Let's hear it!

[Ender]

As you know I tried being vegan, and this lasted for 5 months (I think 9 months vegetarian). But I found myself eating unhealthily, i.e. I wasn't eating enough calories and wasn't getting enough nutrients and variety. I may end up going vegan when I get older and when it's more convenient, but for now I shouldn't rob myself of enjoying food!

I just find it hard to believe you'd eat the flesh of birds people have killed! I thought you liked birds!

A couple weeks back, one of my co-workers was telling me about how he used to work on a chicken farm. He told me some stories from it, and wow, they were horrible. When they wanted to harvest them, they'd go through the barn at nick grabbing them by their legs. He described to me how it felt/sounded when their legs were snapping and bending and the chicken was pecking him in horror. It was unbelievable!

(And incidentally, this guy isn't a vegetarian or anything, and had no reason to embellish the story)

But I need to eat healthily, and I wasn't doing this when I was vegan. I am very discomforted by the system in which we take life to sustain life, and I have doubts on both sides of the fence.

For instance, I once asked you on AIM what you thought of the very elementary fact that animals eat other animals. You told me, "animals don't set a standard that I'd like to live by". But I don't really like this answer, because I view animals very fondly, and I wouldn't want to think them as these beings forced into wrongdoing (the taking of other animals' lives) by necessity. It is also discomforting to think of nature as being flawed in that sense. So in being vegan, I feel like I have to accept these concessions, of a flaw in the nature of animals and nature itself, in order to justify my double standard -- and it's just dissatisfactory.

Then there's the thought that animals become more compassionate and empathetic when we domesticate them, which is why it is so inhumane and repulsive to kill a pet, but not a wild animal. But I don't like this either. It's really a catch-22.

[d&q]

Your post actually made me sad. 

[iago]

But I need to eat healthily, and I wasn't doing this when I was vegan. I am very discomforted by the system in which we take life to sustain life, and I have doubts on both sides of the fence.

For instance, I once asked you on AIM what you thought of the very elementary fact that animals eat other animals. You told me, "animals don't set a standard that I'd like to live by". But I don't really like this answer, because I view animals very fondly, and I wouldn't want to think them as these beings forced into wrongdoing (the taking of other animals' lives) by necessity. It is also discomforting to think of nature as being flawed in that sense. So in being vegan, I feel like I have to accept these concessions, of a flaw in the nature of animals and nature itself, in order to justify my double standard -- and it's just dissatisfactory.

Then there's the thought that animals become more compassionate and empathetic when we domesticate them, which is why it is so inhumane and repulsive to kill a pet, but not a wild animal. But I don't like this either. It's really a catch-22.

It's really a screwy world -- one where people say (and believey) they care about animals, but turn around and support their wholesale suffering/slaughter. I think the problem comes down to that it's a vegetarian/vegan-unfriendly world. People people would be vegan if more people were vegan.

Funny story, though, and a quick one because I'm already late for work -- a couple weeks ago I was at my parents' place. It was shortly after dinner (we had a barbecue), and me and my dad were watching a hawk who'd caught something to eat (a small rabbit or big mouse, I think), and was sitting on a telephone pole eating it. My stepmom saw it and was upset, she wanted my dad to get his pellet gun and "shoot the little bastard for doing that to another animal". Now generally I don't bug people about what they eat, because all that does is annoy people, but at that point I had to say "wtf?" -- how can you eat flesh for dinner then be pissed off that a hawk is doing the same thing? I should shoot you with the pellet gun! (ok, I didn't say that part).

Her only answer was, "but I didn't kill the animals myself!"

But yeah, it's a funny world.

Another thing -- I was cutting grass at my dad's cottage on the weekend, and there were frogs all over the place. I know (and I'm very upset about it) that I ran over at least two of them, as hard as I tried not to. And I couldn't help but thinking how easy it was to kill them, compared to, for example, holding them down and cutting them in half with a knife, which would have been horrible, yet the exact same thing!

[Ender]

Yes, technology kills animals, a sad fact. Another example: many people take the train to work by convenience or necessity. But a train kills more animals in a year than a car can kill in a lifetime. Should a vegan then not take the train to work? It seems to me that since a train is a sure murderer of animals (unlike a car in which you may go a lifetime without committing roadkill), a vegan should boycott trains just like he or she boycotts eating animals.

Where do you draw the line between convenience and principle?

[Rule]

For instance, I once asked you on AIM what you thought of the very elementary fact that animals eat other animals. You told me, "animals don't set a standard that I'd like to live by". But I don't really like this answer, because I view animals very fondly, and I wouldn't want to think them as these beings forced into wrongdoing (the taking of other animals' lives) by necessity. It is also discomforting to think of nature as being flawed in that sense. So in being vegan, I feel like I have to accept these concessions, of a flaw in the nature of animals and nature itself, in order to justify my double standard -- and it's just dissatisfactory.

I don't see how you're setting a double standard.  You are not in a situation where you must eat meat or animal products to survive, whereas most animals are, and hence no double standard.

Then there's the thought that animals become more compassionate and empathetic when we domesticate them, which is why it is so inhumane and repulsive to kill a pet, but not a wild animal. But I don't like this either. It's really a catch-22.

That thought is stupid.  I wouldn't let it affect my decision on this.

However, I generally dislike these "all or none" philosophies.  Things aren't so black and white.  The train example you gave is a good one.  Why not become vegetarian, or selectively choose which meats you eat?

[CrAz3D]

Pics dammit. You and Trust.

http://photos-f.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v312/30/8/49006849/n49006849_31209757_1792.jpg

[Ender]

That post was very much a reflection on my thoughts than an argument, so it didn't come out so clear.

For instance, I once asked you on AIM what you thought of the very elementary fact that animals eat other animals. You told me, "animals don't set a standard that I'd like to live by". But I don't really like this answer, because I view animals very fondly, and I wouldn't want to think them as these beings forced into wrongdoing (the taking of other animals' lives) by necessity. It is also discomforting to think of nature as being flawed in that sense. So in being vegan, I feel like I have to accept these concessions, of a flaw in the nature of animals and nature itself, in order to justify my double standard -- and it's just dissatisfactory.

I don't see how you're setting a double standard.  You are not in a situation where you must eat meat or animal products to survive, whereas most animals are, and hence no double standard.

The double standard is that it's okay for animals to eat meat, whereas it's not okay for humans. The idea that it's necessary for animals is what removes the double standard. But I was also saying that the fact that nature is set up in such a way is dissatisfying -- while it seems very silly and childish to say so, I think people are so used to it they don't really let it ever affect them properly. I suppose this dissatisfaction is sort of inherent in the vegan philosophy, as it indicts no less than the entire world, including all of the presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, etc. alive today.

Then there's the thought that animals become more compassionate and empathetic when we domesticate them, which is why it is so inhumane and repulsive to kill a pet, but not a wild animal. But I don't like this either. It's really a catch-22.

That thought is stupid.  I wouldn't let it affect my decision on this.

However, I generally dislike these "all or none" philosophies.  Things aren't so black and white.  The train example you gave is a good one.  Why not become vegetarian, or selectively choose which meats you eat?

I thought the exact same thing. But I wasn't trying it out as an excuse for myself, but rather thinking up all possible excuses and then discarding them -- hence the catch-22. I don't like having to eat animals (I found no excuse for doing so), and there are some woes in being vegan (as described in the first quote).

[Ender]

However, I generally dislike these "all or none" philosophies.  Things aren't so black and white.  The train example you gave is a good one.  Why not become vegetarian, or selectively choose which meats you eat?

I have been playing devil's advocate for veganism thus far, but I think that when I get older it will be very manageable for me, so I don't see why I should go halfway to save myself some small inconvenience. (On the contrary, boycotting trains is a large inconvenience, which I will not entertain.)

I am really undecided on the matter and I like to debate it to see which side I lean toward ("side" being the wrong word, rather uninhibited, selective, or vegan).

[Rule]

However, I generally dislike these "all or none" philosophies.  Things aren't so black and white.  The train example you gave is a good one.  Why not become vegetarian, or selectively choose which meats you eat?

I have been playing devil's advocate for veganism thus far, but I think that when I get older it will be very manageable for me, so I don't see why I should go halfway to save myself some small inconvenience. (On the contrary, boycotting trains is a large inconvenience, which I will not entertain.)

The selectivity isn't necessarily to avoid convenience, although it could be.  Not all animals are equally valuable in my opinion.  And not eating certain animal products does not always help animals, in my opinion -- in fact, it may do the opposite.  This is what I mean when I say it's not so black and white.  I don't like "all or none" philosophies, because there are almost certainly big loopholes.  I'd rather make my decisions on a situation by situation basis.

[Ender]

Not all animals are equally valuable in my opinion. 

Sounds like something Napoleon would say from Animal Farm

And not eating certain animal products does not always help animals, in my opinion -- in fact, it may do the opposite.  This is what I mean when I say it's not so black and white.  I don't like "all or none" philosophies, because there are almost certainly big loopholes.  I'd rather make my decisions on a situation by situation basis.

This is true, though I think veganism is better defined as the goal of saving the lives and livelihood of animals at the cost of reconcilable inconvenience, than a list of products one should or should not eat. With this in mind, if it is discovered that eating one certain animal product furthers the goal of veganism, vegans may exclude this animal from their boycott if they cannot find a better solution.

I am a little dubious that such loopholes exist in the first place (I think farm animals could be put in habitats), but I don't think they should change the argument, or be the focus of it, which is why I changed the definition.

You may say that the very definition I gave for veganism is equivalent to your idea of selectivity, but I don't think so. I think the definition I gave is all or nothing, since it is basically giving your all for animals, save for inconvenience one cannot live by. And I've never met a vegetarian by the philosophy I gave above.

[iago]

I think this is the wrong place for the argument, although it's definitely a good argument to have.

[Rule]

I think "Let's Hear It!" is pretty free-for-all as far as discussions go..  Besides, this is just a thoughtful dialogue, not a serious argument.  I'll weigh in a bit later.

[iago]

It's definitely a good thread (in fact, THE thread) for random nonsense/discussions. But I think it's a good thoughtful argument, though, one that deserves its own home.

[CrAz3D]

Friday-Monday we* drank:
7.5 30s of Keystone
1 18pack of Miller Lite (yay bottles, I had an obnoxious Friday)
1 12pack of Amber Bock
1 fifth Absolut (where this came from is beyond me)
1 fifth Malibu

24 gallons of beer...yeah, intense.  VERY intense.


*"We" consisted of me, michael, joel, steve, ellen, adam, efrain and a few other people that don't really drink all that much (including girlfriend, yay her*!).
Joel & Michael were both in town this weekend, drinking heavily was obligatory.  I've noticed I drink a lot less now, it's cheaper too.  I like that.


I've decided that I'm dating a rather tolerant woman.  She saw my drunken stupor on Saturday (well, Friday-last night, but I only saw her Saturday) for the first time in a while (she was at our last end-of-the-year party, the one that got busted).  Not quite sure she understood how much I'd had to drink, she kept asking if I was gonna be OK and all ... I wasn't really trashed.  I didn't want to do something stupid so I wasn't obliterated.  Hell, I haven't been obliterated (like not remembering stuff) in a long time.

[rabbit]

Miller and Absolut blow.  You fail.