5 ms·

Why don't you try me? I am an omnivore who is engaged to a vegetarian. My meat consumption has dropped since we have started dating, but I don't feel a strong

Why don't you try me? I am an omnivore who is engaged to a vegetarian. My meat consumption has dropped since we have started dating, but I don't feel a strong desire to turn vegetarian. I love meat, fish, eggs, and milk, and while I have tried all the vegan based alternatives, they are not good enough for me. I try to limit my intake in these areas, but I don't see why I should eliminate them completely. I suppose that when lab made meat or vegan meat like impossible burger become better tasting to me I would make the switch, but until then I don't see a strong drive to completely eliminate my consumption of meat. I think there are nutritional benefits of meat, milk, and fish and I like the taste so my viewpoint is to moderate intake and be thoughtful in what I consume. But I'm always open to change my viewpoint so happy to hear your philosophy.

yesenadam 8y ago
Well, some people have a "philosophy" that humans aren't the only life-form in the universe whose lives mean something, have value. Reading your post is for me a little like someone talking about slavery, how they like it, it has benefits, they don't feel a strong desire to stop, they've tried to cut down but don't see why they should stop completely, etc. It's kind of obscene. Or at best, like there's a huge elephant in the room. It's not all about you. I was brought up on a farm with cows we ate, later I ate hamburgers.. Then in my 20s it dawned on me that treating animals as they they're nothing but things for humans to eat only seemed ethically OK because it was the norm in my culture, (encouraged by a lot of now-super-gruesome-seeming TV ads on e.g. how delicious lambs are) and..because I'm human. A lot like how racism seemed OK if you're white, slavery if you're not a slave etc. It's a matter of widening your field of ethical concern from the arbitrary "Animals of my species, uh plus cats and dogs" line. Otherwise you will sound like, say, a white-supremacist racist talking as if only white people matter, all others have no value, mean nothing except as they can serve whites. (I have to use these analogies to try to get you to hear what meat-eater arguments sound like to me)
- pluto9 8y ago
  You were just complaining in another comment about vegans being painted as unreasonable and proselytizing, and then immediately posted this comment comparing non-vegans to slave owners. I can't tell if you're trolling or if you honestly can't see what's wrong with this picture.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Not trolling. Maybe you could say what's "wrong with this picture", unreasonable, instead of darkly implying..something. The animal-eating issue is unusual, in that it involves not only ethical considerations, but turns on whether you count groups of life-forms as worthy of any ethical consideration whatever or not. Similar to racism, slavery, etc. They either seem totally normal, or horrific and unimaginable. If you can think of other examples you'd prefer were used, let me know. That's the point, that to vegans, these are indeed apt comparisons, but to people used to treating e.g. cows as walking bags of "meat" whose only value is to people, they seem, well, like trolling, apparently. Yes, they are very different ethical outlooks on life, but to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means.
    - cwkoss 8y ago
      Do you think plants are not worthy of any ethical consideration? Why is ok to eat them?
    - mkempe 8y ago
      But why are you entitled to enslaving and killing plants to feed you? after all, plants are alive and have senses, too.
    - pluto9 8y ago
      What's wrong is that you act indignant about people's hyperbolic descriptions of vegans, but when your opinion of non-vegans is invited, you immediately trot out the most hyperbolic, damning analogy (and a poor one at that) possible. Of course, your angle is that you're correct, and therefore the comparison of meat eaters and slave owners is simply a matter of fact, while calling vegans "proselytizers" is an unfounded and offensive opinion. As for the analogy itself, I'm not going to get into why it's absurd. I've had that conversation enough times to know that the correctness of the analogy is not what's important to you. All that matters is that it riles up those you see as morally inferior to yourself. You chose that analogy because you get off on the reaction it gets, plain and simple. Just know that when people portray vegans as rabid ideologues, they're talking specifically about vegans like you. You are the sort who gives vegans a bad name. If you think proselytizing is the right thing to do, then by all means, do it. But admit to yourself that that's what you're doing. You can't simultaneously proselytize and get offended by people pointing out that that's what you're doing. > to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means. See, the thing about words like "unreasonable" is that they're in the eye of the beholder. It's like the word "asshole"--you don't get to decide if you're an asshole. That's for others to decide. You get to hold whatever opinions you want about meat-eaters, and they get to decide if they think those opinions are unreasonable. Opinions are subject to critique. That's how this works.
- ZainRiz 8y ago
  I'm curious, how to vegans like you square away the idea that it's horrible for humans to eat animals vs it's okay for other animals (like lions) to eat animals? Genuinely curious since I understand you points but it doesn't seem possible to apply that philosophy universally (and I see that as a sign of an incorrect philosophy) To be clear, there are three different arguments in favor of eating less meat: 1. Personal health 2. Environmental benefits 3. Moral requirement I'm only asking about the moral argument since that what you focused on in your post
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Hi :-) I'm not sure what philosophy "it doesn't seem possible to apply universally".. Maybe "Killing any animal is wrong" (By any animal/person, for any reason, etc)? I don't think that. Also, I don't see this as an "argument in favor of eating less meat", or a "moral requirement".. Is it hard for you to not hunt, kill and eat people? Do you need arguments in favor of having less slaves. No.. Those things seem morally repugnant to most of us now, while they were normal in other times and places. Two points from the many that bear on this: 1. The line between "humans and uh cats and dogs" and everything else seems arbitrary, human-centric etc. "Those in my group have value, those outside are nothing" comes naturally to humans, but there's nothing reasonable about it. For me, I don't like pain. I think inflicting pain/suffering is bad--not to mention painless killing, which seems worse than inflicting suffering. I would prefer someone inflicted pain on me than killed me painlessly! (How strange that I felt the need to explicitly make that point.) There is a range of life-forms on this planet, from simple to complex, some of which, like single-cell bacteria, viruses, probably don't feel pain. (Neither do trees, it seems--they can't run away so it didn't evolve. But I respect them for other reasons. I hate seeing heavily graffitied trees, I wonder who could do that desecration.) There seems no obvious line to draw between animals whose pain/suffering, and lives, are worthy of ethical consideration, and those whose aren't. (And conveniently, we put humans at the top of that range, presumably other animals might see things differently) Doctors/vets kill lower-life forms to save higher ones. Personally, I put it fairly low (Oysters?..).. but to save worrying about the exact place to draw the line, I've found it simpler (and painless, I've never missed 'it') to avoid animal products altogether. 2. The matter of need. If it's a matter of killing animals for food or dying, I would do the same. (or even eating people, see the movie Alive.) If it's a matter of, for you and I, wanting a steak, when there's no need whatsoever, it's an entirely different thing. I stopped dairy products when I learnt about what people do to cows and their babies in that industry. And learn about factory farming of chickens, pigs, cows, go on a tour of an abattoir--the gruesome realities are hidden from us. Also, I'm just talking about ethical considerations for humans, how we treat other life-forms. Because we realize other people than ourselves matter, other species than ourselves. (Not really sure what to say about the lions in your example.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hunter23 8y ago
  Ok so I am going to address your comments: 1) I don't have any ethical issues with any organism killing another organism to help sustain their life. And by the way, you don't either. Unless you've spawned the ability to photosynthesize light (in which case all props to you), your body is sustained by killing off biological life, breaking that life into macro molecules, and using that to sustain yourself. You make a distinction that you are ok with extinguishing the life of Bacteria, Protozoa, Plants, and Fungi, while I do all of that and add on animals. I'm not sure what the difference is there if you are arguing that life is sacred because if you believe all life is precious and shouldn't be extinguished, then you can't exactly live. Which btw is a totally feasible and admirable viewpoint - Jainism takes an approach like that and I respect that religion. I just personally don't see self actualization as giving all up earthly desires and extinguishing my life as a part of nirvana. 2) I don't have an issue with domestically raising a species and treating it purely as a thing for me to eat. To me that's actually a better way to do things, because domestic consumption ensures that I'm not eradicating wild and unique ecosystems of life. Btw, unless you forage for all your produce, you don't have an issue with that because if you eat vegetables from a grocery store you are consuming a highly genetically modified organism that has been evolved purely for your consumption. The fact that grocery bananas don't have seeds should disturb you greatly if you have a problem with evolving organism for your benefit. The distinction again, is that you have a problem with domestication of animals, but you seem not treat other organism as purely something for you to eat. To put into your own words, it's a matter of widening your field of ethical concern from the arbitrary "Animals" to all organisms. Otherwise you will sound like, say, a white-supremacist racist talking as if only white people matter, all others have no value, mean nothing except as they can serve whites. (I have to use these analogies to try to get you to hear what plant-eater arguments sound like to me)
  - passiveincomelg 8y ago
    I learned how bad the conditions are in animal factories and I don't want anything to do with it. If you look at these conditions and feel no compassion for the animals, then I won't try to change your mind. I also don't consider myself somehow a better person or something like that. Some people believe in God, others don't. Some are tall, some are short. Some feel attracted to the same gender, some to a different one. I don't think we have influence on these things. However, if you are like I was simply ignorant of what is going on, I encourage you to look into it. The whole thing about saving the planet... I don't think that'll work out even if all humans become vegan tomorrow.

yesenadam 8y ago

Well, some people have a "philosophy" that humans aren't the only life-form in the universe whose lives mean something, have value. Reading your post is for me a little like someone talking about slavery, how they like it, it has benefits, they don't feel a strong desire to stop, they've tried to cut down but don't see why they should stop completely, etc. It's kind of obscene. Or at best, like there's a huge elephant in the room. It's not all about you. I was brought up on a farm with cows we ate, later I ate hamburgers.. Then in my 20s it dawned on me that treating animals as they they're nothing but things for humans to eat only seemed ethically OK because it was the norm in my culture, (encouraged by a lot of now-super-gruesome-seeming TV ads on e.g. how delicious lambs are) and..because I'm human. A lot like how racism seemed OK if you're white, slavery if you're not a slave etc. It's a matter of widening your field of ethical concern from the arbitrary "Animals of my species, uh plus cats and dogs" line. Otherwise you will sound like, say, a white-supremacist racist talking as if only white people matter, all others have no value, mean nothing except as they can serve whites. (I have to use these analogies to try to get you to hear what meat-eater arguments sound like to me)

pluto9 8y ago
You were just complaining in another comment about vegans being painted as unreasonable and proselytizing, and then immediately posted this comment comparing non-vegans to slave owners. I can't tell if you're trolling or if you honestly can't see what's wrong with this picture.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Not trolling. Maybe you could say what's "wrong with this picture", unreasonable, instead of darkly implying..something. The animal-eating issue is unusual, in that it involves not only ethical considerations, but turns on whether you count groups of life-forms as worthy of any ethical consideration whatever or not. Similar to racism, slavery, etc. They either seem totally normal, or horrific and unimaginable. If you can think of other examples you'd prefer were used, let me know. That's the point, that to vegans, these are indeed apt comparisons, but to people used to treating e.g. cows as walking bags of "meat" whose only value is to people, they seem, well, like trolling, apparently. Yes, they are very different ethical outlooks on life, but to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means.
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    Do you think plants are not worthy of any ethical consideration? Why is ok to eat them?
  - mkempe 8y ago
    But why are you entitled to enslaving and killing plants to feed you? after all, plants are alive and have senses, too.
  - pluto9 8y ago
    What's wrong is that you act indignant about people's hyperbolic descriptions of vegans, but when your opinion of non-vegans is invited, you immediately trot out the most hyperbolic, damning analogy (and a poor one at that) possible. Of course, your angle is that you're correct, and therefore the comparison of meat eaters and slave owners is simply a matter of fact, while calling vegans "proselytizers" is an unfounded and offensive opinion. As for the analogy itself, I'm not going to get into why it's absurd. I've had that conversation enough times to know that the correctness of the analogy is not what's important to you. All that matters is that it riles up those you see as morally inferior to yourself. You chose that analogy because you get off on the reaction it gets, plain and simple. Just know that when people portray vegans as rabid ideologues, they're talking specifically about vegans like you. You are the sort who gives vegans a bad name. If you think proselytizing is the right thing to do, then by all means, do it. But admit to yourself that that's what you're doing. You can't simultaneously proselytize and get offended by people pointing out that that's what you're doing. > to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means. See, the thing about words like "unreasonable" is that they're in the eye of the beholder. It's like the word "asshole"--you don't get to decide if you're an asshole. That's for others to decide. You get to hold whatever opinions you want about meat-eaters, and they get to decide if they think those opinions are unreasonable. Opinions are subject to critique. That's how this works.
ZainRiz 8y ago
I'm curious, how to vegans like you square away the idea that it's horrible for humans to eat animals vs it's okay for other animals (like lions) to eat animals? Genuinely curious since I understand you points but it doesn't seem possible to apply that philosophy universally (and I see that as a sign of an incorrect philosophy) To be clear, there are three different arguments in favor of eating less meat: 1. Personal health 2. Environmental benefits 3. Moral requirement I'm only asking about the moral argument since that what you focused on in your post
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Hi :-) I'm not sure what philosophy "it doesn't seem possible to apply universally".. Maybe "Killing any animal is wrong" (By any animal/person, for any reason, etc)? I don't think that. Also, I don't see this as an "argument in favor of eating less meat", or a "moral requirement".. Is it hard for you to not hunt, kill and eat people? Do you need arguments in favor of having less slaves. No.. Those things seem morally repugnant to most of us now, while they were normal in other times and places. Two points from the many that bear on this: 1. The line between "humans and uh cats and dogs" and everything else seems arbitrary, human-centric etc. "Those in my group have value, those outside are nothing" comes naturally to humans, but there's nothing reasonable about it. For me, I don't like pain. I think inflicting pain/suffering is bad--not to mention painless killing, which seems worse than inflicting suffering. I would prefer someone inflicted pain on me than killed me painlessly! (How strange that I felt the need to explicitly make that point.) There is a range of life-forms on this planet, from simple to complex, some of which, like single-cell bacteria, viruses, probably don't feel pain. (Neither do trees, it seems--they can't run away so it didn't evolve. But I respect them for other reasons. I hate seeing heavily graffitied trees, I wonder who could do that desecration.) There seems no obvious line to draw between animals whose pain/suffering, and lives, are worthy of ethical consideration, and those whose aren't. (And conveniently, we put humans at the top of that range, presumably other animals might see things differently) Doctors/vets kill lower-life forms to save higher ones. Personally, I put it fairly low (Oysters?..).. but to save worrying about the exact place to draw the line, I've found it simpler (and painless, I've never missed 'it') to avoid animal products altogether. 2. The matter of need. If it's a matter of killing animals for food or dying, I would do the same. (or even eating people, see the movie Alive.) If it's a matter of, for you and I, wanting a steak, when there's no need whatsoever, it's an entirely different thing. I stopped dairy products when I learnt about what people do to cows and their babies in that industry. And learn about factory farming of chickens, pigs, cows, go on a tour of an abattoir--the gruesome realities are hidden from us. Also, I'm just talking about ethical considerations for humans, how we treat other life-forms. Because we realize other people than ourselves matter, other species than ourselves. (Not really sure what to say about the lions in your example.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hunter23 8y ago
Ok so I am going to address your comments: 1) I don't have any ethical issues with any organism killing another organism to help sustain their life. And by the way, you don't either. Unless you've spawned the ability to photosynthesize light (in which case all props to you), your body is sustained by killing off biological life, breaking that life into macro molecules, and using that to sustain yourself. You make a distinction that you are ok with extinguishing the life of Bacteria, Protozoa, Plants, and Fungi, while I do all of that and add on animals. I'm not sure what the difference is there if you are arguing that life is sacred because if you believe all life is precious and shouldn't be extinguished, then you can't exactly live. Which btw is a totally feasible and admirable viewpoint - Jainism takes an approach like that and I respect that religion. I just personally don't see self actualization as giving all up earthly desires and extinguishing my life as a part of nirvana. 2) I don't have an issue with domestically raising a species and treating it purely as a thing for me to eat. To me that's actually a better way to do things, because domestic consumption ensures that I'm not eradicating wild and unique ecosystems of life. Btw, unless you forage for all your produce, you don't have an issue with that because if you eat vegetables from a grocery store you are consuming a highly genetically modified organism that has been evolved purely for your consumption. The fact that grocery bananas don't have seeds should disturb you greatly if you have a problem with evolving organism for your benefit. The distinction again, is that you have a problem with domestication of animals, but you seem not treat other organism as purely something for you to eat. To put into your own words, it's a matter of widening your field of ethical concern from the arbitrary "Animals" to all organisms. Otherwise you will sound like, say, a white-supremacist racist talking as if only white people matter, all others have no value, mean nothing except as they can serve whites. (I have to use these analogies to try to get you to hear what plant-eater arguments sound like to me)
- passiveincomelg 8y ago
  I learned how bad the conditions are in animal factories and I don't want anything to do with it. If you look at these conditions and feel no compassion for the animals, then I won't try to change your mind. I also don't consider myself somehow a better person or something like that. Some people believe in God, others don't. Some are tall, some are short. Some feel attracted to the same gender, some to a different one. I don't think we have influence on these things. However, if you are like I was simply ignorant of what is going on, I encourage you to look into it. The whole thing about saving the planet... I don't think that'll work out even if all humans become vegan tomorrow.