hindus consider the cow a sacred animal, so eating beef is forbidden. But, while some sects don't eat any meat, others do, just not beef. AFAIK, none are truly vegetarian, much less vegan, since all will consume dairy products and eggs. They're not universally pro animal rights either, cock fighting is practiced by some Hindus.

[araneae]

And yet, I've known many vegetarians who have been hospitalized or have had to go back to eating meat because their bodies weren't getting the proteins needed. Known others who needed to take special supplements. When you have to do that, the terms "unnatural," "necessary," and "requirement;" fits.

As for cars, they're designed specifically to be operated by humans. Everything from placement of the steering wheel, pedals, and other controls. Nothing important is placed in an unnatural position. Clothes as well. All shirts have two sleeves located in the very same places. Once again, designed for the natural form of the human body. Not something designed to work against it. No one I've ever known has been hospitalized because their legs horribly cramped up from driving too much, instead of walking. Never known a person end up in the E.R. due to wearing too many shirts.

Strange, I have never known a single vegetarian/vegan that was hospitalized as a result of their diet. If you are really going to try to argue cars are natural, I will not waste another keystroke.

[tortoise]

Neither statement is true. Both Christians and Moslems outnumber Hindus. All Hindus consider the cow a sacred animal, so eating beef is forbidden. But, while some sects don't eat any meat, others do, just not beef. AFAIK, none are truly vegetarian, much less vegan, since all will consume dairy products and eggs. They're not universally pro animal rights either, cock fighting is practiced by some Hindus.

"Hindu" especially seems like such a broad-brush term. Many variations seem to have so little in common as to not be the same faith.

It's confusing (-to me from the outside, anyway.)

[Monocrom]

Strange, I have never known a single vegetarian/vegan that was hospitalized as a result of their diet. If you are really going to try to argue cars are natural, I will not waste another keystroke.

Nice try, but I never once said cars are natural. I said that the layout inside of them take the human body into account. The accelerator pedal isn't located next to one's left ear, for example.

Not wanting to "waste another keystroke" is simply a way of saying, "Oops! I can't refute what you mentioned so I'll just pretend you're being silly and bow out."

I've actually known quite a few vegetarians. The honest ones make no bones about the fact that human-beings can't simply eliminate meat and just eat vegetables. No, the honest ones are honest about the fact that the proteins found in meat are important to the human body, and if one decides to be a vegetarian, then one MUST find appropriate substitutes. A young woman I was acquainted with decided to become a vegetarian a few years back. (In my neck of the woods, it's actually trendy to go vegetarian.) She mentioned after a few weeks feeling weak and tired, as well as seriously craving a burger.

I asked another acquaintance of mine who had been a vegetarian for several years if she had any advice I could pass along to the young woman. When I told the veteran vegetarian about the complaints that the new one was experiencing, she didn't miss a beat! Told me exactly what the problem was with the newbie. Basically, you don't just decide to eliminate meat from your diet. If you do, you get what the young woman experienced because you're depriving your body of what it has needed and gotten from meat. You have to find substitutes for meat, for the proteins and all the rest that your body got from digesting meat.

That's the reality. It's also why so many who become vegetarians because it is trendy, usually fail at it. They don't bother with finding appropriate substitutes for meat. Those who continue without substitutes, and figure they just need to stick with it; those are the ones who end up hospitalized.

[Gilgamesh]

I really hate cruelty to animals. I owned and bred dogs for 15 years, had several cats, and cannot abide the neglect many pets suffer because of an 'owner' that loses interest and has a weak character devoid of any real sense of responsibility.
I include the uneducated practice of breeding dogs for distorted form without regard to their health and well-being under the heading of cruelty to animals.

I have also hunted and fished a lot over the past 30 years.
I have no qualms whatsoever about cleanly killing an animal for food, or because they are an introduced (non-native) species to my country that have no natural predators here, and have a destructive effect on our native flora and fauna.

OP, I agree with your opening post. Hunting and fishing have instilled in me a very strong reverence (for want of a better word) for the natural world around us and the responsibility of our place in it.

Also, I see the use of religion or radical fringe belief systems as a motivation to openly deride or attack my more naturalistic attitude to these issues as nothing more than an example of how ignorant and narrow minded some people can be.

[r small]

People that run puppy mills are the lowest of the low. There should be a special place in **** for them.

[SolidState]

Neither statement is true. Both Christians and Moslems outnumber Hindus. All Hindus consider the cow a sacred animal, so eating beef is forbidden. But, while some sects don't eat any meat, others do, just not beef. AFAIK, none are truly vegetarian, much less vegan, since all will consume dairy products and eggs. They're not universally pro animal rights either, cock fighting is practiced by some Hindus.

You're still missing the point which is not uncommon. My argument didn't hinge on the numbers of people involved in a religion, it relied on the fact that there are people with completely legitimate deities and practices who follow gods that command vegetarianism. I'm fine with conceding the numbers point, look above. It is relatively inconsequential to my argument, and the only part of my argument you can shred. Enjoy shredding what's already been shredded, it is not the point, nor does it negate the basis of my argument. I don't care if there are three thousand or three billion people with a god demanding vegetarianism, they can believe in their god just as much as any Christian believes in his or hers.

While we're being nitpicky about satellite issues: FYI Deacon, it's spelled 'Muslims' these days, and for good reason: http://hnn.us/articles/524.html
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janq82y1.htm I suppose I won't expect to be trusted on demographic information, just as I won't be approaching you for cultural sensitivity seminars any time soon.