7 ms·

I stopped eating meat after stories last summer highlighted people eating dog at a festival in China. I was very upset, and mad, but then I asked myself, why w

I stopped eating meat after stories last summer highlighted people eating dog at a festival in China. I was very upset, and mad, but then I asked myself, why was eating dog so upsetting? The dogs eaten in China were much less abused than any animal eaten in the US. We have industrialized the slaughter of animals. Either I am OK with dogs being eaten, or I am not OK with the industrialized slaughter of every other animal. I still love the smell of meat. I remember the things I loved to eat, and it's a struggle, but we (many of us at least) live in a world where we don't need to imprison and eat animals to sustain our lives. With all that said, I don't expect anyone else to feel the same way. We're slaughtering animals constantly, and I don't have any expectation that anyone stop eating animals.

asciimo 10y ago
It's heartening to hear your story. It's hard to come to terms with cognitive dissonance and change your behavior.
- codezero 10y ago
  It's very very hard. I am lucky to have a wife who has been vegan for many many years to help support me.
- wahern 10y ago
  I resolved the cognitive dissonance by actually eating dog on a trip to South Korea. Choosing not to eat meat doesn't really resolve all the problems. Not that eating dog does. But, for example, on a recent walk through Golden Gate Park I noticed signs that referred to "dog guardians" rather than "dog owners". I found that interesting. I neither agree nor disagree with that terminology, but it just goes to show that the issue isn't a binary matter of choosing to eat or not eat animals. I've been eating much less meat lately, for various reasons. But I tend to think that by choosing to be vegan some people are taking the easy way out--in the present sociocultural environment being vegan is our "get out of jail free card" in terms of dealing with the issue of humane treatment of animals. But without a more sophisticated and nuanced line drawing, it's a facile choice. Eating animals is only one dimension among many in regards to their humane treatment. And in some respects it's the least interesting and even the least harmful.
  - mping 10y ago
    You're missing the point. Cognitive dissonance is only to point that people are not entirely rational. For most people I know, they are vegetarian or vegan because of ethics, not to be more rational with their choices. If there are any other "better" choices to do by all means go ahead. People should do what they think its best, not just talk. And if you think they are getting a "get out of jail free card", give it a try for a week and see how hard it is.
    - wahern 10y ago
      By "easier" I meant in terms of ethics, not in terms of effort. But neither did I mean to imply that it's necessarily a cop-out to go vegan, or that people aren't making a sincere and challenging choice to do so. But consider that the poster said, more-or-less, that he couldn't even _fathom_ eating dog. It was just totally repugnant. And so to resolve his cognitive dissonance regarding his inability to differentiate eating dog meat from other meat, he decided to go vegan. In some minor but meaningful sense, that's the easy way out. Once upon a time I couldn't fathom eating dog meat, either. My point is that people assume that the _obvious_ ethical choice is to just go meatless. But do they ever even consider the polar opposite choice? I made a choice to explore and better understand my cultural prejudices by choosing to eat dog meat. How can we ever evolve our sense of what humane treatment is until we better understand our traditional as well as contemporary relationship with animals, including our inherent biases? If eating dog is viscerally repugnant, but eating a pig or cow is merely intellectually troubling, by going vegan you've done nothing to resolve a substantial aspect of your relationship to animals. There are many other aspects to going vegan, and I'm not criticizing veganism per se. I'm simply pointing out that it's an _incomplete_ choice in itself. Eating dog is also incomplete--perhaps much more incomplete. But if you can't even fathom it as an option--if your cultural prejudices are so strong that you can't even fathom they're a product of your unique cultural upbringing, rather than some divine hint to go vegan--how could you ever expect to have an objective perspective about the issue?
vacri 10y ago
It's a bit more complex than that - the complexity of animals is a sliding scale. I'm not trying to convince you to change your diet, but be aware that even for vegans, animals are killed on an industrial scale for their food (just fewer of them than for an omnivorous diet). Growing vegetables and grains uses all sorts of ways to kill vermin and insects. Is there a difference between killing a vole in the field, and killing a vole to put on your plate, as far as the vole is concerned? Most people would rate insects as easily being worth less than a dog, but vermin like voles or mice are mammals, and it's harder to make a clear distinction there. It's just not possible to feed the number of humans we have without killing lots of animals, even on a vegan diet, as it requires industrialised agriculture. This being said, there are still arguments for overall minimisation and/or for more humane treatment of 'meat animals'. You will be killing fewer animals with a vegetarian/vegan diet, but there's still 'industrialised slaughter of animals' going on. Edit: in the occasional case, industrialisation can actually help animals. For example, in the sugar industry, they used to burn off cane fields in order to burn all the vermin to death, so workers would be safe to harvest. These days with modern industrial machines, one guy sitting in a harvester doesn't need to be protected from snakes and similar, so there's no need for burn-off. If you want to minimise your animal harm footprint, investigate where your sugar comes from as well...
- codezero 10y ago
  you are totally right. My big gripe is that humans on the whole could give a fuck. What I do ask though is... what makes you think human diet at scale requires by its very nature, a non vegan diet?
  - vacri 10y ago
    I'm not trying to get anyone to change their diet, just point out that animals die in agriculture even when meat is not on the plate. You will still minimise animal harm by engaging in a vegan diet, if that's your moral choice, just not eliminate it. I think the vegan side of the argument loses sight of what primary producers see when they don't acknowledge that animals are killed as a byproduct of agriculture. To a farmer, killing animals in the form of vermin is a part of the job, so it becomes more difficult to see much difference between a mouse and a cow. My personal preference would be for the discussion to be about harm minimisation rather than harm elimination, but I don't really have a strong part in this debate. > what makes you think human diet at scale requires by its very nature, a non vegan diet? I didn't mean a non-vegan diet, I meant that even with a pure vegan diet for everyone in the world, we would still need industrialised agriculture to support that, and that means killing vermin at scale. It would kill fewer animals, but it would still be industrial-scale slaughter.
reality_czech 10y ago
Your problem is that you are unable to distinguish between humans and other animals. The human tendency to anthromorphize the world is overwhleming. That's why ancient peoples had stories about Mr. Sun and Mrs. Moon as sentient entities controlling the world. But it just ain't so. For example, dogs may be loyal companions, but they are also animals. A bitch will eat her own pups if there is not enough food. As with other animals, dogs don't have culture or morality, just instinct and social hierarchies. Cruelty to animals is wrong, but because of the effect it has on the humans, not on the animals. To animals it is just the workings of nature, and animals can and do kill each other, burrow inside eat other and eat each other from the inside out, dig up corpses and play with them, etc. etc. Nature is not your friend-- it's not anyone's friend, and it doesn't wear a human face. Morality is a human thing. Ironically, people who try to impose some kind of human morality on animals are often the cruellest to them. For example, cats are obligate meat eaters, order Carnivora. They are designed from the ground up as killing machines for mice, birds, and other small animals. They cannot even taste sugar or sweetness in their food, and they certainly don't have grinding teeth to eat plants. But some misguided humans attempt to feed them a vegan diet and they suffer greatly. Nearly all farm animals would be extinct if it weren't for human desire for their meat and other products. Maybe goats could survive, but certainly not cows or chickens. But vegans seem to think genociding their species is better than having them live on farms.
- codezero 10y ago
  why should I distinguish between humans and other animals? The position industrialized farmed animals are in, is a position we put them in because of our supposed superiority. Animals would only be extinct because we've killed them all. We manipulated life forms for our purposes. That doesn't mean that we deserve the fruits of their demise.
- rosser 10y ago
  Are you seriously trying to use the fact that some dipshit hippie types have tried to feed their cats vegan diets as an argument for ... honestly, I'm not even sure what you're arguing for, here. Do you actually believe it's somehow morally superior for billions of livestock animals to live in what's effectively a concentration camp, only to be slaughtered, callously and without regard for the suffering they might experience along the way, than for that artificially propagated species to go extinct?
namuol 10y ago
Yeah, I was a vegetarian for 6 years for basically the same reasons you mentioned. I "relapsed" a few years ago and feel guilty about it sometimes, still. I can't wait for lab-grown meat[1] to overtake "the real thing" and cast factory farming in the same category of wasteful cruelty as seal clubbing or the ivory trade. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-grown-meat-is-in-your-future-and-it-may-be-healthier-than-the-real-stuff/2016/05/02/aa893f34-e630-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-g...
- codezero 10y ago
  I am fully sympathetic to your cause. I will spend lots of my personal money on lab grown meat!
agumonkey 10y ago
I remember reading a book about Judaism (can't recall which) that strongly hinted at the fact that kosher came out of reflection about whether or not killing an animal was 'good'. In their theory, the 'soul' of the animal was in the blood, by drawing the blood you did your best to spare the 'godly' and 'loved' (my words) part before benefiting from taking the life of a being by eating his flesh. Found that pretty interesting, a rare time where I can relate with feeling and reason behind religious rituals. That said, I was eager to share that with a jewish friend who told me that this was bs, and that you eat kosher because you have to eat kosher. Weird.

asciimo 10y ago

It's heartening to hear your story. It's hard to come to terms with cognitive dissonance and change your behavior.

codezero 10y ago
It's very very hard. I am lucky to have a wife who has been vegan for many many years to help support me.
wahern 10y ago
I resolved the cognitive dissonance by actually eating dog on a trip to South Korea. Choosing not to eat meat doesn't really resolve all the problems. Not that eating dog does. But, for example, on a recent walk through Golden Gate Park I noticed signs that referred to "dog guardians" rather than "dog owners". I found that interesting. I neither agree nor disagree with that terminology, but it just goes to show that the issue isn't a binary matter of choosing to eat or not eat animals. I've been eating much less meat lately, for various reasons. But I tend to think that by choosing to be vegan some people are taking the easy way out--in the present sociocultural environment being vegan is our "get out of jail free card" in terms of dealing with the issue of humane treatment of animals. But without a more sophisticated and nuanced line drawing, it's a facile choice. Eating animals is only one dimension among many in regards to their humane treatment. And in some respects it's the least interesting and even the least harmful.
- mping 10y ago
  You're missing the point. Cognitive dissonance is only to point that people are not entirely rational. For most people I know, they are vegetarian or vegan because of ethics, not to be more rational with their choices. If there are any other "better" choices to do by all means go ahead. People should do what they think its best, not just talk. And if you think they are getting a "get out of jail free card", give it a try for a week and see how hard it is.
  - wahern 10y ago
    By "easier" I meant in terms of ethics, not in terms of effort. But neither did I mean to imply that it's necessarily a cop-out to go vegan, or that people aren't making a sincere and challenging choice to do so. But consider that the poster said, more-or-less, that he couldn't even _fathom_ eating dog. It was just totally repugnant. And so to resolve his cognitive dissonance regarding his inability to differentiate eating dog meat from other meat, he decided to go vegan. In some minor but meaningful sense, that's the easy way out. Once upon a time I couldn't fathom eating dog meat, either. My point is that people assume that the _obvious_ ethical choice is to just go meatless. But do they ever even consider the polar opposite choice? I made a choice to explore and better understand my cultural prejudices by choosing to eat dog meat. How can we ever evolve our sense of what humane treatment is until we better understand our traditional as well as contemporary relationship with animals, including our inherent biases? If eating dog is viscerally repugnant, but eating a pig or cow is merely intellectually troubling, by going vegan you've done nothing to resolve a substantial aspect of your relationship to animals. There are many other aspects to going vegan, and I'm not criticizing veganism per se. I'm simply pointing out that it's an _incomplete_ choice in itself. Eating dog is also incomplete--perhaps much more incomplete. But if you can't even fathom it as an option--if your cultural prejudices are so strong that you can't even fathom they're a product of your unique cultural upbringing, rather than some divine hint to go vegan--how could you ever expect to have an objective perspective about the issue?

vacri 10y ago

It's a bit more complex than that - the complexity of animals is a sliding scale. I'm not trying to convince you to change your diet, but be aware that even for vegans, animals are killed on an industrial scale for their food (just fewer of them than for an omnivorous diet). Growing vegetables and grains uses all sorts of ways to kill vermin and insects. Is there a difference between killing a vole in the field, and killing a vole to put on your plate, as far as the vole is concerned? Most people would rate insects as easily being worth less than a dog, but vermin like voles or mice are mammals, and it's harder to make a clear distinction there. It's just not possible to feed the number of humans we have without killing lots of animals, even on a vegan diet, as it requires industrialised agriculture. This being said, there are still arguments for overall minimisation and/or for more humane treatment of 'meat animals'. You will be killing fewer animals with a vegetarian/vegan diet, but there's still 'industrialised slaughter of animals' going on. Edit: in the occasional case, industrialisation can actually help animals. For example, in the sugar industry, they used to burn off cane fields in order to burn all the vermin to death, so workers would be safe to harvest. These days with modern industrial machines, one guy sitting in a harvester doesn't need to be protected from snakes and similar, so there's no need for burn-off. If you want to minimise your animal harm footprint, investigate where your sugar comes from as well...

codezero 10y ago
you are totally right. My big gripe is that humans on the whole could give a fuck. What I do ask though is... what makes you think human diet at scale requires by its very nature, a non vegan diet?
- vacri 10y ago
  I'm not trying to get anyone to change their diet, just point out that animals die in agriculture even when meat is not on the plate. You will still minimise animal harm by engaging in a vegan diet, if that's your moral choice, just not eliminate it. I think the vegan side of the argument loses sight of what primary producers see when they don't acknowledge that animals are killed as a byproduct of agriculture. To a farmer, killing animals in the form of vermin is a part of the job, so it becomes more difficult to see much difference between a mouse and a cow. My personal preference would be for the discussion to be about harm minimisation rather than harm elimination, but I don't really have a strong part in this debate. > what makes you think human diet at scale requires by its very nature, a non vegan diet? I didn't mean a non-vegan diet, I meant that even with a pure vegan diet for everyone in the world, we would still need industrialised agriculture to support that, and that means killing vermin at scale. It would kill fewer animals, but it would still be industrial-scale slaughter.

reality_czech 10y ago

Your problem is that you are unable to distinguish between humans and other animals. The human tendency to anthromorphize the world is overwhleming. That's why ancient peoples had stories about Mr. Sun and Mrs. Moon as sentient entities controlling the world. But it just ain't so. For example, dogs may be loyal companions, but they are also animals. A bitch will eat her own pups if there is not enough food. As with other animals, dogs don't have culture or morality, just instinct and social hierarchies. Cruelty to animals is wrong, but because of the effect it has on the humans, not on the animals. To animals it is just the workings of nature, and animals can and do kill each other, burrow inside eat other and eat each other from the inside out, dig up corpses and play with them, etc. etc. Nature is not your friend-- it's not anyone's friend, and it doesn't wear a human face. Morality is a human thing. Ironically, people who try to impose some kind of human morality on animals are often the cruellest to them. For example, cats are obligate meat eaters, order Carnivora. They are designed from the ground up as killing machines for mice, birds, and other small animals. They cannot even taste sugar or sweetness in their food, and they certainly don't have grinding teeth to eat plants. But some misguided humans attempt to feed them a vegan diet and they suffer greatly. Nearly all farm animals would be extinct if it weren't for human desire for their meat and other products. Maybe goats could survive, but certainly not cows or chickens. But vegans seem to think genociding their species is better than having them live on farms.

codezero 10y ago
why should I distinguish between humans and other animals? The position industrialized farmed animals are in, is a position we put them in because of our supposed superiority. Animals would only be extinct because we've killed them all. We manipulated life forms for our purposes. That doesn't mean that we deserve the fruits of their demise.
rosser 10y ago
Are you seriously trying to use the fact that some dipshit hippie types have tried to feed their cats vegan diets as an argument for ... honestly, I'm not even sure what you're arguing for, here. Do you actually believe it's somehow morally superior for billions of livestock animals to live in what's effectively a concentration camp, only to be slaughtered, callously and without regard for the suffering they might experience along the way, than for that artificially propagated species to go extinct?

namuol 10y ago

Yeah, I was a vegetarian for 6 years for basically the same reasons you mentioned. I "relapsed" a few years ago and feel guilty about it sometimes, still. I can't wait for lab-grown meat[1] to overtake "the real thing" and cast factory farming in the same category of wasteful cruelty as seal clubbing or the ivory trade. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-grown-meat-is-in-your-future-and-it-may-be-healthier-than-the-real-stuff/2016/05/02/aa893f34-e630-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-g...

codezero 10y ago
I am fully sympathetic to your cause. I will spend lots of my personal money on lab grown meat!

agumonkey 10y ago

I remember reading a book about Judaism (can't recall which) that strongly hinted at the fact that kosher came out of reflection about whether or not killing an animal was 'good'. In their theory, the 'soul' of the animal was in the blood, by drawing the blood you did your best to spare the 'godly' and 'loved' (my words) part before benefiting from taking the life of a being by eating his flesh. Found that pretty interesting, a rare time where I can relate with feeling and reason behind religious rituals. That said, I was eager to share that with a jewish friend who told me that this was bs, and that you eat kosher because you have to eat kosher. Weird.