Veganism as a philosophical belief

Homepage Forums Small Talk Veganism as a philosophical belief

This topic contains 23 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  jakelafort 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
  • #29686


    Unseen, that is an interesting question. I don’t know the answer although i suspect that there are few vegans who decline meds on ethical grounds.

    However, i don’t see it as hypocritical unless the vegan is orthodox. I am talking about the vegans who wont eat honey and who are adamant supporters of PETA. The honey ban is turning it into a religion. The support of PETA is the demand to end animal cruelty which included dog and horse racing.

    In contemplating the use of animals in testing drugs it does not necessarily end the life of the subject animals but it certainly causes the subject animals great stress. Characterizing it as cruel is not a stretch, especially with our close cousins, the chimps.

    The various forms of exploitation ought not be lumped in one basket. Taking fur or raising in horrible conditions and then slaughtering animals is obviously worse than taking eggs, milk, or honey. And the other side of the equation is how valuable to humans is the exploitation and how indispensable is the exploitation. We don’t need to eat bacon to get by. From what i know in an admittedly confusing morass is that we will have better health if we drop meats. We don’t need furs to get by unless perhaps we are living at a subsistence level in a cold climate. ON the other hand we really do need medicine and the cruelty we exact is more justified than the aforementioned slaughtering for meat and fur.


    You write too much at once, man, like a sermon. OK then…

    Okay Pope,

    I am assuming you know that cows and pigs are on a par with cats and dogs. Further assuming you would not eat your cat or dog and probably not any cat or dog. But you eat pigs cuz bacon is tasty.

    Maybe even “on par” with humans, big deal. Some cultures eat dogs, which I could not do. Don’t ask me why, because I admit it’s arbitrary, just as right to lifers think a fertilized human egg is sacred because of their arbitrary line in the sand that’s not even mentioned in scripture, but some padre long ago decided that’s where everyone else should draw the line, and so it became the rule, like other cultures assume God wants more rules than Big Mo wrote (but surely he was thinking about, peanut butter upon him) so it became hadith.

    So you are in the i dont give a shit camp? I will eat you cuz you taste goodly to me me me.

    And cuz you are nutritious. We wouldn’t have evolved to our current selves without meat. Nothing personal, just true.

    Yeah i used to love bacon.

    OK, there ya go, and I used to smoke, but I quit. Happens to the best of us. But now we see the light. New truth has been revealed; new versions of morality can now make me feel better than you, and you better than me.

    Milk? no no no. It is gross. According to vegans it has blood and puss. Idk if that is true. But i remember thinking as a kid that it is unnatural for adults, let alone kids to drink milk. And then the milk of another species! And it looks like maybe just maybe all the messages about the health effects of milk coming from dairy industry were simply propaganda, that in fact cow’s milk does not do a body good.

    Blood and puss are natural, and can either spread disease or immunity, and mother’s milk is life saving for the immunity it conveys, whether it has “puss” or not. Still tastes really good. Even when it comes from cattle, which btw was another huge boost to the survival of humans, back in the day.

    I’ll bet your dividing line to determine which animals deserve more empathy so people shouldn’t eat them is still arbitrary, just like mine. Would you be against insect diets? How about aborted fetuses, and why or why not? These may sound like ridiculous questions, but if you’re insisting that your choices are purely logical, I would ask for more detail on your reasoning. What does “on par” really mean?

    I don’t mean to dodge the question myself, but I’m saying our decisions are largely arbitrary or at least informed by custom, and I personally don’t believe that farm animals live in fear of the day they’re to be slaughtered. They won’t even know what hit them. But I won’t blame you for not eating animals if it’s because of an empathetic sentiment.

    On the other hand, in consideration for all life on this planet, I do see logic in saving the planet’s biospheric resources by eating plants instead of animals. It takes on average (about) ten times more resources like water, land area, and base nutrients to eat animals instead of plants. As far as cow farts are concerned, they’re only recycling carbon that already existed in the biosphere, so I don’t consider it to be a significant issue. It’s the carbon that we suck out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels that actually adds mucho carbon to the biosphere that wasn’t there before. (Plus, the melting permafrost and clathrates will probably become a major issue wrt ramping up runaway warming because methane is really bad in the short run compared to CO2, but that’s another topic. OK, maybe cow farts matter somewhat too, but not like fossil fuels.)

    I do give a shit, but choose different battle lines, especially when it comes to moral judgments. 🙂 (I’d better add here in case anyone is wondering, hell no, I’m not interested in BBQ’d fetuses, human or otherwise, but love chicken eggs.)

    End of Sermon




    On par with humans, big deal? Then you are okay with cannibalism. Is it okay to raise humans to be slaughtered?
    It is clearly a big deal. Being so cavalier about slaughter and laughing off our arbitrary and indefensible preferences is quite human but it is not quite right.

    You’re not being willing to eat dogs is anything but arbitrary. You like dogs. You perhaps have observed how in tune they are emotionally with their keepers, how loyal they are, how unwavering their friendship is… So it is not is exactly what i indicated already…it is the accident of your acquaintance with individual dogs and dogs as a species. You know of their depth. The idea of slaughtering and eating a dog is visceral. Makes ya want to puke. But the cultures and the individuals who kill and eat dogs have not done anything more egregious than the killers/consumers of sheep, cows, pigs…
    They are on a par with dogs. Read about them and you will see.

    I admit ignorance about our past as it relates to consumption of animals. Was it fire that changed us to meat eaters? Was it a tiny part of our diet like it is for chimps? Or did we consume no meat at all like gorillas? We have canines for a reason i suppose. Perhaps the associations of meat with cancers and heart disease is in part a result of the poor feed, hormones and antibiotics given to farm animals. IDK

    Milk of human momma is important to health of babies. That is how we evolved. But we did not evolve to drink another species’ milk as adults. And the science is suggesting that it comes with big risks. Cancer risks are higher for milk/dairy especially prostate. Bones are more subject to fracture. Lots of lactose intolerance i assume cuz it is unnatural. There are other risks that i cant recall, nor can i recall a specific element of milk that is dangerous. Obviously my reaction to the taste of milk is meaningless.

    No, my dividing line to determine which animals deserve more compassion is not arbitrary. Clearly, it ought not be based on the monumental arrogance and egoism of our species. We look at nonhuman animals primarily in terms of how they benefit us. We cast off as infantile anthropomorphism, notions that will offend our sense of humans being unique and superior. And it is not just religious folks who are this way. How incongruous to on the one hand be a firm believer in evolution and on other hand think that we humans are not similar to our animals relatives.

    I start with the idea that we ought to be more circumspect in our treatment of animals who have rich emotions and cognitive capabilities. It is in essence an extension of the golden rule. It is not easy to draw distinct lines of demarcation because we don’t know what they are thinking, what they experience. But we see behaviors that are indicative of emotions and intelligence. I will refrain from developing this point. We see some of the same mental illnesses. We see tool use. We see all sorts of social behaviors that are shared by all mammals. What else should we expect to see if evolution is factual? So i am fine with insect diets. Insects are driven by instinct. I think…i hope. Not okay with our mammalian buddies.

    I agree with Davis that serious efforts ought to be put forward to develop affordable lab grown meat. I have little doubt that some religious folks will refuse to eat it. But enough people will that it will significantly reduce the billions of annual animal slaughters.

    So on the one hand lets be honest and admit the obvious. We are the dominant species. (I suppose microbes and insects are arguably in the conversation) Might makes right. But if we can navigate civilization with less cruelty it is probably a good idea that we do so. If we survive and it is super tough to extrapolate long term survival of homo sapiens and we are ever at a point in which we don’t slaughter animals i am wagering we won’t be as cruel to each other. At some point might makes right might have to bend to a semblance of fairness makes right.



    On par with humans, big deal? Then you are okay with cannibalism. Is it okay to raise humans to be slaughtered?

    That’s a major misrepresentation misunderstanding of what I’m saying. I thought I wrote about this before, but I draw the line way, way before cannibalism, pets, and beings that I (arbitrarily) care about. I only asked you to define what you meant by “on par”. I’m not reading the rest of your long post.



    Speaking of methane clathrates, this morning MS/Bing independently/coincidentally presented a screensaver to me of frozen bubbles of them, the likes of which I’ve never seen before. I didn’t even know what the picture was about until I looked it up [source]:

    probable methane bubbles frozen in layers at Lago Bianca Switzerland



    Digging further, I see now there is a “clathrate gun” hypothesis (but I prefer the word “runaway” to “gun”).

    From that article, a graphic of supposed CO2 and methane (relatively recent) history on Earth:

    graphic over half a million years of CO2 and methane levels on Earth

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  PopeBeanie.


    Pope, i interpreted BIG DEAL as follows. used to express one’s contempt for something regarded as impressive or important by another person. In the context i can’t see any other plausible interpretation. So as i see it you are dismissing my insistence on having us think about the animals we are slaughtering and you are okay with idiosyncratic likes and dislikes or the force of custom. That is human of you. Makes me think just how great an oxymoron is the word, humane.



    Pope, i interpreted BIG DEAL as follows.

    Point taken. I guess I crossed the line a bit there. It might have raised some hair on me if someone said that to me, as I’m still trying to get over such sensitivities. Think I was mocking arbitrary lines, even if all we humans tend to have them. But look, we can’t constructively apply only pure logic to moral discussions like this one.

    I laud vegan decisions/behavior, and admit to some guilt here.

    @davis is obviously evil too, but don’t expect him to relent.



    I am no paragon of virtue.

    Decided to be a vegetarian 6 or 7 years ago. Periodically i would think about whether i should be eating meat. Took me a long time to decide against it. Also i am a professional horse player and wager a lot of money on horses and in so doing am helping to perpetuate a sport which involves cruelty to animals.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.