Veggie / Vegan Discussion

[henryscat]

I've created a separate thread, in the first instance, to respond to some issues raised on the "I'm going veggie" thread to keep that one on topic. Since the moral issues often crop periodically on other threads, they could be added here, plus any other discussion that people may wish to have.

Hope that sounds OK.

 

[henryscat]

Re eggs, I didn't use to eat them. But now I keep my own hens. The birds are happy and living totally natural, free-range lives. A bit too free range to be honest - they prefer laying their eggs in the hedge and the spaniels and I have to go on an egg hunt every day. The eggs are infertile, so would not develop into chicks. Loads nicer than anything you can buy in the shops. Win, win. Or cheep cheep.

I'd gently suggest that keeping your own hens still raises some potential concerns. I wouldn't doubt that they are well looked after in terms of the home that you give them, but there are a couple of moral issues that arise. I don't know exactly where you got your hens from, but at the risk ot stating the obvious, only females can lay eggs - what happened to their brothers? Whether in a commercial context or not, male chickens are killed.

Even if they were "rescued" hens, this then comes on to the issue of taking a hen's eggs in any context. It isn't a natural state of affairs for their eggs to be continually taken - it interrupts the nesting process, disrupts natural behaviour, can cause stress, and causes nutrient deficiency (laying an egg takes an awful lot of effort for a hen and causing them to lay so many eggs will literally wear them out).

I found this article "A Hen's Relationship with Her Eggs" interesting: http://gentleworld.org/a-chickens-relationship-with-her-eggs/

and a couple of other links:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/matt...ickens-ethical-considerations/390943384273595

http://www.theveganwoman.com/is-it-ethical-to-eat-eggs-from-home-grown-chickens/

If you have a read, you might find them interesting.

 

[henryscat]

Our personal reason is due to the unnecessary cruelty of all the animals in the intensive factory farming system, plus the inefficient use of the worlds resources; mainly the first one though.

I'm pretty sure that had organic free range meat ( like those lucky pigs that I see free range on my way to Tamworth), I would have gone free range meat, but this type of meat was hard to find in the early 80's. Couldn't go back to eating meat now and have reared a whole family as veggie's, healthiest kids and adults we know

I think it is important to say that cruelty is by no means limited to factory farming, though some of the more sustained cruelty is more prevalent on the factory farming system.

I certainly wouldn't say the pigs at Packington Farm are "lucky". They will still be subject to some of the same practices e.g. castration as in intensive farms. They are still going to be killed at a few months old, they will be transported in the same way, and end up in the same slaughterhouse going through the same fear and have their life ended as horrifically as a factory farmed pig. Organic or free range is just a label, that doesn't change the morality - and it comes back to: we don't need to eat an animal, they are sentient and have a right not to be property.

As I added before, cruelty is not limited to the meat industry. Dairy and eggs involve as much suffering as meat - there is no difference between drinking a glass of milk and eating a sausage.

 

[kyoto49]

I think it is important to say that cruelty is by no means limited to factory farming, though some of the more sustained cruelty is more prevalent on the factory farming system.

I certainly wouldn't say the pigs at Packington Farm are "lucky". They will still be subject to some of the same practices e.g. castration as in intensive farms. They are still going to be killed at a few months old, they will be transported in the same way, and end up in the same slaughterhouse going through the same fear and have their life ended as horrifically as a factory farmed pig. Organic or free range is just a label, that doesn't change the morality - and it comes back to: we don't need to eat an animal, they are sentient and have a right not to be property.

As I added before, cruelty is not limited to the meat industry. Dairy and eggs involve as much suffering as meat - there is no difference between drinking a glass of milk and eating a sausage.

It depends on your perspective and why you went Veggie. I personally do not feel it is morally wrong to eat meat. What I find morally wrong is to treat an animal that will eventually be slaughtered badly; unnecessary cruely that sees animals suffering day in day out just so they can make a few extra pence profit for the farmer and a few pennies cheaper for the 'housewife'!

As far as I'm concerned so long as an animal has lived a pain free life where it has had chance to express natural behaviours, and is then slaughtered in a guaranteed pain free manner then I'm OK with that. I chose not to eat meat, but don't find the free range meat abhorrent to me.

I agree that cruelty is cruelty, but I also think there is a big difference in levels of cruelty between a free range hen and a pig in a sow crate. I'll be castrating my dog, do you think that's cruel? I personally think it's the responsible thing to do in a world where there is already an excess of dogs spending day after day in small concrete kennels before the inevitable PTS sign is raised.

You gotta understand that your views are extreme and not everyone feels the need to be so extreme, that doesn't nor should it reduce the importance of any steps others make towards reducing their impact on animal cruelty. I would prefer it if everyone stopped eating meat, but that's not my decision to make and it's not anybody else's place to dictate either. If people know what suffering these animals go through and are still happy to eat meat then that's on them and their conscience.

What's that saying, "teach, not preach"!

 

[henryscat]

It depends on your perspective and why you went Veggie. I personally do not feel it is morally wrong to eat meat. What I find morally wrong is to treat an animal that will eventually be slaughtered badly; unnecessary cruely that sees animals suffering day in day out just so they can make a few extra pence profit for the farmer and a few pennies cheaper for the 'housewife'!

As far as I'm concerned so long as an animal has lived a pain free life where it has had chance to express natural behaviours, and is then slaughtered in a guaranteed pain free manner then I'm OK with that. I chose not to eat meat, but don't find the free range meat abhorrent to me.

Would you agree that humans have a moral obligation not to impose unnecessary suffering on animals?

Your statements that it is not "morally wrong to eat meat" and then the ones about not suffering/pain free/unnecessary cruelty are in fact at odds with one another.

I also assume that you eat dairy - where the conditions you set out as being a requirement of "pain free life" and "expressing natural behaviours" are completely contravened.

I agree that cruelty is cruelty, but I also think there is a big difference in levels of cruelty between a free range hen and a pig in a sow crate.

If you investigate what "free range" actually really means in terms of when that label can be used, I think you might be surprised. That said, lets draw an analogy - if someone said committing rape using drugs and a five star hotel room was a "big difference" to committing rape in a back alley, then you'd be quite rightly outraged. In both cases an immoral act is committed - it matters not that in the first instance that the surroundings were more comfortable, it doesn't make moral an immoral act.

I'll be castrating my dog, do you think that's cruel? I personally think it's the responsible thing to do in a world where there is already an excess of dogs spending day after day in small concrete kennels before the inevitable PTS sign is raised.

If you castrated your dog in the same way as happens to a pig on a farm, then yes it would be. Obviously that won't be the case and I agree it is a sensible course of action in the circumstances.

You gotta understand that your views are extreme and not everyone feels the need to be so extreme, that doesn't nor should it reduce the importance of any steps others make towards reducing their impact on animal cruelty.

Nope, nope and nope again. There is nothng extreme about veganism. By any definition, how is rejecting violence and discrimination extreme? Look at it in the cold light of day: which is more extreme - rejecting violence and harm to others or being responsible every day for exploitation/suffering/death of animals that humans have no need of eating? If you are truly honest about this, you cannot seriously maintain with any justifcation that being vegan is "extreme". You may choose to reject veganism, but that does not make it extreme.

If we replace animal cruelty with domestic violence in the latter bit of your statement, what would be your reaction be to "you've got to recognise that people committing domestic violence won't stop beating their partners overnight, and you've got to recognise the importance of any steps they take to reduce their domestic violence"? This is not an issue that exists on a scale, either animals matter and you don't exploit them or you believe they don't matter at all.

I would prefer it if everyone stopped eating meat, but that's not my decision to make and it's not anybody else's place to dictate either. If people know what suffering these animals go through and are still happy to eat meat then that's on them and their conscience.

Again, lets just substitute into that statement: "I would prefer it if everyone stopped using slaves, but that's not my decision to make... if people know what suffering these slaves go through and are still happy to use slaves then that's on them". Nobody would say that the anti slavery movement were wrong to challenge the decisions that others were making to perpetuate the slave trade.

Eating animals is only a "choice" in that society allows it. You are free to choose to hold racist views. That choice says nothing of morality. I believe it is morally incumbent upon anyone who is vegan to educate others.

Just to add, since it is a criticism often levelled here, I am not in any way attempting to judge individuals here so what I say isn't meant personally, but I think it is important to firmly challenge on the issues raised as a whole and for that discussion to take place.

 

[Bob]

Why is it you're job as a vegan to educate others?

As mentioned in the post in the other thread - poking a vegetarian with a plate full of burgers not being appropriate, maybe that same level of courtesy should work both ways.

I agree with Kyoto, you're views are extreme, when you consider 'the norm' but not only that, the way you voice your views are also extreme. You can't leave a comment alone if there is any way, shape or form that it could possibly be turned into a debate about the morality of eating meat.

I appreciate your last comment, very often your posts appear personal and judgemental.

 

[Roland]

The vast majority of pigs are no longer castrated.

 

[kyoto49]

Would you agree that humans have a moral obligation not to impose unnecessary suffering on animals?

Your statements that it is not "morally wrong to eat meat" and then the ones about not suffering/pain free/unnecessary cruelty are in fact at odds with one another.

I also assume that you eat dairy - where the conditions you set out as being a requirement of "pain free life" and "expressing natural behaviours" are completely contravened.



If you investigate what "free range" actually really means in terms of when that label can be used, I think you might be surprised. That said, lets draw an analogy - if someone said committing rape using drugs and a five star hotel room was a "big difference" to committing rape in a back alley, then you'd be quite rightly outraged. In both cases an immoral act is committed - it matters not that in the first instance that the surroundings were more comfortable, it doesn't make moral an immoral act.



If you castrated your dog in the same way as happens to a pig on a farm, then yes it would be. Obviously that won't be the case and I agree it is a sensible course of action in the circumstances.



Nope, nope and nope again. There is nothng extreme about veganism. By any definition, how is rejecting violence and discrimination extreme? Look at it in the cold light of day: which is more extreme - rejecting violence and harm to others or being responsible every day for exploitation/suffering/death of animals that humans have no need of eating? If you are truly honest about this, you cannot seriously maintain with any justifcation that being vegan is "extreme". You may choose to reject veganism, but that does not make it extreme.

If we replace animal cruelty with domestic violence in the latter bit of your statement, what would be your reaction be to "you've got to recognise that people committing domestic violence won't stop beating their partners overnight, and you've got to recognise the importance of any steps they take to reduce their domestic violence"? This is not an issue that exists on a scale, either animals matter and you don't exploit them or you believe they don't matter at all.



Again, lets just substitute into that statement: "I would prefer it if everyone stopped using slaves, but that's not my decision to make... if people know what suffering these slaves go through and are still happy to use slaves then that's on them". Nobody would say that the anti slavery movement were wrong to challenge the decisions that others were making to perpetuate the slave trade.

Eating animals is only a "choice" in that society allows it. You are free to choose to hold racist views. That choice says nothing of morality. I believe it is morally incumbent upon anyone who is vegan to educate others.

Just to add, since it is a criticism often levelled here, I am not in any way attempting to judge individuals here so what I say isn't meant personally, but I think it is important to firmly challenge on the issues raised as a whole and for that discussion to take place.

Henryscat, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that's exactly what they are opinions. Your views are extreme (to say the least), but you just can't assign your own morality to everyone else; people have their own value system. If they think eating eggs is OK, then that is their perogative. If they think eating free range meat is OK, despite some minor welfare issues, then that is up to them. I personally can't get on board with people who genuinely don't give a shit about animal welfare, but I suspect sadly that the majority of the public don't, not really, not when it comes to the choice between a nice bacon sandwich or a pigs welfare , but we should respect other's views, not impose our own.

I think of it more like this, and it's a horrible manufactured saying, "Be the change you want to see". So I would like factory farmed animals to disappear from the face of this earth, all animals bred for meat should be free range and treated with proper respect no matter what the cost. As such, I don't support the intensive meat system with my hard earned pounds. You disagree, that's fair enough, but my beliefs can't be wrong just because you apply your world view to it.

 

[henryscat]

Henryscat, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that's exactly what they are opinions. Your views are extreme (to say the least), but you just can't assign your own morality to everyone else; people have their own value system.

I think a few things need to be made clear. Most importantly, you cannot call abstaining from causing harm to others "extreme" - that is not a matter of opinion, it is false to claim it. If you'd like to explain why abstaining from causing harm is extreme then I would be genuinely interested in the explanation - but I cannot think of what that explanation might be.

If you're prepared to have the discussion, veganism can be brought back to commonly held moral beliefs - not ones that are exclusively held by vegans, ones that are held by most of the population. Its why I asked you the question of whether it is wrong to cause unnecessary harm to an animal. Most people who eat animal products will answer that yes it is. That isn't a moral belief that I have determined, it is one that is almost universally accepted. Based upon consistent application of what people already believe (not what I or anyone else have told them), being vegan is the only logical conclusion. Just as the morality or rape is not considered a "matter of opinion", the morality of causing unnecessary harm to animals is not a matter of opinion either. To reiterate - I am not assigning my own morality, but what I am doing is highlighting the moral schizophrenia that exists in people's treatment of animals and consistently applying moral beliefs that most people already hold.

If they think eating eggs is OK, then that is their perogative. If they think eating free range meat is OK, despite some minor welfare issues, then that is up to them. I personally can't get on board with people who genuinely don't give a shit about animal welfare, but I suspect sadly that the majority of the public don't, not really, not when it comes to the choice between a nice bacon sandwich or a pigs welfare , but we should respect other's views, not impose our own.

This is not a benign issue, the decision to consume animal products imposes harm on others - that isn't an opinion, it is a fact. It is not a case of someone holding "a view" that doesn't have external consequences, people's decision to impose harm and an injustice on non-humans demands a reaction. Nobody would have told those opposing the slave trade that they should "respect the views" of those perpetrating it, nobody tells those upholding human rights to "respect the views" of regimes that fail to recognise basic human rights. On the same basis, you cannot reasonably expect those upholding animal rights to ignore the harm being imposed.

You refer to "welfare" quite a bit - and I think it is important to point out there is a lot of difference between the welfarist and abolitionist approach to animals. Welfarism does not recognise animal rights. I am firmly in the abolitionist approach. If you'd like to read about the difference between the two, I'll find some links.

I think of it more like this, and it's a horrible manufactured saying, "Be the change you want to see". So I would like factory farmed animals to disappear from the face of this earth, all animals bred for meat should be free range and treated with proper respect no matter what the cost. As such, I don't support the intensive meat system with my hard earned pounds. You disagree, that's fair enough, but my beliefs can't be wrong just because you apply your world view to it.

As a purely economic matter, intensive farming is not going to disappear as long as people consume animal products, it is completely unrealistic to think otherwise.

I think it also worth quickly mentioning dairy again - which violates the principles that you (not I!) put forward that you said you wished to adhere to in both your previous and earlier post.

 

[henryscat]

Surely if the eating of the sausage (say) is pleasurable, and it doesn't do you any harm, what does it matter what went into it?

Like all this nonsense about eating horse when they thought it was a beefburger. What's that all about? They've obviously enjoyed the experience as they've presumably been buying those burgers for years.

All of it goes to highlight more inconsistencies in the way that people think about animals. Anyone who was upset about eating horse if they thought about it for more than a split second would realise that they need to stop eating any animal since there no difference between eating a horse and a pig.

 

[henryscat]

Why is it you're job as a vegan to educate others?

As mentioned in the post in the other thread - poking a vegetarian with a plate full of burgers not being appropriate, maybe that same level of courtesy should work both ways.

As I've answered elsewhere, the short answer is people do not expect others to be silent in response to injustice - in fact, most would go as far as saying that being silent rather than acting would be wrong. Animal rights is no different. Advocating the rights of others is not a discourtesy.

I agree with Kyoto, you're views are extreme, when you consider 'the norm' but not only that, the way you voice your views are also extreme.

Again, I'll answer the same as I have before - non-violence and abstaining from causing harm cannot in any reasonable sense be called extreme. The "norm" for many people may well be eating meat, but that still does not equate to vegans being "extreme".

 

[Noah]

Again, I'll answer the same as I have before - non-violence and abstaining from causing harm cannot in any reasonable sense be called extreme. The "norm" for many people may well be eating meat, but that still does not equate to vegans being "extreme".

The problem is that you are your own worse advocate and you tend to do the vegetarian/vegan cause no good at all because of the way you express yourself.

I don't think that anyone is saying that non-violence and abstaining from causing harm are extreme. What they are saying is that the way you put your views over is extreme, not that the views themselves are extreme.

 

[henryscat]

The problem is that you are your own worse advocate and you tend to do the vegetarian/vegan cause no good at all because of the way you express yourself.

What I will say is this. I do a lot in the way of vegan education and have many positive and engaging conversations with people that walk away going vegan. Whatever anyone thinks of how I communicate (and I think there are a small number on here who aren't actually prepared to engage in a sensible and positive discussion), that does not change one bit the moral position. In other words, it is a pretty poor and invalid excuse for anyone to say "well I'm eating meat because of what you said".

I don't think that anyone is saying that non-violence and abstaining from causing harm are extreme. What they are saying is that the way you put your views over is extreme, not that the views themselves are extreme.

I appreciate you recognise that non-violence is not extreme, but just to direct quote, others did say precisely that (and have been silent on it since):

Your views are extreme (to say the least)

I agree with Kyoto, you're views are extreme

At the end of the day, the aim should be to have constructive discussion and whilst a lot is said about the morality of the act of eating animals/animal products, that isn't passing judgement on individuals. However, I do think there are those that don't wish for that and others who do. Yes, I sometimes do put things over in a strong way, but then again it is a very serious issue. I recognise that a lot of people are uncomfortable being challenged about something they've done their whole lives, along with inconsistencies like loving the family dog but sticking a fork in a dead pig, and I do think that is where a lot of the "extreme" allegation in whatever context comes from.

With the exception of the few people that you will always get with anything, I do not believe that the majority of meat eaters are evil individuals who don't care about animals. Most (not all though) do care about animals, but for one reason and another don't join all of the dots...

 

[Bob]

Why did you quote me out of context?

What I said was.....

"I agree with Kyoto, you're views are extreme, when you consider 'the norm' "

You basically just said exactly what I did but used a fraction of my quote to imply I was saying something different.

 

[henryscat]

Why did you quote me out of context?

What I said was.....

"I agree with Kyoto, you're views are extreme, when you consider 'the norm' "

You basically just said exactly what I did but used a fraction of my quote to imply I was saying something different.

I did consider the "norm" part of your comment, and though I am not entirely clear on what the "norm" is defined as - what other people do still isn't a measure by which to say being vegan is extreme.

 

[kyoto49]

I did consider the "norm" part of your comment, and though I am not entirely clear on what the "norm" is defined as - what other people do still isn't a measure by which to say being vegan is extreme.

Well the discussion is about being a vegetarian/vegan so in the context of the society we live in the norm would be someone who eats at least some meat. Given that the definition of extreme is "furthest from the centre or a given point.", your views on animals and their role in our diet is extreme, i.e, you are furthest from the norm as the norm is someone who eats at least some meat.

I find the tone of your posts aggressive, You preach, you make no attempt to see things from other people's point of view or perspective. Because you see the ideal of doing no harm as what should be the norm you seem to be unable to understand or comprehend that that isn't actually societies norm at all.

And on that note "I'm out"

 

[littleme]

Am I the only person who doesn't think that Henryscats posts are extreme?!

I'm not vegetarian/vegan, I'm a confirmed meat eater, but I do find Henryscats posts interesting & informative, I have occasions where I ask questions (ie why is it ok for vegetarians to eat eggs?) & he always gives good answers, but if the answer doesn't suit/ effect me then I simply take the answer as 'that's your opinion, mine is different & while it has given me something to think about & we beg to differ, I'll still move on', I don't get irate just because someone else has a different opinion!

Give Henryscat a break! This is his thread to discuss being/becoming a vegetarian or vegan.

 

[Withnail]

No.

 

[Gramaisc]

Am I the only person who doesn't think that Henryscats posts are extreme?!

No.

..or..

Give Henryscat a break! This is his thread to discuss being/becoming a vegetarian or vegan.

No.

I know what you mean, but confusion may be possible..

 

[Withnail]

Good point - nobody likes confusion.

littleme is not alone.