Vegan?

[UGetPaid]

I had a dream a long time ago that I was eating a burger, and it had my dog's eyes in it. Every time I eat meat, I think of my burger looking back at me, and it makes me feel like a horrible person. I think, if you wouldn't eat your own pet, you shouldn't eat anything that ever had eyes. 

Aside from a dream that you had (and we all dream really weird stuff sometimes) what is the correlation between my cat and a cow and the fact that they both happen to have eyes?

Would you eat your cat? Why is it ok to eat one and not the other?

No I would not eat my cat. Yes I would happily eat a hamburger or a steak.  To be quite honest, I don't believe cats would taste very good and I have no real desire to try it. But cows, pigs, and chickens taste really good (in my opinion) and so I choose to eat them.  I don't eat their eyes, but I do eat other parts. My dad used to LOVE to eat pig's feet, but I could never bring myself to try those.


So I still see no correlation between my cat and a cow (or a pig or chicken) all having eyes and because I won't eat a cat (not because it has eyes, but because I have no desire to eat a cat) that I should likewise not eat a cow that also has eyes.    It is just a nonsensical argument.

[1imaginarygirl]

I had a dream a long time ago that I was eating a burger, and it had my dog's eyes in it. Every time I eat meat, I think of my burger looking back at me, and it makes me feel like a horrible person. I think, if you wouldn't eat your own pet, you shouldn't eat anything that ever had eyes. 

Aside from a dream that you had (and we all dream really weird stuff sometimes) what is the correlation between my cat and a cow and the fact that they both happen to have eyes?

Would you eat your cat? Why is it ok to eat one and not the other?

No I would not eat my cat. Yes I would happily eat a hamburger or a steak.  To be quite honest, I don't believe cats would taste very good and I have no real desire to try it. But cows, pigs, and chickens taste really good (in my opinion) and so I choose to eat them.  I don't eat their eyes, but I do eat other parts. My dad used to LOVE to eat pig's feet, but I could never bring myself to try those.


So I still see no correlation between my cat and a cow (or a pig or chicken) all having eyes and because I won't eat a cat (not because it has eyes, but because I have no desire to eat a cat) that I should likewise not eat a cow that also has eyes.    It is just a nonsensical argument.

I don't know what's confusing about this. My point is that everything that has eyes had a mother and is a sentient being - a cow, a pig, your cat, my dog, your child. We all feel the same feelings, love, attachment, pleasure, excitement, grief, pain, suffering. If you slit the throat of a dog, it's a felony. If you slit the throat of a pig, it's dinner. Why is it acceptable to take one animal's life and not another's? Why does that pig's right to live mean nothing?

[de3ik]

I don't think I would ever consider going vegan and would struggle to become a vegetarian to be honest. I admit I have a hefty sweet tooth and love fried chicken, burgers and pizza a bit too much to be able to transition to going to a diet that denied me being satisfied. I do eat salads, but eating them everyday would probably not be something I could ever get used to. I think the only way I would consider veganism is if I was forced to for health reasons. Venus Williams has a syndrome that makes her tired all the time and became vegan to extend her career and help her feel better. I would do it if only for a reason like hers.

[countrygirl12]

I had a dream a long time ago that I was eating a burger, and it had my dog's eyes in it. Every time I eat meat, I think of my burger looking back at me, and it makes me feel like a horrible person. I think, if you wouldn't eat your own pet, you shouldn't eat anything that ever had eyes. 

Aside from a dream that you had (and we all dream really weird stuff sometimes) what is the correlation between my cat and a cow and the fact that they both happen to have eyes?

Would you eat your cat? Why is it ok to eat one and not the other?

No I would not eat my cat. Yes I would happily eat a hamburger or a steak.  To be quite honest, I don't believe cats would taste very good and I have no real desire to try it. But cows, pigs, and chickens taste really good (in my opinion) and so I choose to eat them.  I don't eat their eyes, but I do eat other parts. My dad used to LOVE to eat pig's feet, but I could never bring myself to try those.


So I still see no correlation between my cat and a cow (or a pig or chicken) all having eyes and because I won't eat a cat (not because it has eyes, but because I have no desire to eat a cat) that I should likewise not eat a cow that also has eyes.    It is just a nonsensical argument.

lol.  I agree.  I saw chicken feet at Walmart the other day.  I was like WHO eats this?  Gross.  Someone told me it is popular among hispanics. 

[UGetPaid]

I don't know what's confusing about this. My point is that everything that has eyes had a mother and is a sentient being - a cow, a pig, your cat, my dog, your child. We all feel the same feelings, love, attachment, pleasure, excitement, grief, pain, suffering. If you slit the throat of a dog, it's a felony. If you slit the throat of a pig, it's dinner. Why is it acceptable to take one animal's life and not another's? Why does that pig's right to live mean nothing?

It's not so much that it's "confusing" as it just isn't a valid argument in my 'eyes'.


There is a difference between a human and an animal; there is a difference between a pet and something that is raised for the purpose of being someone else's food.  There is a difference between the evil that causes someone to torture another living thing or to violently kill and dismember it with no intention of consuming it and the humane slaughter of livestock for consumption.

[countrygirl12]

I AM EATING CHICKEN RIGHT NOW! lol

[1imaginarygirl]

I don't know what's confusing about this. My point is that everything that has eyes had a mother and is a sentient being - a cow, a pig, your cat, my dog, your child. We all feel the same feelings, love, attachment, pleasure, excitement, grief, pain, suffering. If you slit the throat of a dog, it's a felony. If you slit the throat of a pig, it's dinner. Why is it acceptable to take one animal's life and not another's? Why does that pig's right to live mean nothing?

It's not so much that it's "confusing" as it just isn't a valid argument in my 'eyes'.


There is a difference between a human and an animal; there is a difference between a pet and something that is raised for the purpose of being someone else's food.  There is a difference between the evil that causes someone to torture another living thing or to violently kill and dismember it with no intention of consuming it and the humane slaughter of livestock for consumption.

Humans ARE animals. We are all in the animal kingdom. There is only a difference between a pet and an animal raised for food because humans decided there is. But that argument doesn't work. Like Countrygirl said, other countries eat dogs, but it's illegal to eat a dog in the US. There are still parts of the world that eat humans. Can I raise human babies for consumption?

What is "humane" slaughter? That's an oxymoron.

[UGetPaid]

What is "humane" slaughter? That's an oxymoron.

Not at all. There are humane ways to kill animals meant for consumption and there are acts of violence when someone kills a dog only for the purpose of inflicting pain while killing the dog. Those are two completely different actions. One is perfectly moral and the other is sinfully immoral.

Purposely inflicting pain and suffering and taking delight in such depraved action is not the same thing as a quick and (hopefully) painless death prior to being processed in a meat packing plant.

Humans ARE animals. We are all in the animal kingdom. There is only a difference between a pet and an animal raised for food because humans decided there is. But that argument doesn't work.

Sure it does. Let's start with your premise that humans ARE animals. Yes - in the qualification you make afterward - humans technically are part of the animal kingdom; therefore, biologically they are animals. But you basically imply that humans are no different than or no more important than other animals. This is spiritually and scientifically untrue. There is a higher level of sentience, intelligence, awareness, reason, morals, ethics, sophistication (and on and on) in humans. By definition and nature, they are not equal. 

The rest of the animals are here to serve different purposes. Some are companions, some are beasts of burden, some are protein sources. We are obligated to take care of the other animals and to not kill or hurt them for violent or immoral motives (see my point above).  But we are also wired for self preservation (as many of the other members of the animal kingdom are). Many animals (including humans) can be both predator and prey depending on the situation. We all need to eat and to keep from being eaten. If it comes down to a choice between me and a cute fuzzy little bear - I choose to preserve me - sorry about your luck little bear.  (Certainly it is more than just my choice depending on the circumstances - cute little bear would likely make the alternate choice if given the option).

Humans and their evolutionary predecessors were carnivores by nature. We still are carnivores. Some may choose to go vegetarian or vegan, but that is still a choice. That does not all of a sudden render it immoral for the rest of us to decide to continue our tens of thousands of years nature to eat other animals to survive.

The choice to kill and eat pigs and cows and chickens rather than cats and dogs is also a longstanding societal construct tied in with our carnivore nature and the relationships we have developed for centuries and millennia with dogs and cats and the roles played by other farm and wild animals. This isn't someone in 2019 deciding: "hmmmm should I eat Fluffy or should I eat that piggy or should I just skip it and have a peanut butter sandwich?"

Like Countrygirl said, other countries eat dogs, but it's illegal to eat a dog in the US. There are still parts of the world that eat humans. Can I raise human babies for consumption?

I understand sarcasm, so I will not take this last question seriously.

[1imaginarygirl]

There are humane ways to kill animals meant for consumption and there are acts of violence when someone kills a dog only for the purpose of inflicting pain while killing the dog. Those are two completely different actions. One is perfectly moral and the other is sinfully immoral.

The definition of "humane" is characterized by tenderness and compassion. You cannot kill something with tenderness and compassion, except in the case of euthanasia, and in such case the animal cannot be used for consumption.

Let's start with your premise that humans ARE animals. Yes - in the qualification you make afterward - humans technically are part of the animal kingdom; therefore, biologically they are animals. But you basically imply that humans are no different than or no more important than other animals. This is spiritually and scientifically untrue. There is a higher level of sentience, intelligence, awareness, reason, morals, ethics, sophistication (and on and on) in humans. By definition and nature, they are not equal.

This can be considered an outdated and anthropocentric view. There are thousands of scientific studies on non-human animal sentience, intelligence, etc. The animal world is much more complex than we give it credit for, mostly because we do not yet understand it. Yes, I believe humans and animals are equal. Is each species unique? Absolutely. But uniqueness doesn't mean superiority. But let's suppose humans are superior in intelligence, ethics, sophistication. Why are we still slaughtering "lesser" beings? It doesn't sound very ethical or moral to me. We are not primitive men anymore, hunting and foraging for food in order to survive. Just because we did something a hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't mean it's right to continue it. We also used to burn "witches" and marry our cousins and keep slaves. Now we have the ability to not only grow our own vegetation, but even create food in a science lab. There is no reason to continue to cause suffering and harm when we have the knowledge and technology to eliminate it. That is where our "superiority" falls short.

[rob110]

Awesome, I agree meat for me.

[UGetPaid]

The definition of "humane" is characterized by tenderness and compassion. You cannot kill something with tenderness and compassion, except in the case of euthanasia, and in such case the animal cannot be used for consumption.

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but in doing so you are ignoring my point entirely.
There is a difference between (a) killing for pleasure and taking some sort of sick high out of causing pain and suffering; versus (b) killing for food and self preservation. 


I chose to make that distinction by using the term "humane". If you want to dissect a specific definition of that word and use that as your argument against my position, then there is no point in my attempt at clarification.

This can be considered an outdated and anthropocentric view. There are thousands of scientific studies on non-human animal sentience, intelligence, etc. The animal world is much more complex than we give it credit for, mostly because we do not yet understand it. Yes, I believe humans and animals are equal. Is each species unique? Absolutely. But uniqueness doesn't mean superiority. But let's suppose humans are superior in intelligence, ethics, sophistication. Why are we still slaughtering "lesser" beings? It doesn't sound very ethical or moral to me. We are not primitive men anymore, hunting and foraging for food in order to survive. Just because we did something a hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't mean it's right to continue it. We also used to burn "witches" and marry our cousins and keep slaves. Now we have the ability to not only grow our own vegetation, but even create food in a science lab.

I respect your opinion, but still disagree. Humans and animals are not equal, but if you believe otherwise, then there is no way I am going to change your mind. I'd do just as well to try changing the instinctive carnivorous nature of a lion or tiger or bear, OH MY! Not going to happen. Which ties in to my main point about carnivorous humans.


You make it sound like we can just flip an internal switch and turn off the instinctual craving for meat protein and completely replace that with chemically processed fake laboratory food. Good luck with that effort. It sounds remarkably similar to the ideas of a certain bartender turned congresswoman with a 12 year ticking doomsday clock who thinks we can eliminate all car and air travel and stop all the world's cows from farting and destroying our atmosphere. But it is not that simple.  (And if we stop eating all the cows, there will be even more cow farts to deal with!)


I'll give you this much. If we are eventually able to develop synthetic lab meat that acts and tastes and cooks exactly the same as the real thing... maybe we have a chance to wean ourselves off of real meat over the span of 20,000+ years (maybe even 10,000 if we really put our minds to it). But it is a bit shortsighted to suggest that from Monday to Tuesday we can overpower instinct with intellect simply because some people believe eating natural protein is offensive.  I mean no disrespect in saying this - it is hard to express that idea in written format without sounding like a condescending pompous *bleep*.  That it not where I am trying to come from but I fear it might be what I am projecting.


I think the incest, witch burning, and slavery analogies are comparing apples to oranges.  Do we have skeletons in our historical closets? Absolutely. Do we grow and evolve? You bet! But you can't just lump in all historically wrongful actions and blindly equate those to eating meat.  Slavery is wrong, plain and simple. Incest is both immoral and a bad genetic idea. Witch burning was close minded fanaticism and bigotry. There is nothing inherently evil about eating a chicken. 


This video will probably open up more cans of worms than it solves, but it is an interesting take nonetheless...

There is no reason to continue to cause suffering and harm when we have the knowledge and technology to eliminate it. That is where our "superiority" falls short.

So let's analyze this a bit. The entire planet stops eating meat 100%. In the span of just a few years, the population explosion from the unfettered reproduction of the pigs, cows, and chickens alone would be devastating.  Alternatively, look at deer hunting... (something that I do not do and have never done, but fully support the right of those who do) - what would happen to the deer population if left unchecked? Aside from those who would starve to death or get mangled on highways during mating season - deer would completely overrun the gardens where people are growing all of those much-more-worthwhile-to-eat vegetables. Then where would we be? All the vegans would starve from the food shortage (or more likely they would cease to be such self-righteous vegans).  Of course, I am exaggerating to make a point...


Point is = if someone is vegan and chooses to live that lifestyle - God Bless you and good luck and have at it. But to heck with anybody who tries to self-righteously force that philosophy on me or to find fault with me because I say I will kill and eat a chicken but I will not kill and eat my cat.  That conscious choice does not make any steak loving pet owner a hypocrite.

[dsosnowski06]

I am not a vegan but do try to eat a salad everyday.  We are eating less red meat and more chicken and fish.  Vegetables and fruit are usually a daily part of our dinner.

[1imaginarygirl]

There is a difference between (a) killing for pleasure and taking some sort of sick high out of causing pain and suffering; versus (b) killing for food and self preservation.

Maybe the difference is apparent to you, but it isn't to me. Killing another being is causing pain and suffering whether you enjoy doing it or not.

...my main point about carnivorous humans.

Humans are not carnivores. We are omnivores. We have teeth for both tearing meat and grinding grains and plants. But look at your canine teeth compared to your cat's canines. You would have a tough time severing the spinal cord of your prey with your teeny little canines. That being said, cats are obligate carnivores, meaning they NEED meat to survive. Humans CAN eat meat, but don't have to. Eating meat is just as much a choice as eating a vegetable.

There is nothing inherently evil about eating a chicken.

I believe the chicken would disagree.

I'm not trying to argue. Like I said before, I'm not even vegan (yet). But it's something I think about a lot, because I swore an oath to care for animals and alleviate their suffering when I became a vet tech. Eating meat, to me, is in disagreement with that oath and with the code of ethics. I try to have intelligent discussions with people about it, but what it always comes down to is: I won't give up meat because it tastes good. That's pretty sad.

[judylucas]

I eat a well balanced diet including meat vegetables fruit and desserts

[UGetPaid]

Maybe the difference is apparent to you, but it isn't to me. Killing another being is causing pain and suffering whether you enjoy doing it or not.

Well you say you aren't trying to be argumentative (and I believe you), but it is impossible for me to try to explain this point any further without becoming argumentative myself, so I will just drop it here. We obviously see things differently on this point. I just view self preservation and nourishment different from psychotic pain infliction.

Humans are not carnivores. We are omnivores. We have teeth for both tearing meat and grinding grains and plants.

You got me there. I admit that I [unintentionally] mischaracterized it. We eat both meat and plants. (As do cats if you really want to split hairs).  The point is that since the beginning of time, by nature, humans have been eating meat. It is still an instinctive and self-preservation driven action for humans to eat meat.  I stand by my comment that it isn't as easy as flipping a switch to change this behavior. As I said, it may happen in 10,000+ years, but not overnight.

There is nothing inherently evil about eating a chicken.

I believe the chicken would disagree.
***
I try to have intelligent discussions with people about it, but what it always comes down to is: I won't give up meat because it tastes good. That's pretty sad.

If you cannot understand (I'm not saying agree with but just understand) my first point about the difference between a malicious motive and a nourishment motive in killing an animal - then I wouldn't expect you to say anything different about killing chickens. So I am not conceding to you on this point - but I am realistic enough to know that I am not going to get you to see my perspective - or to be able to fully express it clearly in this forum.


I hope that we are having an intelligent conversation about this. There is more to it than just tasting good, although that is a big part of it. It does not make anyone less of a person to make the choice to eat a pig and it does not make someone a bigger person to make the choice to only eat vegetables. Intentional or not, this is the opinion I usually feel is projected upon meat eaters by vegan/vegetarians. If the vegan lifestyle is right for you, have at it. But it is not right for me and I do not see any moral dilemma in the lifestyle that I live.