Log in or sign up to comment
268 Comments
Posted by blackbird415

Everything is perception. Everything is an illusion. You are simply in continuous dreams. Every time you die you simply wake to a new life as a new person. Have fun as you know it, cause when you die none of it will truly matter. In the end we all die in out own shit. Therefore I eat tasty food vegetarian or not. 

Posted by LordXavierBritish
@DevWil:  
I had a really long page stretching post to refute all the points you made, but then I had a better idea.
 
I am going to explain to you the state society is in and why the ethics of animal rights simply isn't a factor anymore.
 
Man is at an interesting cross road now because, when taken to the extreme, most animals are pretty much just left overs from the evolutionary war. We won the game, and in a century or perhaps even just a few decades the need for both plants and animals will be absolute nil. Wildlife should still be preserved of course, though it would really be only to the benefit of scholars.
 
Look, I know it's kind of hard to see the point I'm driving at because quite frankly I'm not even sure what I'm talking about now. There have been a shit load of scientific breakthroughs recently regarding synthetic tissue as of late and what the future holds is both very exciting and very unknown.
 
Let me phrase it in the form of a hypothetical.
 
Mankind is sitting at a decision and has two options and no way out. To continue the advancement of the human race, all wildlife outside of perserved specimens must be destroyed. No species will become extincted, and every animal is kept within a state of the art storage facility which simulates it's natural environment and populations of each species are regulated and monitored. Each little pocket of life is kept within a perfectly secure building accessible for both scholarly work and is open to the general public. A majority of Earth's animals though.
 
So what would you chose? The stagnation of human civilization, or the lives of trillions of animals.
 
That may seem like a radical concept to you, but is it really? Many animals are basically commodities at this point. They aren't much good for anything other than eating. These domesticated weaklings can no longer survive on their own, they are already extinct. Chickens, cows, pigs,  and all the other animals we have kept for companionship or food. They are no longer animals, they are goods. As much as most people hate to admit it, those animals are as good as dead.
 
What do you think would happen to domesticated animals if we decided to stop eating meat? Do you expect us to spend billions of dollars to keep the vast populations of these creatures alive? Are we supposed to just release them back into the wild? Do you expect most, if any, of these creatures to survive in our urbanized world, let alone the wild? What is the better option? Would you like them to all go at once or should we continue actually using them?
 
Vegatarians like to act like not eating animals is ethically correct, like it is morally right; but do you ever stop to consider the long term implications of your lifestyle? 
 
By being a Vegetarian you seek to ultimately destroy the very animal life you claim you wish to save.
 
It's too late to turn back the clock, the world is what it is and the lives of the animals you want to save were lost a long long time ago. I want to see your perfect world. I want to see the thousands of miles of land covered in the corpses of animals that have died from starvation or been killed by predators. I want to see a world in which the cow doesn't go "moo" because the cow is fucking dead.
 
Oh sure, some of them could be saved in facilities like Zoos, but how is that any better? That's just leading back to my hypothetical question, in fact it is the same exact choice.
 
Choose. The lives of billions animals, or a world of Vegetarians.
 
Go.
 
What needs to be changed is how we treat animals, not how we use them. That is what it comes down to.
Posted by FiestaUnicorn
@LordXavierBritish said:
"@DevWil:  
I had a really long page stretching post to refute all the points you made, but then I had a better idea.
 
I am going to explain to you the state society is in and why the ethics of animal rights simply isn't a factor anymore.
 
Man is at an interesting cross road now because, when taken to the extreme, most animals are pretty much just left overs from the evolutionary war. We won the game, and in a century or perhaps even just a few decades the need for both plants and animals will be absolute nil. Wildlife should still be preserved of course, though it would really be only to the benefit of scholars.
 
Look, I know it's kind of hard to see the point I'm driving at because quite frankly I'm not even sure what I'm talking about now. There have been a shit load of scientific breakthroughs recently regarding synthetic tissue as of late and what the future holds is both very exciting and very unknown.
 
Let me phrase it in the form of a hypothetical.
 
Mankind is sitting at a decision and has two options and no way out. To continue the advancement of the human race, all wildlife outside of perserved specimens must be destroyed. No species will become extincted, and every animal is kept within a state of the art storage facility which simulates it's natural environment and populations of each species are regulated and monitored. Each little pocket of life is kept within a perfectly secure building accessible for both scholarly work and is open to the general public. A majority of Earth's animals though.
 
So what would you chose? The stagnation of human civilization, or the lives of trillions of animals.
 
That may seem like a radical concept to you, but is it really? Many animals are basically commodities at this point. They aren't much good for anything other than eating. These domesticated weaklings can no longer survive on their own, they are already extinct. Chickens, cows, pigs,  and all the other animals we have kept for companionship or food. They are no longer animals, they are goods. As much as most people hate to admit it, those animals are as good as dead.
 
What do you think would happen to domesticated animals if we decided to stop eating meat? Do you expect us to spend billions of dollars to keep the vast populations of these creatures alive? Are we supposed to just release them back into the wild? Do you expect most, if any, of these creatures to survive in our urbanized world, let alone the wild? What is the better option? Would you like them to all go at once or should we continue actually using them?
 
Vegatarians like to act like not eating animals is ethically correct, like it is morally right; but do you ever stop to consider the long term implications of your lifestyle? 
 
By being a Vegetarian you seek to ultimately destroy the very animal life you claim you wish to save.  It's too late to turn back the clock, the world is what it is and the lives of the animals you want to save were lost a long long time ago. I want to see your perfect world. I want to see the thousands of miles of land covered in the corpses of animals that have died from starvation or been killed by predators. I want to see a world in which the cow doesn't go "moo" because the cow is fucking dead.  Oh sure, some of them could be saved in facilities like Zoos, but how is that any better? That's just leading back to my hypothetical question, in fact it is the same exact choice.  Choose. The lives of billions animals, or a world of Vegetarians.  Go.  What needs to be changed is how we treat animals, not how we use them. That is what it comes down to. "

you're dumb.
Posted by LordXavierBritish
@FiestaUnicorn: 
 
 <3
Posted by LordXavierBritish
Posted by DevWil
@LordXavierBritish:  
 
thanks for the intelligent rebuttal of my arguments. 
 
oh wait, that's not what you gave me.  you seem to have given me crazy science fiction.  try not to do mushrooms before arguing. 
 
i'm sorry to be so disrespectful, but you've been totally disrespectful to me. 
 
i read about four pages of that book and it really seems like the author is crazy.   she seems like she doesn't have a healthy way of dealing with death.  i read a little bit of an interview with her and she seems to be saying that everything that exists needs to be torn down because too many things are dying. 
 
she's speaking from a perspective that i can't sympathize with.  i'm not a vegetarian so i can save the world.  she seems hell-bent on saving the world and somehow she realized that vegetarianism either isn't enough or isn't the answer, it seems.  cool.  i don't care. 
 
as a buddhist, i put a lot of stock in the idea of impermanence (which is kind of an oxymoronic idea to express that way, oddly enough).  i understand that the natural way of things is to decay and die.  everyone gets old; everybody dies.  we shouldn't act surprised when it happens and we shouldn't be afraid of it. 
 
that said, i don't believe in violence.  i'm that guy who disapproves of killing a spider if it's crawling on your shirt at a picnic.   even if death is inevitable, i don't think that i have the right to inflict it upon sentient beings for no good reason.
 
the revolution isn't coming and it wouldn't work anyways.  the best you can do is--to put it simply--try not to be an asshole.  i think that eating meat is kind of an asshole thing to do.  vegetarianism doesn't save the world or even all of the animals, but i never expected it to.
Posted by PNut_Buttr_Panda

sadly the fact of the matter is that human biology is specifically designed to consume meat AND potatoes.

Posted by LordXavierBritish
@DevWil: 
Yes she is an idiot, but you are missing the point. Agriculture kills life. Agriculture has killed life for millenia, that's just how it works. To create and sustain viable amounts of crops for our ever expanding population, ecosystems are torn down and obliterated. Hell, just look at the rain forests, that's a prime example of this happening every day.
 
The person that wrote the book is severely detached from how society works now. She is hell bent on saving the world, like you said, but she doesn't seem to realize that the world can't work in the way she wants it to.
 
And I didn't give you shit for science fiction:
First Synthetic Cell 
Artificial Organ Printer
Artificial Tissue
Artificial Meat
 
And for domesticated animal life being dependent on humanity, well that's pretty much the definition of domestication. If everyone stops eating meat, either by  the introduction of artificial meat or by vegetarianism, the effort made to keep those animal populations alive will no longer seem like a worthy cause for most companies. Those animals will die out and cease to exist outside of small populations that may be maintained by groups of scientists. What vegetarianism is asking for is the complete genocide of millions of animals. Now obviously, this is going to eventually happen because all in all the destruction of those animals is better for the environment, however you are opposed to this so I would really like to see how you justify being a vegetarian under that pretense.

And please, how about doing some research into the shit I'm talking about before telling me I'm on drugs next time yeah?
Edited by DevWil
@LordXavierBritish said:

" @DevWil: 
 What vegetarianism is asking for is the complete genocide of millions of animals. "  

 
see, this is where you lose me. 
 
first of all, i think you're exaggerating.  secondly, i'm not concerned with the political or global effects of the vegetarian movement.  it'll probably always be a minority lifestyle.  but to answer your question: no, i'm not particularly bothered by the prospect of domesticated livestock species going extinct.  it's better than continuing to breed them just to destroy them.  i'm not invested in the number of species alive on earth, but also you seem to be ignoring that the number of species we've domesticated is a vast minority.
 
arthur c. clarke seemed to think that a space elevator was reasonably likely to exist in his lifetime.  hasn't happened.  so many technologies are deemed possible and then are never heard from again.  this could very well (and, in my opinion, very likely) be the case with synthetic meat. 
 
the whole thing seems irrelevant to my choice to be a vegetarian.  you don't seem to be accepting that my motivation isn't quite the preservation of animals.  when Cow #158392 is slaughtered for beef, i'd prefer that it was never born to live its life as nothing more than a food resource.  i know that it's going to die once it's born into the system, though.  i'm not crazy; i know i'm not saving that cow's life.  i also know that, by not eating meat (and, in this case specifically: beef), i'm not the one responsible for that cow's death (or miserable life, for that matter). 
 
it's about non-violence toward sentient beings; vegetarianism (in my case) is not an angry protest against death itself. 
 
edit: 
while i'm emphasizing how personal vegetarianism is for me, i obviously need to address that i'm promoting it with this blog.  as i've said, i'm not asking people to think about animals differently.  i'm asking people to think about animals the same way they already do, but not compartmentalize.  i want people to appreciate that a sentient being necessarily dies for them to eat meat.  if truly appreciating that fact doesn't change their mind about meat, there isn't much i can do.
Posted by habster3

I must say that after reading your response, you showed enough intelligence regarding the debate to make me think this is not a troublesome thread; at first, I thought you may have been a vegetarian based off the title (sorry, didn't read beginning), but now I see that you are, in fact, trying to gain ground with the ones I thought you may have been working against. I would say that your argument is perfect, but the convoluted structures of some of your sentences weakens the point. Good job on a decent argument, though.

Posted by TooWalrus
@DevWil:  
@Virago: 
 
The world needs more vegetarians like Virago and less like the OP. Thanks for NOT being a total douche, Virago.
Posted by hedfone

woooooah text overload

Online
Posted by LordXavierBritish
@DevWil: 
This shit is happening now. We've made extraordinary leaps in Biology very recently, and the medical benefits of such research is too great to be ignored. Synthetic meat is a reality at this point, because when synthetic organs are completed all the necessary work to create synthetic, edible tissue would already have been done. Arthur C. Clarke was a very intelligent man, though ultimately an idealist. The first synthetic cell has been created, and the time is now.
 
What I'm really struggling to understand is how can say your choice to be a Vegetarian is saving anything. By your definition, the only way you could actually live by your beliefs and not be a complete hypocrite would be to eat food grown on small local farms. Now, maybe you do do that but, I'm going to go with the safe bet and assume you don't. By eating any processed food you are actively funding the companies that  destroy enormous amounts of land each year, subsequently destroying the habitats of thousands of animals.
 
You aren't killing an animal with your bare hands when you eat meat from the slaughter house, so you and me are on the exact same level when it comes to harming wild life.
Edited by ahriman22

I support the slaughtering of cows by barely paid workers to fill my tummy.
 
I don't remember anyone saying that eating meat is superior, if anything vegetarians/vegans are the worst because they think that just because they kill things that are green (and occasionally other colors) instead of pumping blood they're superior. 
 
If I were you I wouldn't try preaching to anyone, it's a sure way to get yourself told off big time. The hell should anyone care about the cows or whatnot that were born and raised for the sole purpose of being knocked out, strung upside down and then having their throats cut? Actually I'm going to be studying to be a butcher soon and the teacher told me I could probably breeze through the class, so if anything I'll be making profit by turning gigantic carcasses into not quite bit-sized pieces. It's actually pretty fun too, especially when you start up the dreaded table saw and cut through 10 ribs, almost loosing your fingers can be such a thrill.

Posted by Toms115
@DevWil said:
However, we're still animals. 

animals like meat.
Edited by DevWil
@habster3:  
 
either i'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding me.  i really think it's more likely to be the former.
 
could you maybe re-word what you said?  

@LordXavierBritish said:

" @DevWil:  This shit is happening now. We've made extraordinary leaps in Biology very recently, and the medical benefits of such research is too great to be ignored. Synthetic meat is a reality at this point, because when synthetic organs are completed all the necessary work to create synthetic, edible tissue would already have been done. Arthur C. Clarke was a very intelligent man, though ultimately an idealist. The first synthetic cell has been created, and the time is now.  What I'm really struggling to understand is how can say your choice to be a Vegetarian is saving anything. By your definition, the only way you could actually live by your beliefs and not be a complete hypocrite would be to eat food grown on small local farms. Now, maybe you do do that but, I'm going to go with the safe bet and assume you don't. By eating any processed food you are actively funding the companies that  destroy enormous amounts of land each year, subsequently destroying the habitats of thousands of animals.  You aren't killing an animal with your bare hands when you eat meat from the slaughter house, so you and me are on the exact same level when it comes to harming wild life. "


yeah, scientists have proven that it works, but that doesn't mean it's pervading our culture in the slightest.  people might find it too expensive (which doesn't seem to be a factor from what i've read of it, though), ungodly, or just plain creepy.  none of those three things are necessarily my own personal view, but i really feel like it's likely that the majority of people could feel one of those ways about it.  there's no guarantee that synthetic meat will be a successful alternative.
 
"What I'm really struggling to understand is how can you say your choice to be a Vegetarian is saving anything." 
 
apparently you are indeed struggling to understand, because i've been saying the opposite.  my accomplishment is not in the number of animals' lives i've saved.  my accomplishment is a personal, ethical one to refuse to eat food that necessarily results in intentional violence towards sentient beings. 
 
i'm glad you have a critical enough mind to see the big picture and criticize the entire food industry, but, dude: i have to eat something.  it's easy not to eat meat; it's really hard not to eat anything that is suspect of causing any ill to the world. 
 
"you and me are on the exact same level when it comes to harming wild life." 
 
i couldn't disagree more.
 
first of all, your use of the term "wild life" is plainly troublesome.  practically none of the meat sold in any market is from wild animals.  it's from animals who are created solely for the purpose of being destroyed.  any animals affected by my diet are affected by happenstance, not by explicit design.  (edit: i may have misunderstood your point and didn't give you credit for using the term literally.  apologies, if so.)
 
more importantly, though, let me use a hypothetical to illustrate my disagreement with your larger point: 
 
you and i both shop exclusively at the same weekly farmers' market.  we both buy vegetables and fruits; you buy meat.  by purchasing the non-meat food, you and i are responsible for the same ecological footprint.  however, you are responsible for the additional footprint implied by the meat.
 
i don't think this point should be controversial, but i'm sure you'll argue with it.
Posted by Virago
@TooWalrus said:
" @DevWil:  
@Virago:   The world needs more vegetarians like Virago and less like the OP. Thanks for NOT being a total douche, Virago. "
<3
Posted by habster3

@DevWill: I was saying that after reading your response to me,I changed my mind; this should not be locked and it's not offensive.