Excerpt from "Against Meat"

[iago]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11foer-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1 (all pages)

This is an excerpt from a book by a man who struggled with vegetarianism through most of his young life (basically, knowing it's the right thing, but not doing it). When he eventually had kids, he decided to bring them up vegetarian even though he wasn't completely vegetarian. He also talks a lot about his grandmother who'd escaped from eastern Europe during WWII.

For a short excerpt, it is, in my opinion, actually really good.

[warz]

how is it the "right thing"? you mean it was something he wanted to do but didn't do? sounds like he's full of that will power!

[iago]

Did you read the story? He explains in pretty good detail why he thought it was the "right thing".

[Tuberload]

iago what's your take on the fact that animals themselves eat other animals?

Edit: It was an inappropriate question for the purpose of this thread, so you can just ignore it if you like.   

[iago]

iago what's your take on the fact that animals themselves eat other animals?

Edit: It was an inappropriate question for the purpose of this thread, so you can just ignore it if you like.   

That's really a much longer answer than is really worth typing here. But I'll summarize

On one side: Animals do what animals do, and I'm ok with that. They don't farm each other, and they don't artificially impregnate each other.

On the flip side: Animals steal, rape, kill each other's (or their own) children, and lots of other horrible things. But, it's just their nature (we have the good fortune of being able to reason about our actions and minimize the harm/maximize the utility of things we do.

As for your edit, it's all good.

[rabbit]

Did you ever think that it is OUR nature to FARM ANIMALS?

[iago]

Whether or not it is, it isn't right. As humans, we have the ability to reason and to question our own actions, which lets us minimize the harm we cause.

[rabbit]

Pigs have the ability to reason, but they don't revolt.

[warz]

Whether or not it is, it isn't right. As humans, we have the ability to reason and to question our own actions, which lets us minimize the harm we cause.

How is it not "right"? Who decides what is right here?

[iago]

Pigs have the ability to reason, but they don't revolt.

If you bring up a human from birth, in prison, and they know nothing else but imprisonment, I'll bet they'd be the same.

[rabbit]

Pigs have the ability to reason, but they don't revolt.

If you bring up a human from birth, in prison, and they know nothing else but imprisonment, I'll bet they'd be the same.

Prove it.

[iago]

Pigs have the ability to reason, but they don't revolt.

If you bring up a human from birth, in prison, and they know nothing else but imprisonment, I'll bet they'd be the same.

Prove it.

It isn't possible to "prove" something of that nature, but I CAN give you a single datapoint (the only one that I'm aware of):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29

Basically, spent the first 12 years of her life imprisoned. She didn't try to escape, and she didn't revolt (as your original suggestion implies).

For what it's worth, it's a *really* sad story, and keep in mind that that's basically how millions of animals are raised every day.

[Camel]

Are you saying that it's cruel to farm animals, but not to hunt them in the wild? Would you hunt if it was necessary for survival?

[Hitmen]

itt: beating dead horses

[Camel]

I think iago would take issue with beating a dead horse in his thread.

[iago]

Are you saying that it's cruel to farm animals, but not to hunt them in the wild? Would you hunt if it was necessary for survival?

Hunting is far better than farming, provided it's necessary for survival. At least the animals get to be free for their whole lives.

I prefer neither, though. Hunting could never be necessary for survival, because the animals eat far more plants than the amount of nutrition you get from eating an animal. If animals are surviving, then there's gotta be edible plants around.

[Camel]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

[iago]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

I can't really answer that, because the situation is impossible.

Are we talking desert island? Winter in a forest? Another planet? And, are these animals intelligent? Hostile? Friendly? And, do I have the ability to kill them cleanly, or do I have to hurt them and let them writhe in pain before they die?

The point I'm getting to, in a roundabout way, is that there's never enough context in those kinds of scenarios to make an informed decision.

[rabbit]

And if they are carnivores?

[Newby]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

I can't really answer that, because the situation is impossible.

Not really. Let's say hypothetically, they managed to produce some vitamin in their digestion of plants that didn't come from the plants -- it was simply the plant reacting with something the animal had.

If that vitamin was necessary for survival, and you can only get the vitamin from eating other animals, would you do it? Would it be wrong?

Same exact world. Same everything. Just an addition of "humans need vitamin XXXXX to survive" and "animals carry vitamin XXXXX, and no human has perfected creating vitamin XXXXX in a lab." 

[iago]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

I can't really answer that, because the situation is impossible.

Not really. Let's say hypothetically, they managed to produce some vitamin in their digestion of plants that didn't come from the plants -- it was simply the plant reacting with something the animal had.

If that vitamin was necessary for survival, and you can only get the vitamin from eating other animals, would you do it? Would it be wrong?

Same exact world. Same everything. Just an addition of "humans need vitamin XXXXX to survive" and "animals carry vitamin XXXXX, and no human has perfected creating vitamin XXXXX in a lab." 

I can't really answer that, because I don't know. I'd have to lean towards yes, it's still wrong, and that we need to find a better way.

Fortunately, it isn't the case in the real world (our bodies are much better at digesting plant matter than animal matter), so it's a nonissue.

[Tuberload]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

[iago]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

That's fine, people can make their own choices. And my choice is to consider that wrong.

[Tuberload]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

That's fine, people can make their own choices. And my choice is to consider that wrong.

I can understand your perspective, and because of that I don't think less of you. Make a stand!

[iago]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

That's fine, people can make their own choices. And my choice is to consider that wrong.

I can understand your perspective, and because of that I don't think less of you. Make a stand!

For what it's worth, I hear exactly that line on a very regular basis.

The other response is, I never hated the taste of meat or anything, and I miss the flavour sometimes -- but in my mind, the cost is WAY higher than the benefit, so I can't justify it.

[Camel]

I just had a ham, egg, and cheese on a bagel. Yum!

Are we talking desert island? Winter in a forest? Another planet? And, are these animals intelligent? Hostile? Friendly? And, do I have the ability to kill them cleanly, or do I have to hurt them and let them writhe in pain before they die?

The point I'm getting to, in a roundabout way, is that there's never enough context in those kinds of scenarios to make an informed decision.

If all variables were ideal (you can minimize suffering, friendly animals, etc), then at what level of intelligence, if any, would it be justifiable to kill an animal for the primary purpose of consumption?

[deadly7]

I would almost argue that at no level is it okay to kill an animal for consumption, unless there is absolutely no alternative. Yes meat is healthy and provides benefits not found in one other food, but you can [and should] be eating combinations of the other foods meat replaces anyway. The American diet is awful.

----

So iago, I was walking around my campus and someone was handing out a pamphlet about animal awareness, which my boss at work saw and we got into a discussion about it. What do you think of the tactic of showing sad or dirty animals or dead ones as a means for convincing people to stop eating meat, etc? I'm personally not a fan of it simply because it's underhanded and designed to draw out an emotoinal pitying reaction instead of making a personal rationalize their own beliefs and consciously rethink everything.. but as a vegan and somewhat staunch animal rights person, I'm curious on your take.

[iago]

I would almost argue that at no level is it okay to kill an animal for consumption, unless there is absolutely no alternative. Yes meat is healthy and provides benefits not found in one other food, but you can [and should] be eating combinations of the other foods meat replaces anyway. The American diet is awful.

Agreed. I was thinking more about the question, and what it comes down to is this: I do my best to minimize unnecessary death and suffering, as far as is practical and possible.

So iago, I was walking around my campus and someone was handing out a pamphlet about animal awareness, which my boss at work saw and we got into a discussion about it. What do you think of the tactic of showing sad or dirty animals or dead ones as a means for convincing people to stop eating meat, etc? I'm personally not a fan of it simply because it's underhanded and designed to draw out an emotoinal pitying reaction instead of making a personal rationalize their own beliefs and consciously rethink everything.. but as a vegan and somewhat staunch animal rights person, I'm curious on your take.

I don't know. The whole concept of eating meat is insane to me, now that I look at it from the outside. The only way people can possibly do it is:
a) Denial; that is, don't think about what you're eating, abstract it away, etc;, or
b) Be a serial-killer style personality.

I mean, eating meat seems totally insane to me.

<edit> Sorry, somebody at work walked up behind me, so I just hit 'submit'

To continue, for that reason, I think the effectiveness is questionable. On one hand, making people face reality is the only way to really make a difference. On the other, it's like telling an alcoholic not to drink -- people aren't going to face reality until they're ready, and they'll come up with some kind of a defense mechanism (be it humour, denial, etc.) to deal with it. For that reason, I think it's ineffective.

I think the best thing I can do as a vegan is to eat what I eat, and be educated. People ask me a lot of questions, or make fun of me in a good natured way, and I always have a decent response that they can generally understand. I think that helps more than anything -- even if they don't become vegan tomorrow, it helps them questions their decisions.

[Sidoh]

I don't know. The whole concept of eating meat is insane to me, now that I look at it from the outside. The only way people can possibly do it is:
a) Denial; that is, don't think about what you're eating, abstract it away, etc;, or
b) Be a serial-killer style personality.

You left the most important one out, iago: care less about animals than the benefits of eating meat.

[iago]

I don't know. The whole concept of eating meat is insane to me, now that I look at it from the outside. The only way people can possibly do it is:
a) Denial; that is, don't think about what you're eating, abstract it away, etc;, or
b) Be a serial-killer style personality.

You left the most important one out, iago: care less about animals than the benefits of eating meat.

That one falls under (a). There are very few physical benefits to eating meat, and lots of drawbacks (increased risk of all kinds of cancers, heart disease, much higher risk of eating contaminated food, etc).

<edit> For benefits, I don't buy "it tastes good" as any kind of argument -- that's like saying "rape is ok because it feels good!". While that may be the case, it's only good for one party -- the other is suffering, and losing something important. Killing stuff for simple desires doesn't really count as a "benefit", in my books. I'm looking more at nutritional value (which is nearly nil for most meat).

[rabbit]

I'm pretty sure that if bacon was made illegal I'd start killing the humans responsible.  Bacon is awesome.  You wouldn't want HUMANS to die, now would you, iago?

[Sidoh]

That one falls under (a). There are very few physical benefits to eating meat, and lots of drawbacks (increased risk of all kinds of cancers, heart disease, much higher risk of eating contaminated food, etc).

There are plenty of advantages:

1) Taste.  I'd starve on any sort of non-meat diet.  I'm very picky.
2) Convenience.  Having to make special precautions when buying food or dining out would drive me nuts.
3) Health.  It's more effort to maintain a non-meat diet.
4) Fun.  Enjoying good food with people is a lot of fun.  I don't mean to say this is impossible to do with non-meat foods, but it definitely ruins a lot of opportunities that would otherwise be there.

As for your disadvantages, I don't consider any of them significant.  I'm sure there are studies that suggest these things, and I'm sure they have some merit, but there are a few caveats that I suspect you're ignoring:

1) The magnitude of the increase in risk is probably trivial.
2) People who have non-meat diets tend to be more healthy people overall (exercise, diet, etc.), which decreases their risk anyway, and it makes the numbers meaningless.  Unless the studies you're implicitly referencing here account for this, I'd be very skeptical about your conclusion.  It'd have to compare vegans with slaughterers who have comparable physical activity levels, healthy eating habits, etc.
3) I'm sure there's a higher risk of eating contaminated food, and that's a reasonable consideration.  However, I'd send you back to (1).  The increase in risk is probably trivial.  In the 22 years of my meat rich diet (YUMMMM), I've never had symptoms of having eaten 'contaminated food' that were noticeable.

<edit> For benefits, I don't buy "it tastes good" as any kind of argument -- that's like saying "rape is ok because it feels good!". While that may be the case, it's only good for one party -- the other is suffering, and losing something important. Killing stuff for simple desires doesn't really count as a "benefit", in my books. I'm looking more at nutritional value (which is nearly nil for most meat).

Ignoring taste is stupid, and your response is completely silly for the following reasons:

1) I'm not concluding that eating meat is okay just because it tastes good.  I don't deny that this contributes to my argument, but it isn't the only consideration.  Your argument assumes it is.
2) If you're trying to conclude that rape is okay, "it feels good" certainly contributes to this argument.  Alone, I would say it's a completely silly argument, but it's equally silly to ignore that it provides a non-negligible amount of support.

Blah blah blah... it goes on and on.  I am impressed that you are able to maintain a vegan diet, but I am not at all impressed by your ability to argue that it is the only reasonable diet.

[iago]

1) Taste.  I'd starve on any sort of non-meat diet.  I'm very picky.

Being picky sucks. Mushrooms rock, despite what you say.

Not being picky myself, I can't say this with certainty, but I think pickiness stems a lot from upbringing. If people are brought up vegan, they're likely going to be more ok with vegan foods. That sort of related to my next point...

2) Convenience.  Having to make special precautions when buying food or dining out would drive me nuts.
4) Fun.  Enjoying good food with people is a lot of fun.  I don't mean to say this is impossible to do with non-meat foods, but it definitely ruins a lot of opportunities that would otherwise be there.

...that pretty much all your points are things that stem from the world we live in, not from veganess or omnivority being a good thing/bad thing. The more people who accept it, the more that's going to change (and it HAS changed since 10-20 years ago). I realize that convenience is a fine argument for a single person to be/not be vegan, but I'd rather stick to the moral/ethical side of it instead of focusing on the artificial difficulties.

For what it's worth, once you get used to it, it isn't that difficult. It's far easier than I actually thought it'd be. It also depends how strict you are -- I know some people who will grill waiters about what ingredients they use, and who request having their food fried in a separate fryer than others'. Personally, I don't sweat cross contamination (to a point), and I try not to give restaurants a hard time. If it's reasonable to assume it's vegan, and they're busy or whatever, I'll just make the assumption. Yes, I've been burned on that before ("shit, that has mayo on it? Can I get another one?"), but overall it makes life easier.

3) Health.  It's more effort to maintain a non-meat diet.

I actually find it easier. Far easier. After I became vegan, I became much more conscious of what I was eating, and my diet improved significantly. Part of the reason is that most fast food is off limits, so that instantly makes your diet significantly healthier. Another part is, previously I used to eat a lot of stuff that was basically devoid of any kind of nutrients (most meat is, and the vegetables were always tangential to the meal, when they existed); now, I do have meals on occasion (like my dinner today -- mushroom burgers and Tasti Taters (dunno if those are Canadian but whatever)) that have very little in the way of nutrients, but they're typically the exception instead of the rule.

Also, I'm assuming (feel free to correct me) that you're dismissing vegan food as something that you'd starve on without actually trying it, or even giving it a chance. I'd highly suggest finding some pure-vegan restaurants (there are usually some in every town, might have to use Google to find them) and trying out their food. It might be better than you'd think (it's absolutely better than I originally would have thought). Even my omnivorous friends (and all my friends are omnivorous), who often join me at vegan restaurants here (we're fortunate enough to have several in a smaller city) love the food. Maybe not even to be vegan themselves, but enough to understand what it's all about. It isn't all tofu and mushrooms

As for your disadvantages, I don't consider any of them significant.  I'm sure there are studies that suggest these things, and I'm sure they have some merit, but there are a few caveats that I suspect you're ignoring:

1) The magnitude of the increase in risk is probably trivial.
2) People who have non-meat diets tend to be more healthy people overall (exercise, diet, etc.), which decreases their risk anyway, and it makes the numbers meaningless.  Unless the studies you're implicitly referencing here account for this, I'd be very skeptical about your conclusion.  It'd have to compare vegans with slaughterers who have comparable physical activity levels, healthy eating habits, etc.
3) I'm sure there's a higher risk of eating contaminated food, and that's a reasonable consideration.  However, I'd send you back to (1).  The increase in risk is probably trivial.  In the 22 years of my meat rich diet (YUMMMM), I've never had symptoms of having eaten 'contaminated food' that were noticeable.

<edit> For benefits, I don't buy "it tastes good" as any kind of argument -- that's like saying "rape is ok because it feels good!". While that may be the case, it's only good for one party -- the other is suffering, and losing something important. Killing stuff for simple desires doesn't really count as a "benefit", in my books. I'm looking more at nutritional value (which is nearly nil for most meat).

Ignoring taste is stupid, and your response is completely silly for the following reasons:

1) I'm not concluding that eating meat is okay just because it tastes good.  I don't deny that this contributes to my argument, but it isn't the only consideration.  Your argument assumes it is.
2) If you're trying to conclude that rape is okay, "it feels good" certainly contributes to this argument.  Alone, I would say it's a completely silly argument, but it's equally silly to ignore that it provides a non-negligible amount of support.

Blah blah blah... it goes on and on.  I am impressed that you are able to maintain a vegan diet, but I am not at all impressed by your ability to argue that it is the only reasonable diet.

The best way I can really address any of those points is, pick a few vegan blogs and read them for a few weeks, without dismissing everything at the outset (in fact, research everything they say). Watch videos they link to, try recipes they post, see how terrible (sorry, editorializing ) factory farming is, and really try and consider their viewpoints, even briefly.

As a single source, and as somebody who's still fairly new to the lifestyle (it'll be 2 years on Halloween ), I'm not the best source. In addition, there are a lot of reasons to do a vegan diet, and I'm not giving credit to all of them (or giving them all the amount of time/discussion they deserve), I only talk about my own reasons.

And as for the rape bit -- I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't suggest that you said 'tasting good' is the only reason; rather, I said that 'tasting good' isn't a valid reason, so I wouldn't buy it, and I wanted other things.

Keep in mind, it's not like I woke up one day and decided that meat tasted bad -- I used to love it, and I'm sure I'd still like the taste. I've even thought that I could never be vegetarian for pretty much the same reasons you present (except the part about being picky, I'm not picky). For what it's worth, when I was your age, I definitely would have said the same thing you're saying, no doubt in my mind. As I grew up, I decided that the lifestyle I'd been living was wrong, and I've been able to change a lot of things.


Also keep in mind, you're only seeing one side of the debate, since, as you said, you've been on that side your entire life. Me, I was an omnivore for 24 years and a vegan now for two (I was never really a vegetarian -- I live by the 'go big or go home!' principal ). I think you have to try both sides before you can have a reasonable opinion.

[Camel]

How do you feel about eating vegans? Less suffering goes in to their production than does for a carnivore.

[iago]

How do you feel about eating vegans? Less suffering goes in to their production than does for a carnivore.

Pretty much all animals people eat are supposed to be vegans (though on farms, they're omnivores + cannibals instead). That is, of course, assuming you're talking about eating animals.

If you're talking about eating vegan people, that's fine too. I generally tell people that cannibalism isn't really that different from eating meat. I also say that eating cats/dogs/horses isn't really any different from chickens/cows. I mean, no matter what, you're eating intelligent creatures that had to be killed to make you happy. Who cares if they're humans/puppies/etc?

[Sidoh]

Being picky sucks. Mushrooms rock, despite what you say.

Not being picky myself, I can't say this with certainty, but I think pickiness stems a lot from upbringing. If people are brought up vegan, they're likely going to be more ok with vegan foods. That sort of related to my next point...

I'm sure it's a contribution, but I don't think it's the only one.  My gag reflexes go off when I eat most sea food, eggs, most mushrooms, etc.

...that pretty much all your points are things that stem from the world we live in, not from veganess or omnivority being a good thing/bad thing. The more people who accept it, the more that's going to change (and it HAS changed since 10-20 years ago). I realize that convenience is a fine argument for a single person to be/not be vegan, but I'd rather stick to the moral/ethical side of it instead of focusing on the artificial difficulties.

It doesn't matter

Here, you're saying it's necessary to justify your conclusion with an argument based entirely on morality.  I find this silly and objectionable.  This is the world we live in, and until both of the points I made don't hold water (i.e., they're FALSE), then I don't care.

For what it's worth, once you get used to it, it isn't that difficult. It's far easier than I actually thought it'd be. It also depends how strict you are -- I know some people who will grill waiters about what ingredients they use, and who request having their food fried in a separate fryer than others'. Personally, I don't sweat cross contamination (to a point), and I try not to give restaurants a hard time. If it's reasonable to assume it's vegan, and they're busy or whatever, I'll just make the assumption. Yes, I've been burned on that before ("shit, that has mayo on it? Can I get another one?"), but overall it makes life easier.

That's true of anything.  When you settle into a routine, it becomes less difficult.  That doesn't mean you're expending the same amount of effort as someone who isn't doing what you are; it just means you've gotten used to the amount of effort you have to go through.

I actually find it easier. Far easier. After I became vegan, I became much more conscious of what I was eating, and my diet improved significantly. Part of the reason is that most fast food is off limits, so that instantly makes your diet significantly healthier. Another part is, previously I used to eat a lot of stuff that was basically devoid of any kind of nutrients (most meat is, and the vegetables were always tangential to the meal, when they existed); now, I do have meals on occasion (like my dinner today -- mushroom burgers and Tasti Taters (dunno if those are Canadian but whatever)) that have very little in the way of nutrients, but they're typically the exception instead of the rule.

That's not some magical effect of becoming vegan.  If someone wants to "watch what they eat," it's easier to do it if you don't restrict your diet.

It makes your diet healthier, but that doesn't mean equally healthy diets don't exist outside of veganism.

Also, I'm assuming (feel free to correct me) that you're dismissing vegan food as something that you'd starve on without actually trying it, or even giving it a chance. I'd highly suggest finding some pure-vegan restaurants (there are usually some in every town, might have to use Google to find them) and trying out their food. It might be better than you'd think (it's absolutely better than I originally would have thought). Even my omnivorous friends (and all my friends are omnivorous), who often join me at vegan restaurants here (we're fortunate enough to have several in a smaller city) love the food. Maybe not even to be vegan themselves, but enough to understand what it's all about. It isn't all tofu and mushrooms

I don't deny that there exist vegan dishes that I'd like, but they'd be farrer and few between.

The best way I can really address any of those points is, pick a few vegan blogs and read them for a few weeks, without dismissing everything at the outset (in fact, research everything they say). Watch videos they link to, try recipes they post, see how terrible (sorry, editorializing ) factory farming is, and really try and consider their viewpoints, even briefly.

As a single source, and as somebody who's still fairly new to the lifestyle (it'll be 2 years on Halloween ), I'm not the best source. In addition, there are a lot of reasons to do a vegan diet, and I'm not giving credit to all of them (or giving them all the amount of time/discussion they deserve), I only talk about my own reasons.

And as for the rape bit -- I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't suggest that you said 'tasting good' is the only reason; rather, I said that 'tasting good' isn't a valid reason, so I wouldn't buy it, and I wanted other things.

Keep in mind, it's not like I woke up one day and decided that meat tasted bad -- I used to love it, and I'm sure I'd still like the taste. I've even thought that I could never be vegetarian for pretty much the same reasons you present (except the part about being picky, I'm not picky). For what it's worth, when I was your age, I definitely would have said the same thing you're saying, no doubt in my mind. As I grew up, I decided that the lifestyle I'd been living was wrong, and I've been able to change a lot of things.


Also keep in mind, you're only seeing one side of the debate, since, as you said, you've been on that side your entire life. Me, I was an omnivore for 24 years and a vegan now for two (I was never really a vegetarian -- I live by the 'go big or go home!' principal ). I think you have to try both sides before you can have a reasonable opinion.

I'll respond to this later... class is starting.

[iago]

I'm sure it's a contribution, but I don't think it's the only one.  My gag reflexes go off when I eat most sea food, eggs, most mushrooms, etc.

Well, sea food + eggs are bad, so you're 2/3 of the way there.

It doesn't matter

Here, you're saying it's necessary to justify your conclusion with an argument based entirely on morality.  I find this silly and objectionable.  This is the world we live in, and until both of the points I made don't hold water (i.e., they're FALSE), then I don't care.

It absolutely matters. I've had this argument with CrAz3d before -- society saying something's right doesn't make it right. I think with CrAz3d, the issue was gun control, but it could apply equally well to this.

You're really trying to justify what comes down to a moral argument (is it right/wrong to end lives to enhance our own) by saying that it's ok because everybody else does it, and therefore it's easier. The best example I can give would involve invoking Godwin's law, and I don't think that's really necessary.

That's true of anything.  When you settle into a routine, it becomes less difficult.  That doesn't mean you're expending the same amount of effort as someone who isn't doing what you are; it just means you've gotten used to the amount of effort you have to go through.

You said that the precautions would "drive you nuts". I countered by explaining why it isn't so bad, in my experience. I didn't say the effort was the same as not being vegan. You're putting words in my mouth.

At first, you have to stop and look at ingredients and ask questions and everything, so it is a non-insignificant amount of effort. But after awhile, you learn what's ok/what isn't, and the effort is drastically reduced. I have a pretty good idea of what I can eat when I'm at stores/restaurants/etc, so the effort is greatly reduced.

That's not some magical effect of becoming vegan.  If someone wants to "watch what they eat," it's easier to do it if you don't restrict your diet.

It makes your diet healthier, but that doesn't mean equally healthy diets don't exist outside of veganism.

Your argument was that vegan leads to an unhealthier diet ("Health.  It's more effort to maintain a non-meat diet."). I countered it by explaining that improvements in my diet as a result. You're putting words in my mouth, again.

I don't deny that there exist vegan dishes that I'd like, but they'd be farrer and few between.

Don't make assumptions till you try.

I'll respond to this later... class is starting.

Ok!

That part was very wordy, but it really comes down to: learn more before you criticize. I really did feel the same as you before I befriended a vegan and got some insight into their world.

[Camel]

Pretty much all animals people eat are supposed to be vegans (though on farms, they're omnivores + cannibals instead). That is, of course, assuming you're talking about eating animals.

I know that animal parts that would otherwise be wasted are generally just ground up and added to the food, but I would hardly consider that a reason to call farm animals omnivorous/carnivorous. Is there more to it than that? If I tricked you in to eating meat without your prior knowledge, I wouldn't consider you an omnivore.

If you're talking about eating vegan people, that's fine too. I generally tell people that cannibalism isn't really that different from eating meat. I also say that eating cats/dogs/horses isn't really any different from chickens/cows. I mean, no matter what, you're eating intelligent creatures that had to be killed to make you happy. Who cares if they're humans/puppies/etc?

Your insinuation that puppies are delicious is offensive. I demand an inquiry.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE



In all seriousness, though, I really don't eat meat very often. Usually, I only eat meat when it would be inconvenient not to - if someone else is cooking, or I'm at a restaurant that doesn't have palatable alternatives. This happens perhaps once or twice a month. It has been over a year since I've cooked meat for myself. One reason is that my roommate is a vegetarian, and it's just easier to share meals.

I wouldn't have any issue getting accustomed to a lifestyle of not eating land-based meat, so long as I didn't have to give up sushi! It's somewhat of a tradition in my circle of friends, and I have no desire to give it up. I've seen credible evidence that suggests that fish don't feel pain, but that isn't a position I'd like to defend, so I won't give that as a reason

[Camel]

So I googled "do fish feel pain" and this article came up; made me laugh.

The 2003 Edinburgh study confirmed that trout have polymodal nociceptors around their face and head—i.e., they have the ability to detect painful stimuli with their nervous system. But, according to some definitions of pain, the detection of painful stimuli is not enough. The animal must have the ability to understand it is in pain to really feel pain. Putting a hook in the mouth of a trout stimulates it to race around the water, to not go where the line wants to force it. But this doesn't mean that the fish is thinking "Shit. Shit. Shit. This sucks. This sucks. Ow. Ow. Ow." What seems like a desperate escape might be a reflexive reaction, similar to your leg moving when the doctor taps your knee.

[iago]

I know that animal parts that would otherwise be wasted are generally just ground up and added to the food, but I would hardly consider that a reason to call farm animals omnivorous/carnivorous. Is there more to it than that? If I tricked you in to eating meat without your prior knowledge, I wouldn't consider you an omnivore.

Well, it's a regular part of their diet. If I unconsciously ate meat every day, I probably wouldn't be called a vegan (even if I thought I was)

Your insinuation that puppies are delicious is offensive. I demand an inquiry.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Very well. We'll have some puppies killed and sent up to you.

In all seriousness, though, I really don't eat meat very often. Usually, I only eat meat when it would be inconvenient not to - if someone else is cooking, or I'm at a restaurant that doesn't have palatable alternatives. This happens perhaps once or twice a month. It has been over a year since I've cooked meat for myself. One reason is that my roommate is a vegetarian, and it's just easier to share meals.

I wouldn't have any issue getting accustomed to a lifestyle of not eating land-based meat, so long as I didn't have to give up sushi! It's somewhat of a tradition in my circle of friends, and I have no desire to give it up. I've seen credible evidence that suggests that fish don't feel pain, but that isn't a position I'd like to defend, so I won't give that as a reason

That's cool. I don't argue (or tell people) that others should be vegan. I don't think that's a realistic stand to take. But I do advocate reducing the amount of meat/dairy in people's diets. The American (Western?) diet is terrible, in general, and people should try and improve it.

My biggest issues with vegetarians is that they put cheese on/in everything. And cheese is very likely worse for you than meat.

[Camel]

Yeah, I'm not giving up cheese. Maybe if I liked ketchup more, but nope.

[iago]

Yeah, I'm not giving up cheese. Maybe if I liked ketchup more, but nope.

Like I said to Sidoh, I've been there and I've said the same thing.

[Sidoh]

Yeah, I'm not giving up cheese. Maybe if I liked ketchup more, but nope.

Like I said to Sidoh, I've been there and I've said the same thing.

THEREFORE ___________________________________

[iago]

Yeah, I'm not giving up cheese. Maybe if I liked ketchup more, but nope.

Like I said to Sidoh, I've been there and I've said the same thing.

THEREFORE ___________________________________

I thought it was implied, but......

THEREFORE it's possible that you'll change your mind in the future

[Sidoh]

Well, sea food + eggs are bad, so you're 2/3 of the way there.

They're examples of things I find absolutely disgusting, and I think it's more a product of my genetics than my upbringing, especially considering the rest of my family likes both sea food and eggs.

It absolutely matters. I've had this argument with CrAz3d before -- society saying something's right doesn't make it right. I think with CrAz3d, the issue was gun control, but it could apply equally well to this.

I find it annoying that you mention this.  It's like you're saying

(1) Crazed made an argument similar to this
(2) Crazed is generally incapable of forming sound arguments
Therefore, (3) Your argument sucks.

Which is really stupid, and it's a sly way of attempting discrediting what I say.  I don't appreciate it.

You're really trying to justify what comes down to a moral argument (is it right/wrong to end lives to enhance our own) by saying that it's ok because everybody else does it, and therefore it's easier. The best example I can give would involve invoking Godwin's law, and I don't think that's really necessary.

The decision I'm trying to "justify" includes moral considerations, sure, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily only includes moral considerations.  This is exactly what I was pointing out.

You said that the precautions would "drive you nuts". I countered by explaining why it isn't so bad, in my experience. I didn't say the effort was the same as not being vegan. You're putting words in my mouth.

I suppose I was putting words in your mouth there, sorry about that.

Regardless, your "counter" doesn't do anything for me, because you're not me.  I don't want to deal with arranging my life around what I eat.  That sounds terrible.

At first, you have to stop and look at ingredients and ask questions and everything, so it is a non-insignificant amount of effort. But after awhile, you learn what's ok/what isn't, and the effort is drastically reduced. I have a pretty good idea of what I can eat when I'm at stores/restaurants/etc, so the effort is greatly reduced.

By non-insignificant, you mean significant.  I don't care if the effort is reduced over time.  I still wasted my life reading the ingredients on food.  Yuck.  No thanks.

Your argument was that vegan leads to an unhealthier diet ("Health.  It's more effort to maintain a non-meat diet."). I countered it by explaining that improvements in my diet as a result. You're putting words in my mouth, again.

No, that wasn't my argument.  Now you're putting words in my mouth.  I'm saying that a person who eats meat and puts less work into their diet than a vegan (but still more than the average person) can be just as healthy as a vegan.

Don't make assumptions till you try.

I suppose this is fair, but considering I have tried a few, and I've found most of them completely disgusting, I think I'm reasonably qualified to say I wouldn't like that many vegan dishes.

Did I mention I hate onions too?

The best way I can really address any of those points is, pick a few vegan blogs and read them for a few weeks, without dismissing everything at the outset (in fact, research everything they say). Watch videos they link to, try recipes they post, see how terrible (sorry, editorializing ) factory farming is, and really try and consider their viewpoints, even briefly.

While I haven't read vegan blogs (and sorry, I don't plan to), I have given quite a bit of consideration to their views.  I've decided (again and again) that I just don't care enough to change my lifestyle.

And as for the rape bit -- I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't suggest that you said 'tasting good' is the only reason; rather, I said that 'tasting good' isn't a valid reason, so I wouldn't buy it, and I wanted other things.

You're not getting it

I'm saying that your analogy doesn't even work.  "It feels good" is a reason to rape.  I'm not saying it's anywhere near sufficient, but regardless, it is a reason.

Also keep in mind, you're only seeing one side of the debate, since, as you said, you've been on that side your entire life. Me, I was an omnivore for 24 years and a vegan now for two (I was never really a vegetarian -- I live by the 'go big or go home!' principal ). I think you have to try both sides before you can have a reasonable opinion.

"You can't criticize veganism until you try it!"

Ugh, that's so silly.  Of course I can.  If you really believe that, though, maybe I should get my girlfriend to post here.  She tried veganism for a month to prove a point, and she hated it.

[iago]

They're examples of things I find absolutely disgusting, and I think it's more a product of my genetics than my upbringing, especially considering the rest of my family likes both sea food and eggs.

Pfft. I proved that you're 2/3 vegan. Win!

(Fine, 2/4 vegan if you count onions)

I find it annoying that you mention this.  It's like you're saying

(1) Crazed made an argument similar to this
(2) Crazed is generally incapable of forming sound arguments
Therefore, (3) Your argument sucks.

Which is really stupid, and it's a sly way of attempting discrediting what I say.  I don't appreciate it.

I didn't really mean to imply that, it was more of a bonus.

But really, that's an argument I had with craz3d over and over -- society saying something is good or bad doesn't make something intrinsically good or bad. It's very similar to the arguments you presented.

So to conclude.... NO U!

The decision I'm trying to "justify" includes moral considerations, sure, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily only includes moral considerations.  This is exactly what I was pointing out.

Then that's a point we disagree on. I look beyond reasons that I consider selfish, and really just consider the justification of killing for pleasure/convenience/etc.

I suppose I was putting words in your mouth there, sorry about that.

Regardless, your "counter" doesn't do anything for me, because you're not me.  I don't want to deal with arranging my life around what I eat.  That sounds terrible.

That's sort of a hard thing for me to answer. In general, I don't arrange my life around what I eat. At least, not in any way I'd consider negative. I mean, when it's up to me, I choose restaurants/groceries/etc based on what I eat, and that can probably be considered a rearrangement, but it's not like it's extra work or effort. And I like that food, too.

This does mean that I end up eating shitty meals once in awhile. Like, for my dad's birthday he wanted to go to a steakhouse. So fine, I went and had a salad and baked potato. It sucked, yeah, but I'm ok with sacrificing some pleasure once in awhile rather than wanting something to lose its life for my desires.

By non-insignificant, you mean significant.  I don't care if the effort is reduced over time.  I still wasted my life reading the ingredients on food.  Yuck.  No thanks.

I wouldn't call it "significant".

Either way, when I started reading ingredients, I also started realizing how much chemicals/artificial crap is in the food I was eating. So besides avoiding animal products, I started avoiding other unnatural foods, especially ones whose first ingredients are sugar/oil.

I really learned a lot about food, and it's a great exercise for everybody.

No, that wasn't my argument.  Now you're putting words in my mouth.  I'm saying that a person who eats meat and puts less work into their diet than a vegan (but still more than the average person) can be just as healthy as a vegan.

Then I misunderstood what you said. You seemed to imply that vegan was a less healthy diet.

For what it's worth, health isn't my primary reason for being vegan.

I suppose this is fair, but considering I have tried a few, and I've found most of them completely disgusting, I think I'm reasonably qualified to say I wouldn't like that many vegan dishes.

Did I mention I hate onions too?

Damnit, all vegan food is made of onions and mushrooms!

Actually, I think you're crazy. Green onions AND yellow onions? Or just the yellow ones? Because green onions are the best.

While I haven't read vegan blogs (and sorry, I don't plan to), I have given quite a bit of consideration to their views.  I've decided (again and again) that I just don't care enough to change my lifestyle.

The thing is, you get a significantly more negative view of the meat industry (and such) if you're reading those blogs. Most people even don't realize all the horrible things that happen in farming (even when I became vegan, I actually hadn't done much research on modern farming.. now that I have, I'm even more glad ).

Maybe this is party because of my security background, but I believe that people should know exactly how secure their software/locks/etc are. In the same sense, people should know exactly where their food comes from, how it lived, and how it was killed. Factory farms are horrible places where there's all kinds of abuse and such, and apparently up to 99% of our meat comes from them (from that article in my first post ).

This kinda goes back to deadly's original question, though -- how do I feel about showing shock images to people?

And my answer is the same: most people refuse to believe (or think about) this kind of thing (I called it 'denial'), so it doesn't help. At least reading the blogs, you have the opportunity to research and such (I don't believe anything I read right away, I always find multiple sources).

You're not getting it

I'm saying that your analogy doesn't even work.  "It feels good" is a reason to rape.  I'm not saying it's anywhere near sufficient, but regardless, it is a reason.

I still think that analogy works, then. I view eating meat (and stuff) the same way -- perhaps it's a reason, it's just not nearly sufficient. We seem to agree on the meaning of the analogy, just not the text (I say it isn't a reason, you say it's a crappy reason.. whatever ).

"You can't criticize veganism until you try it!"

Ugh, that's so silly.  Of course I can.  If you really believe that, though, maybe I should get my girlfriend to post here.  She tried veganism for a month to prove a point, and she hated it.

There's a big difference between doing something to prove a point, and doing something because you want to.

I compare it to quitting smoking or becoming (religious/non-religious) -- if it's something you're doing to prove a point, or because somebody told you to, or because you saw it on tv, it's not going to work out. You're going to hate every minute of it, and fall off the wagon (so to speak) as soon as you can.

The right way to approach veganism, in my mind, is to have fun with it. Before I was vegan, I bought a cookbook that had a really good introduction (the 'what you need to know' stuff), read some blogs that post recipes, and tried various things. As I gave up meat and stuff, I had more fun with it -- I tried new things, and tried things I remembered hating when I was a kid. Because it was something I really wanted to experience, I enjoyed it a lot.

It's like going into a movie. If you have pre-conceptions about the movie being bad, you're probably going to think it's bad no matter what. If you approach it with an open mind, or even with a positive mind, you'll get a lot more out of the movie. I think veganism (and a lot of other things) are the same way.

Also, your girlfriend was obsessed with sprinkles. How can you trust anything she says!? (Just kidding -- I think the sprinkles thing was my fault ).

[Sidoh]

Pfft. I proved that you're 2/3 vegan. Win!

(Fine, 2/4 vegan if you count onions)

Haha... it's not that I'm against eating sea food or eggs.  I'm all for it.  I just think both taste really gross.

society saying something is good or bad doesn't make something intrinsically good or bad. It's very similar to the arguments you presented.

That's not the argument I'm making.

Then that's a point we disagree on. I look beyond reasons that I consider selfish, and really just consider the justification of killing for pleasure/convenience/etc.

Then we get into the debate "what is moral", which is an entire branch in philosophy.  I consider it immoral to not do things that are pleasureful.  Of course, there are often other considerations that more than cancel out the pleasure (i.e., rape, which I obviously consider immoral).

That's sort of a hard thing for me to answer. In general, I don't arrange my life around what I eat. At least, not in any way I'd consider negative. I mean, when it's up to me, I choose restaurants/groceries/etc based on what I eat, and that can probably be considered a rearrangement, but it's not like it's extra work or effort. And I like that food, too.

Really?  What about going out to eat with friends?  Are all of your friends vegan?  If you join them, certainly "serves vegan food" is a restriction on the places that you can visit.  What about a significant other?  What if they're not vegan/vegetarian?  Wouldn't that make many things more difficult?  These are the kinds of things I'm considering.

I wouldn't call it "significant".

Either way, when I started reading ingredients, I also started realizing how much chemicals/artificial crap is in the food I was eating. So besides avoiding animal products, I started avoiding other unnatural foods, especially ones whose first ingredients are sugar/oil.

I really learned a lot about food, and it's a great exercise for everybody.

I would.

That's a benefit, but it isn't exclusive to veganism.  You can easily avoid the things you are without being vegan.

Damnit, all vegan food is made of onions and mushrooms!

Actually, I think you're crazy. Green onions AND yellow onions? Or just the yellow ones? Because green onions are the best.

I'm actually fine with onions if they're REALLY well cooked.  I don't mind the taste, either, I just hate the after effects.  When I have the lingering taste of death in my mouth, I feel like I want to vomit.

The thing is, you get a significantly more negative view of the meat industry (and such) if you're reading those blogs. Most people even don't realize all the horrible things that happen in farming (even when I became vegan, I actually hadn't done much research on modern farming.. now that I have, I'm even more glad ).

Maybe this is party because of my security background, but I believe that people should know exactly how secure their software/locks/etc are. In the same sense, people should know exactly where their food comes from, how it lived, and how it was killed. Factory farms are horrible places where there's all kinds of abuse and such, and apparently up to 99% of our meat comes from them (from that article in my first post ).

I'm sure there are things that I'd find objectionable.  I just don't care enough, though.  Sorry.

I'm not sure I follow the analogy.  Knowing how secure your software is allows you to understand the risks.  Knowing where your meat comes from allows you to avoid making moral assumptions about eating meat.

This kinda goes back to deadly's original question, though -- how do I feel about showing shock images to people?

And my answer is the same: most people refuse to believe (or think about) this kind of thing (I called it 'denial'), so it doesn't help. At least reading the blogs, you have the opportunity to research and such (I don't believe anything I read right away, I always find multiple sources).

You're still leaving out the last option: not caring.

I still think that analogy works, then. I view eating meat (and stuff) the same way -- perhaps it's a reason, it's just not nearly sufficient. We seem to agree on the meaning of the analogy, just not the text (I say it isn't a reason, you say it's a crappy reason.. whatever ).

If my ENTIRE argument were "Meat tastes good, therefore I eat meat", then your analogy might hold water.  However, it's a convergent argument.  That's one reason I don't want to be a vegan.

There's a big difference between doing something to prove a point, and doing something because you want to.

I agree, but if we're just talking about the foods that you have to eat, I don't see how it matters.  That's all I intended to respond to.

Also, your girlfriend was obsessed with sprinkles. How can you trust anything she says!? (Just kidding -- I think the sprinkles thing was my fault ).

Hahah.  Those sprinkles were awesome. :>

[iago]

Haha... it's not that I'm against eating sea food or eggs.  I'm all for it.  I just think both taste really gross.

Boo!

That's not the argument I'm making.

It was part of it, though.. and I was responding to that part. It was awhile back, I think, and maybe I had misinterpreted it.

Two of your initial four reasons were because it's difficult to do in our society, and my response was .. well, you know. Whatever. I think we disagree about the nature of the debate, so we likely won't agree on that bit

Then we get into the debate "what is moral", which is an entire branch in philosophy.  I consider it immoral to not do things that are pleasureful.  Of course, there are often other considerations that more than cancel out the pleasure (i.e., rape, which I obviously consider immoral).

Well, I consider killing immoral, for the same reason as rape. Maybe comparing it to using a puppy as a football would be a better comparison, and a lot more appropriate.

Really?  What about going out to eat with friends?  Are all of your friends vegan?  If you join them, certainly "serves vegan food" is a restriction on the places that you can visit.  What about a significant other?  What if they're not vegan/vegetarian?  Wouldn't that make many things more difficult?  These are the kinds of things I'm considering.

None of my friends (locally) are vegan, or even vegetarian. However, every restaurant has *something* that's vegan, even if it's just french fries and salad. That's rarely the case, though.. the most common places we go (and have always went) have a few options. And more often than not, we go to little independent eateries which typically have far better food than mainstream places, and have a selection of vegan options.

So yeah, it doesn't put any restriction on places I CAN go, just on places I LIKE going.

Also, I'd want a significant other to be vegan as well... I mean, why would I want to be with somebody who thinks it's ok for animals to die?

I would.

That's a benefit, but it isn't exclusive to veganism.  You can easily avoid the things you are without being vegan.

It's true, but it's a nice side effect. I tend to be lazy, and the only way I go out of my way like that is if it's a requirement.

I'm actually fine with onions if they're REALLY well cooked.  I don't mind the taste, either, I just hate the after effects.  When I have the lingering taste of death in my mouth, I feel like I want to vomit.

Ah yes, I agree with that. But I'm willing to make that sacrifice. I definitely agree that REALLY well-cooked onions are the best.. dark brown or black (though not charred).

I'm sure there are things that I'd find objectionable.  I just don't care enough, though.  Sorry.

I'm not sure I follow the analogy.  Knowing how secure your software is allows you to understand the risks.  Knowing where your meat comes from allows you to avoid making moral assumptions about eating meat.

s/party/partly/ in what I said, but I think you got that.

But yes, what you said is what I meant.. everybody should know exactly where their food came from, which would allow them to make an informed choice. Like the security of locks, though, the companies don't want you to know because if you know how bad most locks are, nobody would buy them.

You're still leaving out the last option: not caring.

I don't think it's possible to know where meat comes from and not to care, unless you're a bad type of person. That's why I broke it down to two points initially (the part that you initially took exception to): denial (or just not knowing, really), or evilness. Only less glib.

If my ENTIRE argument were "Meat tastes good, therefore I eat meat", then your analogy might hold water.  However, it's a convergent argument.  That's one reason I don't want to be a vegan.

I wasn't using the analogy to fight your ENTIRE argument, I used it to counter a single point. That's why I didn't quote your whole argument!

I agree, but if we're just talking about the foods that you have to eat, I don't see how it matters.  That's all I intended to respond to.

I think it does matter, a lot. But eh?

Hahah.  Those sprinkles were awesome. :>

<edit> Also, for what it's worth, thanks for keeping this discussion a little light hearted (I sensed a bit of tension at times, but eh? it's a touchy subject). But, this has become fun, and I think we've sort of reached agreement.

For what it's worth, I never try to press my beliefs on people, all I really do is answer questions when people ask them (which, in come cases, turns into this). I believe in this lifestyle, and I think it's the right way to live, and that everybody should live this way, but I also know that most people won't. And that's fine -- I don't pester or anything, I just keep quiet and set a good example, and answer questions when they ask (and people always ask things).

Arguing it here is actually great practice for arguing it in real life. It's nice to have thought about what people are going to ask, or talk about it somewhere that I can think about my answers. So it works out well for me.

[Sidoh]

It was part of it, though.. and I was responding to that part. It was awhile back, I think, and maybe I had misinterpreted it.

Two of your initial four reasons were because it's difficult to do in our society, and my response was .. well, you know. Whatever. I think we disagree about the nature of the debate, so we likely won't agree on that bit

It's just not the argument I'm making.  You put words in my mouth, and you seem to be covering that up here.  I didn't say that "because society thinks it's okay, it is okay."

I said I'm not willing to go through the extra effort of being vegan.

Well, I consider killing immoral, for the same reason as rape. Maybe comparing it to using a puppy as a football would be a better comparison, and a lot more appropriate.

That is more appropriate, but it's still not a good argument.  You try to discredit one premise on its own.  You haven't done that.

None of my friends (locally) are vegan, or even vegetarian. However, every restaurant has *something* that's vegan, even if it's just french fries and salad. That's rarely the case, though.. the most common places we go (and have always went) have a few options. And more often than not, we go to little independent eateries which typically have far better food than mainstream places, and have a selection of vegan options.

So yeah, it doesn't put any restriction on places I CAN go, just on places I LIKE going.

Also, I'd want a significant other to be vegan as well... I mean, why would I want to be with somebody who thinks it's ok for animals to die?

That's fair, I guess.

Sounds like you're going to be marrying a hippie. 

It's true, but it's a nice side effect. I tend to be lazy, and the only way I go out of my way like that is if it's a requirement.

That's fine, but I don't think it's fair to say that's an advantage of being vegan.  Perhaps saying it gives you the incentive to do so is fine, but suggesting that it's the only way (or leaving out the fact that it's easily possible without being vegan) is a bit sly, and doesn't really lend any credence to your argument.

Ah yes, I agree with that. But I'm willing to make that sacrifice. I definitely agree that REALLY well-cooked onions are the best.. dark brown or black (though not charred).

Ugh.  I had some Guacamole when my gf was here, and she put half of an onion (plus one avacado, and some other stuff, obviously).  My mouth tasted like onions for more than two days.  UGUGGHHH.  ew.

s/party/partly/ in what I said, but I think you got that.

But yes, what you said is what I meant.. everybody should know exactly where their food came from, which would allow them to make an informed choice. Like the security of locks, though, the companies don't want you to know because if you know how bad most locks are, nobody would buy them.

Ah, I guess I see what you're getting at.  I suppose that's fair.

I don't think it's possible to know where meat comes from and not to care, unless you're a bad type of person. That's why I broke it down to two points initially (the part that you initially took exception to): denial (or just not knowing, really), or evilness. Only less glib.

You make the assumption that people care as much about animals as you do.  This is not a safe assumption.

I wasn't using the analogy to fight your ENTIRE argument, I used it to counter a single point. That's why I didn't quote your whole argument!

Yes, and it didn't work at all.  You gave an argument that suggested it is alone an insufficient reason to eat meat, but it didn't show that it does not contribute to an argument concluding that eating meat is fine.  In fact, I think it'd be pretty silly to try.  I think it's obvious that it contributes to such an argument.

I think it does matter, a lot. But eh?

Why?  She ate vegan foods for a month and disliked it thoroughly.

<edit> Also, for what it's worth, thanks for keeping this discussion a little light hearted (I sensed a bit of tension at times, but eh? it's a touchy subject). But, this has become fun, and I think we've sort of reached agreement.

For what it's worth, I never try to press my beliefs on people, all I really do is answer questions when people ask them (which, in come cases, turns into this). I believe in this lifestyle, and I think it's the right way to live, and that everybody should live this way, but I also know that most people won't. And that's fine -- I don't pester or anything, I just keep quiet and set a good example, and answer questions when they ask (and people always ask things).

Arguing it here is actually great practice for arguing it in real life. It's nice to have thought about what people are going to ask, or talk about it somewhere that I can think about my answers. So it works out well for me.

I've enjoyed it too.  I can't say you've done much to convince me to become a vegan, but I suppose I'm slightly more curious.

[iago]

It's just not the argument I'm making.  You put words in my mouth, and you seem to be covering that up here.  I didn't say that "because society thinks it's okay, it is okay."

I said I'm not willing to go through the extra effort of being vegan.

*shrug*

That's fair, I guess.

Sounds like you're going to be marrying a hippie.  

Eww @ marriage. It's a frickin' scam!

But yes, if I ever decide to enter a relationship, It'd have to be with somebody with similar beliefs to me. But I'm rather happy with being alone, at least for now.

That's fine, but I don't think it's fair to say that's an advantage of being vegan.  Perhaps saying it gives you the incentive to do so is fine, but suggesting that it's the only way (or leaving out the fact that it's easily possible without being vegan) is a bit sly, and doesn't really lend any credence to your argument.

Well, it was an advantage to me. It may not be as much (or at all) an advantage to others. But that's fine.

Ugh.  I had some Guacamole when my gf was here, and she put half of an onion (plus one avacado, and some other stuff, obviously).  My mouth tasted like onions for more than two days.  UGUGGHHH.  ew.

Haha, I dislike Guacamole. I don't like avacados in general. I actually have one sitting on my counter, and it's ripe (on the verge of going overripe), and I'm not sure what to do with it. Likely just throw it out.

You make the assumption that people care as much about animals as you do.  This is not a safe assumption.

I find it really odd, though, that self-proclaimed animal lovers eat meat, and don't really think about the connection. I'll give an example.

My friend's ex-girlfriend (barely fair to say.. they dated like a month, broke up maybe a month ago) is a huge animal lover. We were watching a movie of some sort where a dog or cat or some kind of household animal is shot (or something -- I really forget what the situation was). She was very upset, and refused to continue watching. (while I'm using this particular girlfriend as an example, I'm pretty sure that's pretty normal behaviour).

However, during all this, she was eating a beef + pepperoni pizza. I couldn't help but think of the hypocrisy there -- I mean, you're upset that some movie producers pretended to kill/hurt an animal, yet you're ok with animals dying for your meal? Does that make any sense?

Of course, I didn't say anything. I find that bringing up that kind of thing is like telling an alcoholic they shouldn't have that extra drink -- they just get upset, and are less likely to listen to you later. I very much doubt that it's going to make them change their minds -- like the original thing I said to deadly7 all those pages ago.

Denial, man! Or, now that I think about it, maybe I should call it cognitive dissonance?

Whatever the case, perhaps you and others really don't care about animals (in which case, I hope you don't plan on getting a pet -- there's virtually no difference between the meat on your table and a household pet).

Yes, and it didn't work at all.  You gave an argument that suggested it is alone an insufficient reason to eat meat, but it didn't show that it does not contribute to an argument concluding that eating meat is fine.  In fact, I think it'd be pretty silly to try.  I think it's obvious that it contributes to such an argument.

I forget what we're talking about, so let's just agree to disagree.

Why?  She ate vegan foods for a month and disliked it thoroughly.

I don't know the situation, so I don't really have the ability to comment, but my impression from you is that here reasons weren't the best. I think it's important to approach a vegan lifestyle wanting to experience it, not wanting to prove a point.

I've enjoyed it too.  I can't say you've done much to convince me to become a vegan, but I suppose I'm slightly more curious.

That's good. I don't expect you to change, but I'm happy enough to raise a little awareness. Hopefully if anybody else is still reading this thread, it's given them something to think about -- like Tuberload, for example, who really started the line of questioning.

[Camel]

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

[Sidoh]

Eww @ marriage. It's a frickin' scam!

But yes, if I ever decide to enter a relationship, It'd have to be with somebody with similar beliefs to me. But I'm rather happy with being alone, at least for now.

Figures.

I'm pretty sure you're the only vegan I've met that wasn't a hippie. lol

Haha, I dislike Guacamole. I don't like avacados in general. I actually have one sitting on my counter, and it's ripe (on the verge of going overripe), and I'm not sure what to do with it. Likely just throw it out.

Haha.  I liked the Guacamole she made.  It was good, but the onions were wayyy tooo muuuchh. ew.

I find it really odd, though, that self-proclaimed animal lovers eat meat, and don't really think about the connection. I'll give an example.

My friend's ex-girlfriend (barely fair to say.. they dated like a month, broke up maybe a month ago) is a huge animal lover. We were watching a movie of some sort where a dog or cat or some kind of household animal is shot (or something -- I really forget what the situation was). She was very upset, and refused to continue watching. (while I'm using this particular girlfriend as an example, I'm pretty sure that's pretty normal behaviour).

However, during all this, she was eating a beef + pepperoni pizza. I couldn't help but think of the hypocrisy there -- I mean, you're upset that some movie producers pretended to kill/hurt an animal, yet you're ok with animals dying for your meal? Does that make any sense?

Of course, I didn't say anything. I find that bringing up that kind of thing is like telling an alcoholic they shouldn't have that extra drink -- they just get upset, and are less likely to listen to you later. I very much doubt that it's going to make them change their minds -- like the original thing I said to deadly7 all those pages ago.

I agree that there's something wrong with that, but there's another way to resolve it.  I don't care if people eat dogs.  Have at it.  Maybe it's good.

Denial, man! Or, now that I think about it, maybe I should call it cognitive dissonance?

In a lot of cases, there probably is some repressed cognitive dissonance present in a lot of people who eat meat, but I don't think it's there in all of them.

Whatever the case, perhaps you and others really don't care about animals (in which case, I hope you don't plan on getting a pet -- there's virtually no difference between the meat on your table and a household pet).

Just because I don't care about animals in general doesn't mean I can't care about an individual animal.

I forget what we're talking about, so let's just agree to disagree.

I'm quite sure you're wrong.  I was responding to your rape analogy, which tried to discredit a single point in my argument.  However, unless you can show that the advantage I highlight isn't an advantage at all, you've done nothing to invalidate the premise.

I don't know the situation, so I don't really have the ability to comment, but my impression from you is that here reasons weren't the best. I think it's important to approach a vegan lifestyle wanting to experience it, not wanting to prove a point.

This really has nothing to do with the lifestyle.  I'm purely responding to the tastes of the foods you're restricted to.

That's good. I don't expect you to change, but I'm happy enough to raise a little awareness. Hopefully if anybody else is still reading this thread, it's given them something to think about -- like Tuberload, for example, who really started the line of questioning.

All in all, I'm sure there are many things that I would find cruel and disgusting in the meat industry.  However, I'm completely unconvinced (convinced otherwise, in fact) that becoming a vegan is the only way to respond to that appropriately.

[Tuberload]

That's good. I don't expect you to change, but I'm happy enough to raise a little awareness. Hopefully if anybody else is still reading this thread, it's given them something to think about -- like Tuberload, for example, who really started the line of questioning.

What makes you think I would even be following this craziness? 

First, I am very unaware of the way in which animals are farmed and treated on these farms. Although I did hear a story about fosters growing genetically altered chickens that had no feathers or beaks and such which caused me to recoil from there brand in a more than mild disgust. That being said, a more enlightened awareness would probably cause me to more heavily discriminate my sources of food.

Second, I have some thoughts concerning the issue of denial. Without going into much detail at first glance it becomes more of an issue of conscience for me, which is heavily molded by my faith and current level of revelation. Taking a second glance, my first point comes into play and I find myself a little more uneasy with the methods used by man in producing the meat. A third glance would bring me into issues of either emotional attachment, or detachment. If I find myself becoming emotionally attached to an animal then I find within my heart it becomes like a part of my family. However because of first glance reasoning most animals do not find such a place within my heart and I therefore am not hindered by my emotions. Is this denial? And if it is fitting to define it as such, is it unhealthy? These are the questions I would have to ask, and then again it would be guided by my faith and the conscience therein produced. All that being said I am not one to just flow with the masses and think the issues of animal farming are real ones that would need to change, although I do not have the proper understanding of the issues to make any conclusions.

Third, concerning issues of health and convenience I am persuaded that my upbringing and current mind on the issue are irrelevant. What I mean by this is that I will not sit here and try to argue with you just for the sake of being a raging bull only capable of seeing red. This is the way I am, so you better prepare yourself to be charged and if possible trampled. If there is a better way to live my life then I would have to step out of myself and examine legitimate data before I could make proper decisions. I am very interested in my health, and personally issues of convenience are more issues of my own unwillingness to change because I am a creature of comfort and habit. With all that being said I throw my hands in the air and say I just don’t know. I do however believe that to let my heart flow unchecked is not producing the best quality of life.

To conclude, my ideal situation would be to own land and produce my own food. This would be heavily reliant upon an organic garden, but would also include meat. I have observed cows and am hard pressed to believe that allowing them to wander around several acres of land is in anyway hindering there quality of life. I would not be cruel to my animals, and if emotional attachment should arise in either family or me then I would have to cross that bridge when I came upon it. From there I would be guided by conscience and faith. The animals would have a relatively safe environment to grow, eat, receive medical attention, etc, and there end would be as quick and painless as I could provide. Sure seems as if that beats getting ripped to shreds by a more violent carnivore, or breaking its legs and being left to suffer and die.

[iago]

Figures.

I'm pretty sure you're the only vegan I've met that wasn't a hippie. lol

Haha, well, I haven't met any vegans that ARE hippies, although it really depends how how broad your definition of 'hippie' is. I'm sure under some definitions, I'd fall under it. :-o

I agree that there's something wrong with that, but there's another way to resolve it.  I don't care if people eat dogs.  Have at it.  Maybe it's good.

That's good too. That's exactly what I tell people -- you only have a couple options:
1) Be in favour of eating all animals (and possibly people, why restrict yourself)
2) Be in favour of not eating animals
3) Define some kind of meaningful criteria ('fish don't feel pain' I can sort of understand, but 'puppies are cute and cows aren't' is pretty lame)

In a lot of cases, there probably is some repressed cognitive dissonance present in a lot of people who eat meat, but I don't think it's there in all of them.

Perhaps it varies between denial/ignorance and cognitive dissonance and, perhaps, callousness, at least for people who think about it.

Just because I don't care about animals in general doesn't mean I can't care about an individual animal.

"I only murder CERTAIN people! I'm not a bad person!"

I'm quite sure you're wrong.  I was responding to your rape analogy, which tried to discredit a single point in my argument.  However, unless you can show that the advantage I highlight isn't an advantage at all, you've done nothing to invalidate the premise.

Although I ought to read back in the thread, I'm only willing to devote so much time to this!

I'm not sure if I ever tried using that to counter one of your arguments, specifically.. rather, I seem to recall using it to rule out an argument before it was made. Something along the lines of, "What are your reasons, and don't use 'it tastes good' because ....". I could be wrong, though.

This really has nothing to do with the lifestyle.  I'm purely responding to the tastes of the foods you're restricted to.

I think they're related. There are a lot of different things you can eat as a vegan, ranging from boring crap that people generally picture vegans eating, to fairly interesting and tasty things, that I typically make/eat. If you're eating vegan to prove a point, you probably aren't going to explore the full complement of possibilities.

That kinda reminds me of a blog I sometimes read, "sick of salad". I personally eat very little salad.

All in all, I'm sure there are many things that I would find cruel and disgusting in the meat industry.  However, I'm completely unconvinced (convinced otherwise, in fact) that becoming a vegan is the only way to respond to that appropriately.

That's fine.

Personally, I don't want to support an industry based on killing, at all. Even if I knew all animals were properly treated and killed nicely, I still wouldn't stop being vegan. I just consider meat to be morally wrong.

But, the current meat industry (where 99% of meat comes from) goes well beyond my cutoff point. I don't eat meat because I don't think it's right to eat meat; others, who might still think it's ok, shouldn't eat meat because of how horrible the current meat industry is. It's sort of a sliding scale, and in the modern world we're strongly at the "bad" end, where no good person should be supporting it.

[iago]

What makes you think I would even be following this craziness? 

You asked the original question, and you responded when I mentioned your name. Therefore, you must have been following it at least to some extent. ha!

First, I am very unaware of the way in which animals are farmed and treated on these farms. Although I did hear a story about fosters growing genetically altered chickens that had no feathers or beaks and such which caused me to recoil from there brand in a more than mild disgust. That being said, a more enlightened awareness would probably cause me to more heavily discriminate my sources of food.

Second, I have some thoughts concerning the issue of denial. Without going into much detail at first glance it becomes more of an issue of conscience for me, which is heavily molded by my faith and current level of revelation. Taking a second glance, my first point comes into play and I find myself a little more uneasy with the methods used by man in producing the meat. A third glance would bring me into issues of either emotional attachment, or detachment. If I find myself becoming emotionally attached to an animal then I find within my heart it becomes like a part of my family. However because of first glance reasoning most animals do not find such a place within my heart and I therefore am not hindered by my emotions. Is this denial? And if it is fitting to define it as such, is it unhealthy? These are the questions I would have to ask, and then again it would be guided by my faith and the conscience therein produced. All that being said I am not one to just flow with the masses and think the issues of animal farming are real ones that would need to change, although I do not have the proper understanding of the issues to make any conclusions.

Third, concerning issues of health and convenience I am persuaded that my upbringing and current mind on the issue are irrelevant. What I mean by this is that I will not sit here and try to argue with you just for the sake of being a raging bull only capable of seeing red. This is the way I am, so you better prepare yourself to be charged and if possible trampled. If there is a better way to live my life then I would have to step out of myself and examine legitimate data before I could make proper decisions. I am very interested in my health, and personally issues of convenience are more issues of my own unwillingness to change because I am a creature of comfort and habit. With all that being said I throw my hands in the air and say I just don’t know. I do however believe that to let my heart flow unchecked is not producing the best quality of life.

I fully respect what you're saying here, and for the most part I agree.

I have seen a lot of really horrible videos and read a lot of blogs/etc about things that happen in the meat industry. It stems from people treating animals as objects (or products), not as living creatures. When the main goal is profit, they're going to raise the animals as quickly and as cheaply as possible, without regard to animal welfare. That means they should be fed as much as possible, given pharmaceuticals to help them grow faster, given the minimum amount of space they can survive in, and killed as early as possible.

The worst parse, in my opinion, is that animals that are 'useless', such as the vast majority of male cows/chickens (bulls/cocks..whatever) are killed immediately after birth, normally in an incredibly inhumane way (baby chickens are stuffed in bags and/or ground up in machinery, alive).

But, like I said to deadly earlier, I *really* don't like giving graphic descriptions to people. It normally just makes them not want to hear what you say, and I can totally see why. I try to post things that are veg*n friendly without being really graphic or anything, so as to turn people off.

To conclude, my ideal situation would be to own land and produce my own food. This would be heavily reliant upon an organic garden, but would also include meat. I have observed cows and am hard pressed to believe that allowing them to wander around several acres of land is in anyway hindering there quality of life. I would not be cruel to my animals, and if emotional attachment should arise in either family or me then I would have to cross that bridge when I came upon it. From there I would be guided by conscience and faith. The animals would have a relatively safe environment to grow, eat, receive medical attention, etc, and there end would be as quick and painless as I could provide. Sure seems as if that beats getting ripped to shreds by a more violent carnivore, or breaking its legs and being left to suffer and die.

I think that would be a fine lifestyle, one where you can be assured that the animals aren't being harmed.

That being said, it's also somewhat selfish, in my mind. Animals take substantially more resources to raise than plants. A more utilitarian method would be raising plants either using less land, or giving the excess to people who need it. But that's just my opinion -- as far as farming goes, that's probably the best way.

[Tuberload]

You asked the original question, and you responded when I mentioned your name. Therefore, you must have been following it at least to some extent. ha!

Just trying to introduce a light heartedness from the get go. 

I fully respect what you're saying here, and for the most part I agree.

Since we have already been able to, for the most part, find agreement I will not brandish my sword and start swinging it at you over the minor issues in which we do not.

I have seen a lot of really horrible videos and read a lot of blogs/etc about things that happen in the meat industry. It stems from people treating animals as objects (or products), not as living creatures. When the main goal is profit, they're going to raise the animals as quickly and as cheaply as possible, without regard to animal welfare. That means they should be fed as much as possible, given pharmaceuticals to help them grow faster, given the minimum amount of space they can survive in, and killed as early as possible.

The worst parse, in my opinion, is that animals that are 'useless', such as the vast majority of male cows/chickens (bulls/cocks..whatever) are killed immediately after birth, normally in an incredibly inhumane way (baby chickens are stuffed in bags and/or ground up in machinery, alive).

But, like I said to deadly earlier, I *really* don't like giving graphic descriptions to people. It normally just makes them not want to hear what you say, and I can totally see why. I try to post things that are veg*n friendly without being really graphic or anything, so as to turn people off.

I am not well viewed in such content, so I would need further legitimate data of which I am sure there is abundance.

I think that would be a fine lifestyle, one where you can be assured that the animals aren't being harmed.

That being said, it's also somewhat selfish, in my mind. Animals take substantially more resources to raise than plants. A more utilitarian method would be raising plants either using less land, or giving the excess to people who need it. But that's just my opinion -- as far as farming goes, that's probably the best way.

I find myself a little confused as to the reason for this selfishness. Is it because I own the land in which the animals graze therefore somehow robbing humanity of resources result of my over abundance? Before I venture an answer I would like to broaden my grasp of the issue at hand.

[iago]

Just trying to introduce a light heartedness from the get go. 

And I carried it on. Kinda.

Since we have already been able to, for the most part, find agreement I will not brandish my sword and start swinging it at you over the minor issues in which we do not.

you're no fun!

I am not well viewed in such content, so I would need further legitimate data of which I am sure there is abundance.

There is, and I see it all the time. I'll post a link next time I come across something.

I find myself a little confused as to the reason for this selfishness. Is it because I own the land in which the animals graze therefore somehow robbing humanity of resources result of my over abundance? Before I venture an answer I would like to broaden my grasp of the issue at hand.

That's pretty much what I mean, yeah. I'm not saying it's a killing blow, I think it'd be great if somebody was able to do that, but there are drawbacks to everything. It's all about weighing the benefits/drawbacks.

[Tuberload]

That's pretty much what I mean, yeah. I'm not saying it's a killing blow, I think it'd be great if somebody was able to do that, but there are drawbacks to everything. It's all about weighing the benefits/drawbacks.

Well then that being the case I can at least in part reveal where I stand on the issue.

From what I have heard the current population of the world could be herded together to fit within the state of Florida. Now I recognize that I do not have a legitimate source to verify this claim on hand, but I tend to believe that it is accurate none the less. I believe there is plenty of land and resources to go around and think the issue lie not with a selfish desire to own a couple of acres of land and animals, but rather in the way the powers that be run the world. Unless of course one would think the right thing for humanity to do is build skyscrapers in which families live in as small a space as possible.

Now whether the animal is grazing on my land, someone else’s land, state or national land, or whatever, the fact is the animal is going to continue to eat. I fail to see the selflessness in my harvesting only a small garden thereby not selfishly consuming resources in the raising of animal. It would seem that the only solution to the cost of resources incurred by the consumption of the animal would be to eliminate the animal altogether. From one perspective it could be seen as doing the world a favor by limiting the grazing of the animal to my land alone.

Onto the issue of providing for others, I myself am very generous at heart and would find great joy in the giving of my increase to those in need. It would be one of the many joys of the blessing of prosperity when handled in the right way. I think greed corrupts but I do not believe that prosperity is a bad thing in and of itself. I hold the position that prosperity is meant for the sake of many therefore I look for ways to disperse it that many may in fact be blessed.

As a side note I have come to such a realization, that when the time in fact came to put the animal down I do not know how I would feel about putting a device to the back of its head were the spinal cord attaches to its brain and pulling the trigger. This is just a note of interest that although one might argue his position, it in fact may not be the position held when placed in such a situation. This is said to explain why I am only able to reveal in part where I stand on the said issue.

[iago]

As a side note I have come to such a realization, that when the time in fact came to put the animal down I do not know how I would feel about putting a device to the back of its head were the spinal cord attaches to its brain and pulling the trigger. This is just a note of interest that although one might argue his position, it in fact may not be the position held when placed in such a situation. This is said to explain why I am only able to reveal in part where I stand on the said issue.

This isn't targeted toward you specifically, but people in general.

I expect that the majority of people would have trouble killing an animal while looking it in its eye. But at the same time, those people don't think twice about eating a hotdog, or feeding a hotdog to their children.

This seems odd to me.

[Tuberload]

This isn't targeted toward you specifically, but people in general.

I expect that the majority of people would have trouble killing an animal while looking it in its eye. But at the same time, those people don't think twice about eating a hotdog, or feeding a hotdog to their children.

This seems odd to me.

Let's say for example that I know my children have need of positive loving discipline in there lives so that they will grow up to be productive citizens in life who contribute to the general welfare of society as a whole. However when faced with the challenge of implementing this discipline I find an emotional block inside of me that severally hinders my willingness to follow through. Yet I know that this is a mountain that must be overcome within my soul lest my children grow up to be another darkened statistic of America’s rapidly declining population.

The point at hand is the emotional block that is present within. Does this block justify a claim that positive loving discipline is in fact not ok? Therefore does a potential emotional block when putting my animal down justify a moral stance against the action itself?

[iago]

Let's say for example that I know my children have need of positive loving discipline in there lives so that they will grow up to be productive citizens in life who contribute to the general welfare of society as a whole. However when faced with the challenge of implementing this discipline I find an emotional block inside of me that severally hinders my willingness to follow through. Yet I know that this is a mountain that must be overcome within my soul lest my children grow up to be another darkened statistic of America’s rapidly declining population.

The point at hand is the emotional block that is present within. Does this block justify a claim that positive loving discipline is in fact not ok? Therefore does a potential emotional block when putting my animal down justify a moral stance against the action itself?

That's definitely a good question, and I don't know if I can give a good answer to that. But, I'll try!

I think my response to that would have to be: the reason people have difficulty killing an animal (or a person, for that matter) is most likely because the person knows what they're doing is wrong. They're ok if it's abstracted and they don't have to think about the death that they're benefiting from, but when they're faced with it, they know it isn't right.

I think that taking a life is something that is innately wrong, and that makes this situation different than discipline.

Does that make sense?

[Sidoh]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

[iago]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

[Tuberload]

That's definitely a good question, and I don't know if I can give a good answer to that. But, I'll try!

I think my response to that would have to be: the reason people have difficulty killing an animal (or a person, for that matter) is most likely because the person knows what they're doing is wrong. They're ok if it's abstracted and they don't have to think about the death that they're benefiting from, but when they're faced with it, they know it isn't right.

I think that taking a life is something that is innately wrong, and that makes this situation different than discipline.

Does that make sense?

So then the emotional block present in the two scenarios is too far separated to in any way draw such implied conclusions?

From your response it seems that you are insinuating the emotional block in killing is different than that in the situation I presented because one is a product of some innate mechanism and the other, well that is yet to be defined. My concern with this would be that the struggle with proper discipline would seem innate to one personality type whereas the willingness to kill a little more innate in another, vice versa. I could conclude from this that it is possibly more a matter of temperament and personality.

To take it a step further we can include upbringing and childhood experience. For one brought up in a household structured with positive loving discipline it would more than likely be easier for that person regardless of temperament to carry the same discipline into a family of there own. For another child brought up in a severely abusive home yet having a naturally gentle disposition grows up to be a psychopathic murderer. From this I could conclude that which is defined as innate could in fact be more of a product of upbringing and other social and cultural influences.

The question is, how do we really isolate what is innate and what is not? Once again this gives rise to the question, is this really grounds for a moral stance against the killing and eating of animals?

Now allowing the possibility that it does give way to some natural innate law written on the hearts of mankind, what is the source of such law in which we are violating? Can we really be the product of randomness and chance, yet all posses such basic matters of conscience?

Now I do see your comparison between animals and humans and its implied point that if it is alright to kill an animal then why not allow the same liberty in the killing of humans, vice versa. This would however take me back to the source of such conscience and its standard.

To put it bluntly if we are all just a product of chance with no real purpose in life then morality seems to be a rather trivial matter. Eat and drink for tomorrow you die, and don’t be fooled into thinking you are somehow better for sparing Bambi when Yogi the bear wouldn’t hesitate for a second to tear you to pieces. Are we not just animals who somehow ended up a little farther down the evolutionary line? Or is there really something to your suggestions of morality? I think there is.

[Sidoh]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

Maybe not.  Why is morality objective?

[iago]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

Maybe not.  Why is morality objective?

You're arguing semantics instead of addressing my argument.

[Camel]

'puppies are cute and cows aren't' is pretty lame

NO U

[warz]

you think way too much about eating food. i like burger. i eat burger.

[iago]

you think way too much about eating food. i like burger. i eat burger.

I spend a lot of time thinking, especially about my life/lifestyle, and how I can improve myself and live better. Becoming vegan came from that, but it isn't the only thing.

Being able to perform self-inspection is an important part of humans, and something people should do much more often.

[Sidoh]

I do not agree that finding murder objectionable is innate.  It seems that way because it's nearly invariably true among today's cultures that murder is objectionable, that does not, however, mean it is innate.

I think that before you go saying that killing animals is immoral, you should be required to define what makes something moral or immoral.

You're right, 'innate' is probably the wrong word. But killing is something that most people are brought up knowing is wrong, and hurting animals is something people don't do day to day.

I don't really have the ability to define what morality is, but the easiest way to look at it, to me, is a utilitarian perspective. I think we can agree that animals think, feel, and have emotions. We've all played with dogs or cats, and, as I said earlier, farm animals aren't much different (some, like pigs, are likely smarter than dogs and cats).

So, what kind of loss is involved in this deal?
Animals: lose their lives
Humans: gain some pleasure/convenience

Perhaps 'moralness' isn't immediately obvious, but I think the balance of what's right and wrong is pretty obvious there..

Maybe not.  Why is morality objective?

You're arguing semantics instead of addressing my argument.

No, I'm really not.  Something is "right" if and only if it is moral.  You're assuming morality is objective.

[iago]

No, I'm really not.  Something is "right" if and only if it is moral.  You're assuming morality is objective.

Even if each person has his or her own set of moral standards, the double standard of not wanting to kill an animal and being ok with eating their meat still applies.

Perhaps morals aren't absolute and some people are fine with killing an animal themselves. It's more interesting to look at an average person, though.

Also, I didn't use the terms 'right' or 'wrong' as absolutes, either -- I defined them in the context of my post.

[Camel]

[Sidoh]

No, I'm really not.  Something is "right" if and only if it is moral.  You're assuming morality is objective.

Even if each person has his or her own set of moral standards, the double standard of not wanting to kill an animal and being ok with eating their meat still applies.

Perhaps morals aren't absolute and some people are fine with killing an animal themselves. It's more interesting to look at an average person, though.

Also, I didn't use the terms 'right' or 'wrong' as absolutes, either -- I defined them in the context of my post.

If morality is relative, then why can't people define eating meat non-immoral, but killing to be immoral?  that's my point...

[Towelie]

Oooh morality! I'm taking an entire class on this.

Is eating meat moral?

The main question to this is whether or not animals have the same rights as humans. It is generally accepted that the answer is no, but iago definitely thinks otherwise (outlier!).

Looking at natural law, it could be said to be moral. It is human nature to eat meat, we have always needed it to survive, and therefore it is justifiable because it preserves our life.

With utilitarianism the morality is questionable, and depends how much you weigh each issue. Here is where the issue of whether or not the animals have the same rights as we do comes into play. If they don't, killing the animal doesn't weigh that much, and people are fed (and get the proper nutrition needed to survive), while some people become upset. In this case, the positives outweigh the negatives, and is therefore morally justifiable to eat meat.

For those who are religious, the divine command theory states that an action is right because God says it is. I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I'm decently positive that this makes consuming meat morally right, or in some religions, eating specific types is morally wrong.

If moral laws are relative to the society, such as relativism suggests, then eating meat, in our culture, is morally right. If you lived in a vegan society, then it wouldn't be. But you don't.

Pretty much you could argue either way, but the general consensus is that its morally right.

[iago]

Looking at natural law, it could be said to be moral. It is human nature to eat meat, we have always needed it to survive, and therefore it is justifiable because it preserves our life.

Humans haven't always needed meat to survive. Our bodies aren't really built for meat, and definitely aren't built for milk (past the age of 5 or so). We can't even digest certain kinds of meat (like red meat) properly.

<edit> To expand a bit, because I found this really interesting when I read it...

as far as the milk thing goes, our bodies produce an enzyme called Lactase, which lets us digest milk (whether human or animal). After growing up, all mammals besides certain humans stop producing it. Around 5 years old, a lot of humans stop producing it as well, which is called "lactose intolerance". In reality, lactose intolerance is perfectly natural and happens in all other animals.. the ability to continue digesting milk is weirder.

When you stop drinking milk for enough time, your body stops producing it, as well. So if I accidentally eat/drink something containing milk now, I know it.

With utilitarianism the morality is questionable, and depends how much you weigh each issue. Here is where the issue of whether or not the animals have the same rights as we do comes into play. If they don't, killing the animal doesn't weigh that much, and people are fed (and get the proper nutrition needed to survive), while some people become upset. In this case, the positives outweigh the negatives, and is therefore morally justifiable to eat meat.

People can be fed without killing animals, and it takes FAR less resources, which means that FAR more people will be able to eat. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, I declare myself right.

For those who are religious, the divine command theory states that an action is right because God says it is. I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I'm decently positive that this makes consuming meat morally right, or in some religions, eating specific types is morally wrong.

We all know that religion is nonsense

But really, there are a lot of religious 'laws' (or whatever you call them) about not eating meat at certain times/periods that aren't followed by most people. So I don't think most people really take religion as an authoritative source on all that.

If moral laws are relative to the society, such as relativism suggests, then eating meat, in our culture, is morally right. If you lived in a vegan society, then it wouldn't be. But you don't.

That's a crazy belief.

Pretty much you could argue either way, but the general consensus is that its morally right.

Disagree.

[Sidoh]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

[iago]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

Yes, it is.

But discussing the reasoning is well beyond the scope.. plus, it's been a few years since I got my philosophy degree. I assure you, at the time, I had great reasons.

[Towelie]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

Yes, it is.

But discussing the reasoning is well beyond the scope.. plus, it's been a few years since I got my philosophy degree. I assure you, at the time, I had great reasons.

How do you explain the different morals between cultures? This could be comparing our culture to another culture in any time period

[iago]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

Yes, it is.

But discussing the reasoning is well beyond the scope.. plus, it's been a few years since I got my philosophy degree. I assure you, at the time, I had great reasons.

How do you explain the different morals between cultures? This could be comparing our culture to another culture in any time period

Simple! [You're|They're|We're] doing it wrong.

I submit that there's a universal right/wrong, and that no culture necessarily follows it. Feel free to disagree

[Sidoh]

Many people with PhDs in philosophy support moral relativity.

Until you demonstrate morality is objective, your argument is practically useless.

[while1]

So much easier to get my protein from meat and dairy products... and kill two birds with one stone by also satiating my craving for meat!  It also fills me faster.  And I have an good appetite for my size.

I could eat nuts for protein, but they're a snack food for me... something I munch on in between meals.


I'm an ends justifies the means kind of guy.  So if eating meat makes me happy, then the ends justify the means!  gg

[deadly7]

I could eat nuts for protein, but they're a snack food for me... something I munch on in between meals.

Congratulations you just proved your ignorance. Nuts are nowhere near exclusively the only method by which to get essential proteins, and definitely not something a regular vegetarian or vegan would consider as a large portion of his or her meals.

[iago]

I could eat nuts for protein, but they're a snack food for me... something I munch on in between meals.

Congratulations you just proved your ignorance. Nuts are nowhere near exclusively the only method by which to get essential proteins, and definitely not something a regular vegetarian or vegan would consider as a large portion of his or her meals.

Yeah. The average human gets WAY too much protein (and it isn't good for you -- it promotes things like osteoperosis). I get plenty of vegetable protein, which is better for you.

Many people with PhDs in philosophy support moral relativity.

Until you demonstrate morality is objective, your argument is practically useless.

The problem is, if you take that road, there's no way to come to any kind of agreement on a moral issue, whether it's vegetarianism, abortion, murder, etc.

[Sidoh]

The problem is, if you take that road, there's no way to come to any kind of agreement on a moral issue, whether it's vegetarianism, abortion, murder, etc.

I realize this.  That doesn't demonstrate anything, however.  It's completely true, but it only highlights an inconvenient truth if morality is relative.

There are far better arguments against moral relativity.

I'm pretty much a utilitarian, but this is a gaping hole in your argument.  Until you provide a definition of morality, and give (or cite) an argument for why it's accurate, any argument you base on morality is completely meaningless to anyone thoughtful enough to see that almost all of your argument hinges on how you define morality (which isn't very thoughtful).

Even with utilitarianism, the consideration as to which 'beings' should be included in the set of things we calculate utility on is completely arbitrary.

[iago]

The problem is, if you take that road, there's no way to come to any kind of agreement on a moral issue, whether it's vegetarianism, abortion, murder, etc.

I realize this.  That doesn't demonstrate anything, however.  It's completely true, but it only highlights an inconvenient truth if morality is relative.

There are far better arguments against moral relativity.

I'm pretty much a utilitarian, but this is a gaping hole in your argument.  Until you provide a definition of morality, and give (or cite) an argument for why it's accurate, any argument you base on morality is completely meaningless to anyone thoughtful enough to see that almost all of your argument hinges on how you define morality (which isn't very thoughtful).

Even with utilitarianism, the consideration as to which 'beings' should be included in the set of things we calculate utility on is completely arbitrary.

It is arbitrary indeed, but I think it makes sense to calculate utility, at the very least, for anything that thinks, has emotions, and feels pain. Also, even if you only include them as a minor point, there are FAR more of them than us, and their losses far exceed our gains, so it makes a difference.

If you don't agree, then we've found the core issue where our opinions diverge.. the rest is all just noise.

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

[Sidoh]

It is arbitrary indeed, but I think it makes sense to calculate utility, at the very least, for anything that thinks, has emotions, and feels pain. Also, even if you only include them as a minor point, there are FAR more of them than us, and their losses far exceed our gains, so it makes a difference.

If you don't agree, then we've found the core issue where our opinions diverge.. the rest is all just noise.

I've been saying this in a less abstract form for several pages of posts.

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why?

[d&q]

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why? Because it doesn't work within your system of morality? I don't know enough about various philosophies or logic to know if they're sufficiently rigorous to be expressed arithmetically, but extending Godel's theorem(s), wouldn't that mean that its impossible to show that your system of morality is consistent? That is, you can't prove the validity of your moral system by using morals derived therein. Would that make all moral discourse moot? Am I just rambling? These are all questions, but this is a statement.

[Towelie]

iago, may I suggest you become a Fruitarian?
That way you don't kill plants, because they are alive too.

[rabbit]

But by being a Fruitarian he's essentially aborting all the new plants that could be born.  That is morally wrong for some reason.

[Towelie]

Fuck. iago, maybe you should be a seedless fruitarian?

[iago]

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why?

Because that's something we know is fundamentally wrong.

Sometimes, you just have to go with your guts.

[Towelie]

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why?

Because that's something we know is fundamentally wrong.

Sometimes, you just have to go with your guts.

This doesn't even qualify as a counter argument.

"something we know is fundamentally wrong"... this is morality right here, and saying something is moral because it just is isn't an argument.

For example: How do I know that I exist? The answer isn't because I just do.
How do I know that God (or gods) exists (or doesn't)? The answer isn't because he just does, or doesn't
Why is something moral? The answer isn't because it just is.

Invalid argument!

[Camel]

But by being a Fruitarian he's essentially aborting all the new plants that could be born.  That is morally wrong for some reason.

No. Fruit has evolved to be tasty because it helps with seed dispersal. The seeds will pass through your body unharmed, and hopefully wind up somewhere far away.

[iago]

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why?

Because that's something we know is fundamentally wrong.

Sometimes, you just have to go with your guts.

This doesn't even qualify as a counter argument.

"something we know is fundamentally wrong"... this is morality right here, and saying something is moral because it just is isn't an argument.

For example: How do I know that I exist? The answer isn't because I just do.
How do I know that God (or gods) exists (or doesn't)? The answer isn't because he just does, or doesn't
Why is something moral? The answer isn't because it just is.

Invalid argument!

Like I said, my philosophy degree was a few years ago.. I'm not interesting in a full philosophical debate, I don't think a forum is the proper medium, anyways. It may be an invalid argument from a philosophical perspective, but I'd class it as a "good enough" argument for a forum.

[iago]

But by being a Fruitarian he's essentially aborting all the new plants that could be born.  That is morally wrong for some reason.

No. Fruit has evolved to be tasty because it helps with seed dispersal. The seeds will pass through your body unharmed, and hopefully wind up somewhere far away.

Exactly! It's perfectly moral, as long as you crap in the bush.

[Sidoh]

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why?

Because that's something we know is fundamentally wrong.

Sometimes, you just have to go with your guts.

Why is it fundamentally wrong?  Sounds like you're a virtue ethicist or something.

[iago]

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why?

Because that's something we know is fundamentally wrong.

Sometimes, you just have to go with your guts.

Why is it fundamentally wrong?  Sounds like you're a virtue ethicist or something.

Do you disagree?

[Sidoh]

Do you disagree?

In general, no.  However, I'm rather convinced that utilitarianism is mostly correct about what is moral.  If it is justified from a utilitarian perspective, then I'm not sure I could object to it.

[iago]

Do you disagree?

In general, no.  However, I'm rather convinced that utilitarianism is mostly correct about what is moral.  If it is justified from a utilitarian perspective, then I'm not sure I could object to it.

So uh... the whole eugenics plan by Hitler, and killing off people who don't contribute to a better world.. you wouldn't object to that? If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

Maybe convincing you that being vegan is awesome should come after we talk about why the holocaust was bad

[Sidoh]

Do you disagree?

In general, no.  However, I'm rather convinced that utilitarianism is mostly correct about what is moral.  If it is justified from a utilitarian perspective, then I'm not sure I could object to it.

So uh... the whole eugenics plan by Hitler, and killing off people who don't contribute to a better world.. you wouldn't object to that? If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

Maybe convincing you that being vegan is awesome should come after we talk about why the holocaust was bad

If I knew for a fact that it would make the utility higher, then yes.  I don't think that'd ever be the case, though.

However, Mill responds to these kinds of arguments against utilitarianism in his essay.  Haven't you read it?

[iago]

Do you disagree?

In general, no.  However, I'm rather convinced that utilitarianism is mostly correct about what is moral.  If it is justified from a utilitarian perspective, then I'm not sure I could object to it.

So uh... the whole eugenics plan by Hitler, and killing off people who don't contribute to a better world.. you wouldn't object to that? If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

Maybe convincing you that being vegan is awesome should come after we talk about why the holocaust was bad

If I knew for a fact that it would make the utility higher, then yes.  I don't think that'd ever be the case, though.

However, Mill responds to these kinds of arguments against utilitarianism in his essay.  Haven't you read it?

Yeah, but not lately. I've also read counter-arguments. Sadly, I forget most of what I learned.

[Camel]

If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

Absolutely not! Who's going to keep Burger King running?

[iago]

If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

Absolutely not! Who's going to keep Burger King running?

Hopefully nobody

Actually, BK is the one of only a few fast food chains here that has vegan options -- from what I understand, their veggie burger, onion rings, and fries are all vegan in Canada. Last time I was in an American BK, where the Canadian BKs have veggie burgers on the menu, the Americans had a double whopper (they don't even offer that in Canada!)

Another is KFC -- their veggie burger (in a wrap) is vegan. That also isn't offered in the US.

And Tacotime's bean burrito. I assume that exists in the US.

I don't really count Subway/Quiznos as fast food, but they're ok too.

[Hitmen]

Last time I was in an American BK, where the Canadian BKs have veggie burgers on the menu, the Americans had a double whopper (they don't even offer that in Canada!)

Here it goes up to triple.

[iago]

Last time I was in an American BK, where the Canadian BKs have veggie burgers on the menu, the Americans had a double whopper (they don't even offer that in Canada!)

Here it goes up to triple.

I think I'd have been happier *not* knowing that

Now that I think about it, I think I was a layer off.. I think we have double here but the veggie burger is replaced with triple.

[Towelie]

If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

if the IQ test was accurate enough to really judge how smart someone was, just imagine the benefits it could have on the human population. It would be an artificial natural selection making us smarter!

[Sidoh]

artificial natural

lol

[iago]

If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

if the IQ test was accurate enough to really judge how smart someone was, just imagine the benefits it could have on the human population. It would be an artificial natural selection making us smarter!

It's be great! Till your [self/grandma/sister/whatever] is shipped off and killed.

[Towelie]

If the government decided to round up everybody with an IQ below a certain level, that's ok?

if the IQ test was accurate enough to really judge how smart someone was, just imagine the benefits it could have on the human population. It would be an artificial natural selection making us smarter!

It's be great! Till your [self/grandma/sister/whatever] is shipped off and killed.

Survival of the fittest. Maybe they just shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

[deadly7]

Survival of the fittest. Maybe they just shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

Survival of the fittest doesn't apply when there isn't an external force pressuring a population.

[Towelie]

Survival of the fittest. Maybe they just shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

Survival of the fittest doesn't apply when there isn't an external force pressuring a population.

Glad you figured that out... I wasn't using that term seriously.

[deadly7]

Glad you figured that out... I wasn't using that term seriously.

Then you fail at playing devil's advocate. Thanks for playing.

[Sidoh]

Glad you figured that out... I wasn't using that term seriously.

Then you fail at playing devil's advocate. Thanks for playing.

You're being pedantic.  His point remains legitimate regardless of the technical discrepancy.

[Camel]

You're being pedantic.

LOL!

[Towelie]

Glad you figured that out... I wasn't using that term seriously.

Then you fail at playing devil's advocate. Thanks for playing.

Actually, I wasn't using the term literally. I was using it as a comparison. Although it might not be "survival of the fittest" it is the same type of principle I'm referencing.

[iago]

You're being pedantic.

LOL!

LOL!

(sorry, had to be done )

[Towelie]

You're being pedantic.

LOL!

LOL!

If I say LOL! do I criticize 4 people?

[Blaze]

You're being pedantic.

LOL!

LOL!

If I say LOL! do I criticize 4 people?

Yes, but you have to sleep in a haunted house.  It has the worlds most comfortable bed, but that bed is locked in a room behind zombies.  There are weapons in the room adjacent the zombies, but those weapons are cursed.  There's a gypsy that can uncurse the weapons, but she'll require a blood sacrifice.  And I digress.

[Sidoh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnHoOxhzY4

[rabbit]

The Amazing Atheist is awesome

[iago]

You're being pedantic.

LOL!

LOL!

If I say LOL! do I criticize 4 people?

No, because I don't think I'm pedantic.

[Towelie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnHoOxhzY4

3rd world children. Win.

[Hitmen]

South park last night was awesome.

[Towelie]

South park last night was awesome.

FUK YOU WHALE!!!!
AND FUK YOU DOLPHIN!!!!!!!!

[deadly7]

On the slightly related note of animal-upkeep being a tax on the global resources... a sarcastic commentary provided by webcomics! http://comics.com/pc_and_pixel/2009-12-22/