3 ms·

Vegetarian - just stopped eating meat one day to see if I could keep it up. (The reason being that I had already been thinking for a while how gross it actuall

Vegetarian - just stopped eating meat one day to see if I could keep it up. (The reason being that I had already been thinking for a while how gross it actually was to eat animal corpses, and that I'd also rather be alive than dead, so others shouldn't suffer that fate just because I had to satisfy my taste buds) That was the easiest part - the social aspect of it is a lot more complicated than that, mostly because I had to explain to people why I made the decision, over and over again. And obviously the braindead comments about not getting enough protein etc. Some things I did not even know initially, like how many products contain gelatine (which is made out of animal bones and skin), but nowadays it's rather easy to avoid such products. Going Vegan is the next goal, probably when I move into my own place, and I already tried going Vegan, but always ran into a wall because I am not the person doing groceries in this household.

Arizhel 10y ago
>and that I'd also rather be alive than dead, so others shouldn't suffer that fate just because I had to satisfy my taste buds) If everyone did this, then raising of animals for food would stop. That wouldn't keep any animals from being killed for food; instead, it would mean those animals never existed in the first place, and never got to have any life at all. Now, I don't know whether that's better or worse: is it better to have a short, somewhat unhappy life than none at all? This is a question for philosophers. But it's something to think about. But the point is, you're not saving any animals from being murdered by not eating meat.
- matty22 10y ago
  This is crazy talk. I am not vegan. But the life of an animal bred for human consumption is not "somewhat unhappy". It's closer to "absolutely depressing" or "shockingly inhumane". Change the word animal to human in your question: Is it better for a human to never exist or for it to be born and then at the age of 6 we murder it? The obvious answer to that is that it's much better that that human never exist. Again, I'm not vegan, and I occasionally eat meat. But your logic here is terrible.
  - mod 10y ago
    This is also crazy talk. There is a HUGE area between "bred for human consumption" and "shockingly inhumane" chicken farms, for example. My chickens are out in a pasture right now enjoying the sunshine, hunting bugs, and they do that every day until they die. The taking of their life, if it's on my terms and not a predator's, is very quick. The length of their life is cut short, but the quality of the life they lived is not harmed. In fact, it's likely improved via watertight shelter and readily available food & water. When I hatch, I often get to save the life of a chick who would have died in his shell. I also get to correct things like splayed legs that would follow a chicken through its whole life (or leave it dead). So there's more to the world than your extreme version of things. The lifespan of my laying hens is quite a bit longer than it would be for one in the wild. If we compare chickens to their wild genetic ancestor, anyway--there is no such thing as a wild chicken. I'll leave the philosophical questions to other folks, I'm just presenting a contrary example to your rigid set of rules.
    - matty22 10y ago
      Fair enough, but you have to understand that your chicken operation is the exception and not the rule, right? Factory-farmed chickens do not get to go outside, enjoy the sunshine, and eat bugs. They live in cramped chicken houses devoid of light, fresh air, or anything remotely resembling your beautiful sounding farm. The vast, vast majority of chicken purchased in a grocery store lives out their life in that second situation, not in a place like your farm.
      - mod 10y ago
        For what it's worth, my place is not a farm and not particularly beautiful, but I do have a pasture and keep chickens. On to my real response: my "exception" invalidates your argument wrt whether or not animals should be raised for consumption and have their lives cut short, which you said was an "obvious answer." I think most people agree that it's okay, so long as the animal is allowed to have a normal, fulfilling existence. We love our chickens and take no pleasure in butchering them, but I feel certain they are happy to get a shot at life, even if for some of them that life is only a year or two. I've had a minute now to think about your "obvious answer" from up-thread. I had a lot of fun by the time I was 6 years old. Experienced a lot of love, caught a lot of fish, explored a big world, rode my bike on dirt roads. I knew where "deer road" was, I knew how to sneak up on the bridge there and spy on the turtles. A couple of those years just might have been my best. I don't think I can agree with you. Anyway, if we pose the question as "is it okay to raise animals for consumption? animals that wouldn't have had a life otherwise?", I think the answer is something like "Yes, if we treat them well." So the answer isn't (necessarily) to become a vegan. A perfectly viable option is to source your meat differently.

Arizhel 10y ago

>and that I'd also rather be alive than dead, so others shouldn't suffer that fate just because I had to satisfy my taste buds) If everyone did this, then raising of animals for food would stop. That wouldn't keep any animals from being killed for food; instead, it would mean those animals never existed in the first place, and never got to have any life at all. Now, I don't know whether that's better or worse: is it better to have a short, somewhat unhappy life than none at all? This is a question for philosophers. But it's something to think about. But the point is, you're not saving any animals from being murdered by not eating meat.

matty22 10y ago
This is crazy talk. I am not vegan. But the life of an animal bred for human consumption is not "somewhat unhappy". It's closer to "absolutely depressing" or "shockingly inhumane". Change the word animal to human in your question: Is it better for a human to never exist or for it to be born and then at the age of 6 we murder it? The obvious answer to that is that it's much better that that human never exist. Again, I'm not vegan, and I occasionally eat meat. But your logic here is terrible.
- mod 10y ago
  This is also crazy talk. There is a HUGE area between "bred for human consumption" and "shockingly inhumane" chicken farms, for example. My chickens are out in a pasture right now enjoying the sunshine, hunting bugs, and they do that every day until they die. The taking of their life, if it's on my terms and not a predator's, is very quick. The length of their life is cut short, but the quality of the life they lived is not harmed. In fact, it's likely improved via watertight shelter and readily available food & water. When I hatch, I often get to save the life of a chick who would have died in his shell. I also get to correct things like splayed legs that would follow a chicken through its whole life (or leave it dead). So there's more to the world than your extreme version of things. The lifespan of my laying hens is quite a bit longer than it would be for one in the wild. If we compare chickens to their wild genetic ancestor, anyway--there is no such thing as a wild chicken. I'll leave the philosophical questions to other folks, I'm just presenting a contrary example to your rigid set of rules.
  - matty22 10y ago
    Fair enough, but you have to understand that your chicken operation is the exception and not the rule, right? Factory-farmed chickens do not get to go outside, enjoy the sunshine, and eat bugs. They live in cramped chicken houses devoid of light, fresh air, or anything remotely resembling your beautiful sounding farm. The vast, vast majority of chicken purchased in a grocery store lives out their life in that second situation, not in a place like your farm.
    - mod 10y ago
      For what it's worth, my place is not a farm and not particularly beautiful, but I do have a pasture and keep chickens. On to my real response: my "exception" invalidates your argument wrt whether or not animals should be raised for consumption and have their lives cut short, which you said was an "obvious answer." I think most people agree that it's okay, so long as the animal is allowed to have a normal, fulfilling existence. We love our chickens and take no pleasure in butchering them, but I feel certain they are happy to get a shot at life, even if for some of them that life is only a year or two. I've had a minute now to think about your "obvious answer" from up-thread. I had a lot of fun by the time I was 6 years old. Experienced a lot of love, caught a lot of fish, explored a big world, rode my bike on dirt roads. I knew where "deer road" was, I knew how to sneak up on the bridge there and spy on the turtles. A couple of those years just might have been my best. I don't think I can agree with you. Anyway, if we pose the question as "is it okay to raise animals for consumption? animals that wouldn't have had a life otherwise?", I think the answer is something like "Yes, if we treat them well." So the answer isn't (necessarily) to become a vegan. A perfectly viable option is to source your meat differently.