Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 08:44 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 04:40 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
April 18, 2024, 06:39 PM

New Britain
April 18, 2024, 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 18, 2024, 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Vegeterian debate

 (Read 10365 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Vegeterian debate
     OP - April 22, 2013, 12:24 PM

    I really want to ignore this post especially the bolded part but I can't, so with respect to Jema I decided to open another thread for it.

    @TDR
    Quote
    I don't get veganism and vegetarianism.

    If it's about the impact meat production has on the environement then it would make sense to cut down on meat but going off meat completely seems a bit extreme.

    If it's to be against animal cruelty then you can still advocate for humane slaughtering methods that minimize the pain to the animal.

    I mean we humans are omnivores so eating meat it something natural and I think going vegan is something similar to trying to repress your sexuality.

    I think it's never a good idea to repress natural urges to eat meat or have sex.


    Everything is good in moderation 


    But to each their own I guess 


    I find this bolded part absurd, how does avoiding consumption of meat equates to repressing sex?.  wacko

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #1 - April 22, 2013, 01:14 PM

    Because they are both naturally part of our systems?
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #2 - April 22, 2013, 01:37 PM

    Quote
    I think it's never a good idea to repress natural urges to eat meat or have sex.

    I can think of many of good reasons why we should allow our conscious thought to regulate natural urges. People who don't tend to be institutionalised.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #3 - April 22, 2013, 02:48 PM

    Because they are both naturally part of our systems?


    And you don't think its natural enough for one to be vegan/vegetarian when there are benefits of being one and the diet have nourishing substance and vitamins. I'm not a vegan or vegetarian but telling people how you don't get them because you think eating meat is "natural" and likening the avoidance to repression of sex is silly and bit condescending. No offence TDR, I like you but I don't agree with you on this.

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #4 - April 22, 2013, 04:29 PM

    Wouldn't the comparison have to be with eating in order to be valid? I.e, repressing sex is like repressing eating. You can selectively eat and selectively have sex. You don't just eat everything and fuck everything. Unless you're an obese rapist.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #5 - April 22, 2013, 05:24 PM

    ^ This 100%.

    Avoiding specific types of foods can be likened to avoiding specific sexual activities, not repressing your sexual urges entirely. It's quite an absurd comparison to make.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #6 - April 22, 2013, 06:09 PM

    Wouldn't the comparison have to be with eating in order to be valid? I.e, repressing sex is like repressing eating. You can selectively eat and selectively have sex. You don't just eat everything and fuck everything. Unless you're an obese rapist.


    Yeah, something like that. It all comes down to choices that an individual makes though i don't see how being a vegan/vegetarian can be compared to being a celibate(I mean repressing sexuality)when the latter can adversely affect one's health and psyche while the former doesn't.

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #7 - April 26, 2013, 11:43 PM

    Well being vego can adversely affect your health if you don't watch it. I think it's perfectly possible to be a healthy vegetarian, but since you are restricting the range of foods you are more likely to get some deficiency if you aren't careful.

    I don't subscribe to theories that a vegetarian diet is intrinsically more healthy. I think modern science has pretty conclusively knocked that one on the head. The evidence is now clear that we evolved to be omnivores.

    Which reminds me, from the other thread.............

    BTW, like we have been saying again and again and again, this is NOT a thread for debating whether YOU like to eat flesh or not. If you do fine, nobody here is telling you not to. Why people can't leave one fucking thread alone, where those of us who want to just share veg recipes are chatting, is interesting. It's almost like this thread being here bothers the meat eaters in some way - I wonder why.

    It's qute simple, in my case at least. Threads like that don't bother me as such. They amuse me. Why? Because of the inherent sense of righteousness involved.

    Invariably, whenever vegetarianism gets discussed, quite a few of the people involved will see it as somehow better than not being vegetarian. They will regard it as being the more virtuous choice, either in the nutritional and/or ethical sense, and therefore they will regard themselves as being more virtuous by reason of their choice.

    Personally, I tend to be rather irreverent. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, and many people will be demanding solid evidence before they can bring themselves to believe it, but it's true. If I see someone getting on their high horse about something, I get an almost irresistible urge to take the piss. Usually, I don't try to resist very hard. Call me a lazy bastard. grin12

    While I can see the ethical arguments, and happen to agree with them in the cases of things like battery farming and inhumane slaughter methods, I don't agree that they are an absolute reason to avoid eating meat. It's particularly funny when people want to claim to be vegetarian while still eating crustaceans, fish and birds.

    As for the nutritional/health arguments, as already mentioned I think they have been consigned to the scientific dustbin, and should therefore be ignored in any serious discussion.

    PS: Oh and I'm not fanatical about meat or no meat. Sometimes I eat vego. Sometimes I don't.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #8 - April 27, 2013, 02:53 AM

    I'll be honest and say I don't really care about animal rights. I was a vegetarian for five years but read too much Nietzsche and now I'm like, fuck yeah gimme all da powah.

    Grin
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #9 - April 27, 2013, 03:03 AM

    Way I look at it, one day my body is going to provide food for some other critters. It's sorta Zen carnivorism.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #10 - April 27, 2013, 03:22 AM

    I really want to ignore this post especially the bolded part but I can't, so with respect to Jema I decided to open another thread for it.

    @TDR
    I find this bolded part absurd, how does avoiding consumption of meat equates to repressing sex?.  wacko

     


    Ok sorry for the late response ( Exam period just finished).

    As omnivores eating meat is a natural urge is it not ?


    I mean unless a person is conditioned to be a vegetarian by creating a detailed eating plan to ensure they get all the nutrients etc.. they will want to eat meat.  When humans were hunter gatherers they hunted meat for food as a natural instinct.

    I likened it to sexual repression because trying to suppress the urge to eat meat is like surpressing other natural desires.

     
    ^ This 100%.

    Avoiding specific types of foods can be likened to avoiding specific sexual activities, not repressing your sexual urges entirely. It's quite an absurd comparison to make.

      

    yeah but avoiding meat is not just avoiding specific types of foods. It is avoiding an entire category of food that you body is specifically designed to eat. We are not herbivores.

    And you don't think its natural enough for one to be vegan/vegetarian when there are benefits of being one and the diet have nourishing substance and vitamins. I'm not a vegan or vegetarian but telling people how you don't get them because you think eating meat is "natural" and likening the avoidance to repression of sex is silly and bit condescending. No offence TDR, I like you but I don't agree with you on this.

      

     - No offense taken  grin12

    I mentioned before in this post we are omnivores so eating meat is natural for us. It's a fact. It would be impossible to argue against it.

    Well maybe that specific thread wasn't the right place to post that but I wasn't trying to be condescending. If someone doesn't want to eat meat it's their choice but I was genuinely curious about the motives vegetarians have for not choosing to eat it.

    I've never heard a strong argument for becoming a vegetarian/vegan so I wanted to pose the question to understand the position of vegetarians a bit better.

       Just like I wouldn't judge a person for choosing to avoid sexual urges(their life their choice) although I would question their choice out of curiosity so I can understand their position a bit better.
     

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #11 - April 27, 2013, 04:44 AM

    I'm just gonna play devil's advocate here, but your entire argument is a naturalistic fallacy.

    The vegetarian argument is that it's unethical to eat meat. Talking about how it's "natural" doesn't address the point.

    Quote
    yeah but avoiding meat is not just avoiding specific types of foods. It is avoiding an entire category of food that you body is specifically designed to eat. We are not herbivores

    "Men avoiding women is not just avoiding specific types of people. It is avoiding an entire sex that their body is specifically designed to have sex with. We are not homosexuals."

    Keyword here: design.

    Our bodies are not and were never "designed" for a specific purpose; they evolved. That evolution is based on need—nothing more. It says nothing about ethics or purpose.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #12 - April 27, 2013, 05:17 AM


    @TDR
    Couldn't you make the same nonsense argument against homosexuality? 

    Quote
    Avoiding sex with females is not just avoiding specific sex acts, it's avoiding an entire category of human your body is specifically designed to fuck. We are not homosexuals. 


    What's with this glorification of "natural urges" anyway? Humans are more than just our primal urges, and we have the capacity to consciously make decisions based on our own personal morals and ethics, irrespective of what's considered "natural". It's not "natural" to wear clothes or eat processed foods or drive cars or fly planes or be monogamous and a million other things most people do without thinking. 

    You're better off arguing whether or not eating meat is ethical or healthy for both people and the environment, rather than whether or not it's "natural". 
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #13 - April 27, 2013, 05:18 AM

    Damnit! Abood beat me to it, didn't read his post before *facepalm*
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #14 - April 27, 2013, 05:24 AM

    I have a natural desire to kick people who use silly arguments. Should I suppress this? Huh?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #15 - April 28, 2013, 04:35 AM

    Ok so the main argument against eating meat is that it's painful to the animals.

    What if the animals were killed in as painless of a way as possible and were given adequate living conditions.   

    Would it still be immoral ?

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #16 - April 28, 2013, 04:40 AM


    "Men avoiding women is not just avoiding specific types of people. It is avoiding an entire sex that their body is specifically designed to have sex with. We are not homosexuals."

     

    This might be nitpicking but there is a slight flaw in your analogy. No human is born a herbivore. Being a vegetarian is a lifestyle choice that one makes.

    However people are born as heterosexuals or homosexuals or whatever other sexuality that exist. Unlike vegetarianism,  sexuality is NOT  lifestyle choice.


    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #17 - April 28, 2013, 07:25 AM

    Ok so the main argument against eating meat is that it's painful to the animals.

    What if the animals were killed in as painless of a way as possible and were given adequate living conditions.   

    Would it still be immoral?

    Best argument for cannibalism ever. Smiley

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #18 - April 28, 2013, 07:27 AM

    This might be nitpicking but there is a slight flaw in your analogy. No human is born a herbivore. Being a vegetarian is a lifestyle choice that one makes.

    However people are born as heterosexuals or homosexuals or whatever other sexuality that exist. Unlike vegetarianism,  sexuality is NOT  lifestyle choice.

    This might be nitpicking, but there's a slight flaw in your analogy. grin12

    Take the case of a bisexual person who is in a committed relationship with one other person. In this case, their chosen sexuality would be either hetero or homo, and it would be a lifestyle choice. Would you regard this as unhealthy suppression of natural instincts?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #19 - April 28, 2013, 08:52 AM

    It's not the fact that homosexuality is not a choice that makes it okay. If a straight man decided to experiment with homosexuality, it would be an ethical act, despite him choosing to do so.

    Whether or not an act is "natural" is irrelevant to its ethical implications.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #20 - April 28, 2013, 11:00 AM

    Every vegetarian I know made the choice for ethical reasons. Fair enough.

    What about road kill? That should be OK, shouldn't it?
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #21 - April 28, 2013, 11:06 AM

    Best argument for cannibalism ever. Smiley

     

     I think we should exempt all humans from being killed for food.   *  

    If it's about the right to life of every creature should we not kill flies or cockroaches or spiders either ?  

    BTW if people see those insects in their homes they kill them usually in a painful fashion(hit with a newspaper) but noone sees that as immoral.

    So clearly even vegetarians don't extend the right of life to every creature but they tend to only get upset over larger animals like chickens and pigs for some reason.


    *So it's clear that on the one hand saying we should be allowed to kill anything painlessly for food is wrong because we should avoid that in the case of humans. This is because we are all humans and if we want to live together peacefully  we have to give everyone a set of rights which would also include the right to life.

    Otherwise people would be paranoid and and not trust anyone else thinking they could get killed at any point and that state of mind would clearly not let people to live content lives they do today in developed countries.




    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #22 - April 28, 2013, 01:16 PM

    You're pulling shit out of your ass, TDR. A lot of people don't kill insects. I know I didn't when I was a vegetarian. I did my best, if I had to get rid of something, to make sure it's still alive, and just put it out the window or something. And I still don't kill insects unless I really have to.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #23 - April 28, 2013, 03:13 PM

    ^

    So you think killing insects is immoral ?

    Is it just as immoral as killing a chicken or pig ?

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #24 - April 28, 2013, 07:10 PM

    Well being vego can adversely affect your health if you don't watch it. I think it's perfectly possible to be a healthy vegetarian, but since you are restricting the range of foods you are more likely to get some deficiency if you aren't careful.

    I don't subscribe to theories that a vegetarian diet is intrinsically more healthy. I think modern science has pretty conclusively knocked that one on the head. The evidence is now clear that we evolved to be omnivores.


    Range? What range? I wouldn't say avoiding beef, poultry and seafood is much of a "range."

    You are correct in that any well-planned diet can be healthy. I don't know of a lot of people who go around claiming being veg or vegan is the best and only diet that humans should follow.

    Rather be forgotten than remembered for giving in.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #25 - April 28, 2013, 08:36 PM

    ^

    So you think killing insects is immoral ?

    Is it just as immoral as killing a chicken or pig ?

    I think the question of morality has become too entangled in pedantry and technicalities. To me, it's not about morality or not. It's like picking out plants then throwing them out, just because you want to.

    If you want to pick out a plant to eat it, go for it. If you want to pick out a flower to study it, go for it. If you want to pick out a plant to draw it, go for it. But to just walk around picking out plants for the sake of picking out plants—that's just asshattery, regardless of whether it's moral or not.

    The same goes for insects and other animals. I don't think it's wrong to kill them if you want to eat them or somehow benefit from them, or if they're a threat to your life. But to just kill them because you know you can—before anything else, that's being a douchebag.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #26 - April 29, 2013, 07:22 PM

    I don't get on with people who kill bugs for no reason. It's not just because I like them nor because I believe they can feel or anything like that. It's just a piss poor display of character. Whether a creature can feel pain or not still doesn't diminish an act of willful harm in my eyes.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #27 - April 29, 2013, 10:46 PM

    What do you mean by "no reason" though? I wouldn't go out and kill random insects in the street or anything like that but if I happen to find one in the house I always kill it or get someone else to kill it. We've got a lot of of creepy crawlies in this part of the world and it gets particularly gross in the summer, not to mention that spiders can bite! I don't think that's morally questionable. Does anyone think it is? Huh? 
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #28 - April 29, 2013, 10:49 PM

    Range? What range? I wouldn't say avoiding beef, poultry and seafood is much of a "range."

    Ok, you wouldn't. Why not?


    Quote
    You are correct in that any well-planned diet can be healthy. I don't know of a lot of people who go around claiming being veg or vegan is the best and only diet that humans should follow.

    I've heard that claim quite a lot from vegetarians.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Vegeterian debate
     Reply #29 - April 29, 2013, 10:53 PM

    What do you mean by "no reason" though? I wouldn't go out and kill random insects in the street or anything like that but if I happen to find one in the house I always kill it or get someone else to kill it. We've got a lot of of creepy crawlies in this part of the world and it gets particularly gross in the summer, not to mention that spiders can bite! I don't think that's morally questionable. Does anyone think it is? Huh?

     Cheesy I never worry about spiders in the house unless they're ones that are likely to cause trouble. I'd be concerned about a funnel web, but I couldn't care less about huntsmen.

    Most insects I generally encourage to go outside. Exceptions are things like flies, mosquitoes and cockroaches. Those I'll kill, unless the cockroaches are just native bush cockroaches, which are harmless and not a pest. They only wander inside by mistake and prefer to live outside. I just move them back to the garden.

    I don't worry about wasps or bees either. Never had a problem with them. Just nudge them towards an open door or window.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »