Veggie hypocrites

I've never understood vegetarians. Their entire philosophy seems in contradiction to itself, and just silly. And their holier-than-thou attitude is goddamned annoyingly arrogant. I am curious about many things regarding this, so I'm willing to listen and learn.

So, what's the deal? I'll allow you "higher forms of humanity" to attempt to enlighten me--a mere savage--here and now. (Yeah, I eat animal flesh and love it. I wear leather and love it. I don't feel at all guilty about this in anyway. It seems perfectly logical and natural to me.)

Why is it 'wrong' for me to follow my instincts, as an animal, as a carnivore/omnivore, and eat that which humans have always eaten?

Why do some vegetarians eat fish and think that's okay? Are fish really just wiggly plants?

Why is it NOT wrong to eat plants? Are plants not forms of life too? Don't they react when cut, in effect, demonstrating that they're aware of injury (which is what all pain really is--a physical manifestation of sensing and reacting to extreme stress)? How the hell can you rationalize that "murdering" animals is not good but that "using" plants is okay?

When you chop up lettuce and ingest it, you're killing life. Fact. How do you feel about that? Don't you feel like a hypocrite? Wouldn't it be better to eat only that which doesn't directly or indirectly kill any life (like, uh, salt and water)...or do you enjoy living too much to stop yourself from destroying forms of life?


Thank you for your time.

 

Plants are not sentient creatures that feel pain and have emotions. Animals are. That's not being hypocrytical, that's just a fact.

 

heard all this before...
man i don't care what you do
go out kill something and eat it, and i too shall go out and slaughter some lettuce
ever heard of the song 'carrot juice is murder' its pretty funny and my family loves to sing it for me
i have NEVER had a holier-than-thou attitude
i'm sure alot of people (if not most) on these forums know a hell of a lot more than me
i don't think fish is ok
and maybe i am a hypocrite that i eat some foods that i'm sure have red dye 40 or whatever it is, but i try to be the best person i can be
isn't that al anyone can do, meat eater or not
people seriously need to stop caring what others do with their lives

Thank you for your time.

 

Duncelor,

You are very assumptious aren't you my friend?

You assume that all vegetarians have a "holier-than-thou attitude".

Well hello, I am a vegetarian, I have no problem with your decision to eat meat. If you truly feel happier eating meat then I say okay, I am glad you are happy.

"Why is it 'wrong' for me to follow my instincts, as an animal, as a carnivore/omnivore, and eat that which humans have always eaten?"

It isn't 'wrong' it is your decision, no one is stopping you. But humans haven't ALWAYS eaten a mix of meat and vegetables, many cultures and peoples have been vegetarian for many different reasons for thousands of years. Don't believe me? Go to India...

"Why do some vegetarians eat fish and think that's okay? Are fish really just wiggly plants?"

Vegetarians (in it's truest definition) don't eat fish.

"Why is it NOT wrong to eat plants? Are plants not forms of life too? Don't they react when cut, in effect, demonstrating that they're aware of injury (which is what all pain really is--a physical manifestation of sensing and reacting to extreme stress)? How the hell can you rationalize that "murdering" animals is not good but that "using" plants is okay?"

1.) Plants aren't considered sentient beings. This is an established fact in the realms of most philosophies, religions and modern science.
2.) I disagree with your view on pain and suffering. I think it goes something more along the lines of; http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm
3.) We have to eat something or we'll starve to death.

Fact; Sentient life suffers in the process of making food in one way or another. Being vegetarian limits the amount of suffering (and ultimately death) certain sentient beings have to go through, being vegan limits this even further. Neither erradicate the suffering of sentient beings entirely but it helps somewhat.

So now my friend do you still feel so much anger towards me? Do you still choose to label me "arrogant"?

You see this is what happens when you let your anger and personal insecurities dominate you. You start putting people into different 'boxes' and attaching labels to them. This is an extremely narrow minded way of looking at the world and will only lead to suffering.

I hope this has been a positive lesson for you.

 

indian~summer, I really don't care what people do with their lives as long they don't bother others, or attempt to judge others for doing normal, natural stuff in life.

Okay, I see now: only hurting is wrong, not killing? What if a chicken is gassed without any pain whatsoever? Is that okay, since no pain was involved?

And only killing things with emotions is wrong? And how do you come to this conclusion?

Also, you're wrong: sentience means only the ability to feel and *sense* things. Plants and animals are lifeforms with similar systems, merely expressed biologically in different ways. I cut an animal, the injury is detected, and blood comes out. I cut a tree, the injury is detected, and sap comes out. In both cases the lifeform reacts and begins to regenerate--clear evidence that plants not only sense injury but react to it by repairing the damage.

Edit: Peterness:
"sentient

/sensh’nt/

• adjective able to perceive or feel things."

 

Your point?

You wont even acknowledge my post, let alone apologise?

 

lol, this is an ignorant thread.........why did anyone even waste time posting such ridiculous drivel

 

correct. I need plants to survive. I don't need to eat animals to survive. So while I may be ending life, I am not needlessly ending it. (keep in mind also that when you eat many vegetables/fruits, you are not actually killing the plant it came from - just the fruit part of the plant)
I prefer to do as little killing as possible.

 

A bit preachy when you claim you aren't holier-than-thou, don't you think?

 

I'll point out that not eating animals would (if the places where food animals are grown were natural) disrupt the food chain. Food for thought, pun intended.

 

In most modern countries though, it would disrupt the slaughterhouses more than any natural food chain. We put the animals there, nature didnt.

 

so what exactly is your point in this thread?
you obviously care enough to make a thread about it
so...are you not yourself being hypocritical in judging others (which you say you don't want people to do), presuming that everyone who is a vegetarian is hyporcrtical and act above themselves?
and please enlighten me as to what exactly is 'normal, natural stuff in life'?

 

Wow, arrogance incarnate.

1. I was rushed for time and your post wasn't even there when I replied to the others.

2. Who's assuming too much now?

3. If you want an apology, just hold your breath and wish-wish-wish really hard and it just might happen!

1. There are no established facts in philosophy.
2. There are no established facts in religion (there are no facts whatsoever; religion is based in faith, which is irrational in essence).
3. Sources on modern science regarding this "fact?"

Sentient life suffers all the time. Step out of your bubble and observe wildlife in a secluded region for a month or two; it's harsh and very cruel. The weak die, so do the sick, if they are not devoured alive first. All animals suffer--it's part of the process that keeps a species strong.

Which is more repulsive to you: killing and eating a cute little bunny or killing and eating an ugly, aggressive reptile? Just curious.

Anyway, death is part of life for all living things. Plants are killed by herbivores, who are eaten by carnivores, and both are eaten by omnivores. This is the way it's been for billions of years on this planet, before a group of balding apes decided to invent morality.

Trying to rationalize that plants don't feel anything (thus it's okay to eat them) is just as silly as the notion anceint people had that they were not alive at all (read the Bible: no plants were taken onboard Noah's ark, because back then they weren't considered living things that would be harmed by a world-wide flood).

Oh, hell yes.

Classification is one of the most basic tools animals have to size up their surroundings and everything in it. I see nothing wrong with it.

And what's wrong with suffering?

Why? What's wrong with killing? Obviously you view it as something primitive, right? Something that's beneath your highly developed morality, right?

Anyway, plants do sense injury (that's all pain is, simply put); plants react to their environment in other ways beyond simple chemical and physical reactions, beyond responding to stimuli through nastic movements. And saying you don't eat the "real" part of the plant hardly clears you of the act of killing: scratch an apple and watch what happens--better yet, look at the cells of fruit under a microscope...surprise, they're still alive and react to their environment. And they remain alive as your teeth mush them up and after you swallow them. And they remain alive until your stomach acid breaks them down (what a horrible death!) and uses them for your body's various needs.

Are humans not animals and therefore part of "nature?"

1. What point is there to any thread other than the attempt to either socialize, learn, or teach something new?

2. I never said I would or would not judge anyone. I think my initial post sums up my intent.

3. An animal eating another animal is "normal, natural stuff." Or do you disagree?

 

if i lived in the wilderness and had to hunt my own food, i would most likely eat animals. but the way they're slaughtered and manufactured is not natural at all.

 

*Yawn*

This argument is so tired.

 

Thanks for being honest. I think it's easy to have lofty ideals when you live in a society where everything is taken care of for us, and we no longer have to directly feed ourselves (we earn money and pay for food caught/gathered for us already).

But find yourself and your family, children, stranded somewhere cold and remote (ie. no tofu), and let's see how good your ideals taste as your kids grow weak from hunger (bark is not that filling...).

Well, ants for example enslave other insects and keep some as cows, using them for food and denying them freedom, so does that mean ants are not natural?

No, you're just tired. If you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to the discussion, try this: ignore it and get on with your life...

 

I can see where Duncelor is coming from. I've seen a lot of shit in my life, most of it I've been able to deduce on my own. But vegetarians -- their whole philosophy just eludes me. Why is it that you refuse to eat animals on the basis of not harming life, when in fact you're "killing" plants, which are in fact alive (I assume all of you learned this in high school, no?). I mean, hell, you're just replacing one kind of killing with another.

The argument that plants don't feel pain -- ignorance at its best. You simply can't go up to a plant, cut off a leaf, and then listen for a scream now can you? They are in all manners of the phrase sentient (flowers physically tilt towards the direction of the light, flower peddals open and close acording to temperature, trees and such hibernate and revive, et cetera).

Thus, what is it about meat that's so holy that you can't so much as look at it in a threatening fashion? It's not like that steak is going to fight its way out of your stomach and in turn eat you.

 

Consider this: There are several plants that are regarded, well, more then sentinent by various religions (more like divine). Some plants may be more evolved then animals (land plant existed millions of years before any land animals). The chemicals in these plants are the way it communicates a message(think of peyote, psilocybe mushrooms, etc). You are probably too insensitive if you can't feel the will to live in plants, they don't want to die.

There are people who only eat fruit and do no harm to plants. There are many plants that are annuals, that only naturally grow for one season and die naturally and then are harvested from food.

There are also many people that are vegetarians for various health reasons and not ethical ones.

 

Well, given the (massive) assumption that plants and animals have equal moral value, wouldn't just eating plant-matter still be the ethcial choice?

For, before they die, animals need to be fed on something. That's usually a plant. When a human eats an animal then it's not just the animal that has to die, you also need to factor in all the plants the animal ate.

If we were to stop eating animals (and stop using animal products) then a lot of unecessary harm - to both animals and plantlife - could be avoided. It's a 'cutting out the middle-man' type thing.

veg*ism isn't about elimnating harmn, it's about reducing it to the best of your ability. So, whether plants should be considered as ethical equals to animals/humans or not, cutting down the amount of animals AND plants that one consumer needs reduces harm.

 

Plants do not possess any form of intelligence, lack motility, and the ability to think in any form. In fact, there is no central brain within a plant, only trillions of nuclei. Thus, the argument that plants are a higher form of life is pure bullshit.