Why vegetarianism?

[rational experiences]

I've been both a meat eater and vegetarian.

I would not kill anything. I try to be unconditional love where it does not exist.

As we live in New places with new laws as new conditions. Earth.

Animals eat animals for survival sustenance of iron based flesh mass.

As earths iron based origins are now atmospheric depleted in waters mineral mass.

Hence once animal types by body forms hadn't been flesh eaters on earth adapted body type.

Life changed on earth as nuclear science changed mass of metals of earth. And holy life water. The microbe food body once existing for a supported vegetarian life eradicated to carbon mass.

So we began to sustain life by meat eating like animals. As our bio nature had changed.

We now can eat either food types just as animals do...so it's not outside of any law.

Yet unlike animal attack man realised he could eat meat in a holy way. Causing as little pain or suffering by keeping himself above that of animal consciousness.

We were taught if you take a beasts life you honour it by eating it. Don't waste food. As men do kill meat I'm not guilty of eating meat.

But I would not kill myself.

If we let the beast run freely you'd have to euthanaise the overthrow of its population. Doesn't make vegetarians righteous.

And cow farts methane problem is caused ...not by cows farting but by mans science altering earths mass converting it inside our heavens to release methane unnaturally.

By breaking earths rock stone fusion law mass. Already a historic known cause of man's science taking fusion past natural bases.

 

[Valjean]

97% of US beef comes from feedlots, and corn is the main food. Lots of other grains can be grown where corn is grown.

Most of the maize grown here in the states goes to feeding livestock, as a matter of fact, and the industry involves a lot of other deleterious effects, as well.

Feed conversion ratios make the meat and dairy inefficient, as do water ratios, with something like 56% of water usage in the US going to raise livestock. Enteric and manure fermentation significantly contribute to global warming, as well. Then there is the disposal problem of massive quantities of untreated manure and urine.

 

[Jimmy]

What "other stuff" is that, which vegans have to eat? Wouldn't just dropping the meat, and eating more of the grains, veggies and fruits you already eat make you a proper vegan?

I eat more than enough of those. Thinking about eating more makes me wanna puke

 

[Shaul]

97% of US beef comes from feedlots, and corn is the main food. Lots of other grains can be grown where corn is grown.

A half truth, at best. Most U.S. cows are fed on grazing lands for most of their lives and only fed corn products briefly at the end of their lives to fatten up. They spend years eating grasses on pasture land and then a few scant weeks at the feed lot eating by-products. Also it isn't usable corn they are fed there. They are fed the parts of the corn that humans can't eat. Things like the stalks and the corn cobs and corn that is unfit for human consumption.

 

[Father Heathen]

Ask the experts who wrote the article in a peer reviewed science journal.

That doesn't explain why you're allowing yourself to be triggered by other people's dietary choices.

 

[John53]

I find myself eating less meat as I age, not so long back it was red meat most nights, now it's a couple of times a month. I eat more fish these days.

 

[Valjean]

A half truth, at best. Most U.S. cows are fed on grazing lands for most of their lives and only fed corn products briefly at the end of their lives to fatten up. They spend years eating grasses on pasture land and then a few scant weeks at the feed lot eating by-products. Also it isn't usable corn they are fed there. They are fed the parts of the corn that humans can't eat. Things like the stalks and the corn cobs and corn that is unfit for human consumption.

Yes, they might eat silage, but the whole point of the feedlots is a final 'finishing' -- on water-intensive hay, other 'roughage', and whole grains.

Most beef cattle, that aren't bred, are slaughtered at < two years old, as soon as they make make weight. Feeding a fully grown cow is a waste of money.
Breeders may last several years. 2/3ds of calves end up veal.

Dairy cows fare little better. After two or three years, milk production decreases. They go to slaughter and are replaced with young, productive cows.

 

[We Never Know]

That doesn't explain why you're allowing yourself to be triggered by other people's dietary choices.

"That doesn't explain why you're allowing yourself to be triggered by other people's dietary choices"

Do meat eaters trigger you?
Why?

 

[Father Heathen]

"That doesn't explain why you're allowing yourself to be triggered by other people's dietary choices"

Do meat eaters trigger you?
Why?

Oh, ffs...

Considering that I haven't said anything negative about eating meat, and in fact eat it myself, what would prompt such a silly question?

 

[We Never Know]

Oh, ffs...

Considering that I haven't said anything negative about eating meat, and in fact eat it myself, what would prompt such a silly question?

Just asking

 

[Father Heathen]

Just asking

Just asking a loaded question.

 

[We Never Know]

Just asking a loaded question.

If mine was loaded so was yours

 

[Father Heathen]

If mine was loaded so was yours

How? My question directly related to his posts, which you can read for yourself.

 

[We Never Know]

How? My question directly related to his posts, which you can read for yourself.

Ok

 

[idea]

Are the carniverous animals moral agents?
Do they have dietary alternatives? Do they have sufficient theory of mind to grasp their prey animals' view of the situation? Can they understand the moral implications of killing another sentient being?

Either they are unintelligent and therefore ok to kill - or - they are intelligent murderers and therefore ok to kill.

Why should I feel bad eating a (organic safely raised) fish if that fish goes around eating other fish? Do unto others as they do unto themselves

 

[Valjean]

Either they are unintelligent and therefore ok to kill - or - they are intelligent murderers and therefore ok to kill.

Why is intelligence the sine qua non? Is there an intelligence-based, right-to-life hierarchy? Is there a dim to bright hierarchy of moral consideration?

In post #66 I mentioned "qualities that withhold me from harming or causing suffering" in others. Intelligence is not one of those qualities.

Why should I feel bad eating a (organic safely raised) fish if that fish goes around eating other fish? Do unto others as they do unto themselves

False equivalence.
Read post #67. A fish is not a moral agent, we are.

Do you blame the bullet for a murder?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Crops are grown to feed wild deer? Not on purpose!

We're talking about farm animals, not wild ones. Around half to over half of what cattle eat is products grown for them to eat, or it's the by-products of other crops grown - but unfit for - human consumption. I mean, if all the animals we ate were wild, there wouldn't be the mass farming that is one of the biggest reasons people choose vegetarian diets.

And that cow can be raised on grass and hay, you know.

Just under half a cow's diet is grass, and hay has to be grown for them to consume it. Do you honestly believe that raising cattle doesn't involve feeding them? You think cows grow to the size they do purely on grass and hay?

Anyway if you are gonna be consistent as a vegetarian, you should only eat food that doesn't kill anything in production. If that actually exists.

This makes no sense and proffers a lot of assumptions.

"Consistency" depends entirely on WHY someone is doing it. A lot of vegetarians simply don't like killing animals, but accept that there are certain life form's deaths that are unavoidable in the production of lots of products.

However, these days the major objection to eating meat has less to do with a principled stand regarding animals as it does the methods of farming and mass production that do tremendous harm to the environment and contribute massively to global warming. In that sense, it's very easy to be consistent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The answer is it could be zero. It actually depends on what you choose to feed them. Most animal feed is not "crops". Most animal feed is vegetable by-products that humans cannot eat. Indeed, if these were not fed to livestock the materials would just be wasted.

False. Actually, only a minority of what we give them is by-products. The majority is purpose-grown hay and grains.

In any case, their suitability for human consumption isn't the point. The point is that those products still have to be grown, and in doing so we kill lots of animals and insects, so the argument that I was responding to was fallacious.

I know there is a meme popular in vegetarian circles about how much acreage it takes to produce the feed for livestock, and how if we used it for crops instead we could feed more people, etc. But it ignores some inconvenient facts. Livestock typically are grazed on land that is not suitable for crops. Think hill sides grazed by sheep or arid shrub lands without the water for crops but fine for cattle to graze upon.

I've never heard the argument that we could "feed more people" if we used the land to grow crops fit for human consumption. We already have enough food for people to eat, so why would we need more? The argument is more about the environmental damage caused by farms, and that re-wilding these areas would produce a lot of good.

The bottom line is that livestock and agriculture aren't competitors but symbiotic partners more often.

True. But that's not the argument.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In this context 'non-essential' just means you won't die without it.

It doesn't mean skipping them is a good idea.

Except TH specifically said all seven were "essential". That was the argument I was responding to.

 

[RestlessSoul]

From what some people write and believe about vegetarianism, I am obviously dead. And here I thought I was alive. Oh well.

You're obviously not healthy. Even if you are.