Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[8ball]

I know quite a few people are uneasy about the ethical concerns of eating meat, but do it anyway. For me, my line is further back, but I cross it by eating meat from dubious sources that use practices I think are wrong. What I reject is the suggestion that the only logically consistent position for any meat-eater to take is one that involves mild self-hate.

Though you personally feast on kebabs making the self-hate inevitable anyway.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He also loved dogs, therefore (to take the implied logic in your post) all dog lovers are evil.

That makes sense.

(Hitler didn’t give a toss about animal welfare, he wanted to produce a master race and he knew eating meat in the quantities that most people do is not very conducive to building a strong "volk")

Not quite accurate. He also believed that a strong volk was a product of a strong agrarian peasant culture. In Germany at that time (and in the preceding century) that meant a lot more grain farming and horticulture than large-scale livestock production.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Though you personally feast on kebabs making the self-hate inevitable anyway.

Indeed. But I don't need any more.

I doubt many of us live up to the ideal version of ourselves that we imagine.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Humans aren't special.

Nope, just inventive and self-centred.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Now THIS is truly immoral.

You believe that it's wrong and argue fervently against it, yet you do it anyway.

Yes... I'm a hypocrite, and I hold my hands up and admit to it. Am I not allowed allowed to hold a belief unless I adhere to that belief?

You realise that the occasional seal culls were less to do with fur, than with preserving fish stocks in that part of the north Atlantic? The fur was basically a "by-product" of a "human need" to remove several tens of thousands of fish-eating mammals from the food chain at a particular time of year. You might also have noticed that the culls weren't annual, but cyclical. They only took place when the seal population was approaching a saturation point.

Which boils down to the same premise... that we have a right to choose which animals live or die, based on our culinary preference. We like fish, seals like fish, we believe we have more of a right to those fish, therefore we kill the seals.

A quick search of Google reveals that in Namibia, over 85,000 seal pups are killed anually for their fur, and a further 6,000 adult bulls are killed for their balls.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'd eat my neighbours dog for a laugh if I could get away with it.

(resists joke about "you've already eaten your wife's pussy")

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which boils down to the same premise... that we have a right to choose which animals live or die, based on our culinary preference. We like fish, seals like fish, we believe we have more of a right to those fish, therefore we kill the seals.

It's nothing to do with 'rights'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes... I'm a hypocrite, and I hold my hands up and admit to it. Am I not allowed allowed to hold a belief unless I adhere to that belief?



Which boils down to the same premise... that we have a right to choose which animals live or die, based on our culinary preference. We like fish, seals like fish, we believe we have more of a right to those fish, therefore we kill the seals.

In fact, in the Canadian culls (the ones that garnered so much publicity) it wasn't about "culinary preference", it was about availability of protein in a tundra, and man's unwillingness to share that availability.

A quick search of Google reveals that in Namibia, over 85,000 seal pups are killed anually for their fur, and a further 6,000 adult bulls are killed for their balls.

Entirely different cull, for an entirely different set of circumstances.

 

[Spymaster]

... I cross it by eating meat from dubious sources that use practices I think are wrong.

There's a light-years difference between the occasional lapse of a conscientious omnivore into poorly sourced meat, and someone coming on here to vehemently argue against meat-eating whilst scoffing bacon sarnies and rib-eyes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because some ponce in a wig has decided on a definition of murder, then everyone else should subcribe to that definition?

My definition of murder is killing any animal without justification. I don't believe "Because it tastes better than Quorn" is sufficient justification.

What you're attempting to do is place that emotional barrier between you and the meat you eat. You distance yourself from them in every way possible, so as not to feel guilty about killing/eating them.

What is "justification", at the end of the day? It's just an argument for an action. What special validity does it have?
The answer, of course, is that everything resolves to perspectival arguments centred around such hard-to-measure things as "morality", "need" and "preference".
We justify in order to absolve ourselves ("I eat an omnivorous diet because soya gives me IBS"), or in order to implicate others (I don't eat an omnivorous diet, and people who do smell of wee"). What we're not doing is presenting anything more solid than our own individual perspectives.

Me, I eat an omnivorous diet. I don't apologise for doing so, and I don't mock vegetarians or vegans for their dietary quirks, either (being fully-aware that an omnivorous diet is also a quirk). When it comes to "ethics", I view both sides of the coin (and have killed and butchered animals, then eaten them), and realise fully that mass production of livestock for consumption is horrific and unsustainable. I also realise that without a massive die-off of human animals to reduce the pressure on food-production, that "cheap" animal protein will be with us for as long as it's necessary.

 

[ViolentPanda]

For a start, we don't prosecute tigers for animal cruelty.

We should, the arrogant stripey bastards!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.

Whither "self-awareness" and "sufficient justification"? They're movable feasts. Take your stance to the logical conclusion, and we all become Jains.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes... I'm a hypocrite, and I hold my hands up and admit to it. Am I not allowed allowed to hold a belief unless I adhere to that belief?

We're all guilty of hypocrisy somewhere to some extent, but you're taking the piss out of it.

Gertcha.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

There's a light-years difference between the occasional lapse of a conscientious omnivore into poorly sourced meat, and someone coming on here to vehemently argue against meat-eating whilst scoffing bacon sarnies and rib-eyes!

We're all guilty of hypocrisy somewhere to some extent, but you're taking the piss out of it.

Gertcha.

I don't believe I have to be a vegetarian in order to argue the point.

Do you believe I should have to be a heroin addict in order argue that heroin addicts should have access to clean needles?

And I guess I'm not allowed an opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman?

 

[ViolentPanda]

this is exactly what it boils down to

Unfortunately, under present capitalism, for some people (particularly poor urban-dwellers), a diet with no recourse to animal protein is unaffordable, and for some of us, also medically-unadvisable. Back in the day, we poor folks used to keep chickens, or a communal piggy. Nowadays, cheap meaty supermarket pabulum has taken its' place.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not that I feel particularly strongly about. No.

But then my ethical standards are pretty low!

I didn't know you were a double-glazing salesman!

 

[andysays]

... I also realise that without a massive die-off of human animals to reduce the pressure on food-production, that "cheap" animal protein will be with us for as long as it's necessary.

And this is something which any purely abstract "ethical" discussion fails to take into account. In the real world, simply ceasing to eat meat isn't possible without causing significant human suffering and (in some cases) death.

 

[Spymaster]

I don't believe I have to be a vegetarian in order to argue the point.

Do you believe I should have to be a heroin addict in order argue that heroin addicts should have access to clean needles?

And I guess I'm not allowed an opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman?

Don't be an even bigger bellend.

I'd have let it slide if you were just mildly opposed to meat production, or just didn't care to think about it. But the fervour with which you've argued against meat, followed by the revelation that you're a meat-muncher yourself makes you something of an unprincipled wanker in my book.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't believe I have to be a vegetarian in order to argue the point.

Do you believe I should have to be a heroin addict in order argue that heroin addicts should have access to clean needles?

The former is (according to you) about "taste preferences". The latter is about the social benefit to be accrued from ensuring that addicts have clean works. They're not really comparable, unless you have a brain tumour.

And I guess I'm not allowed an opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman?

I'd contend that as men, we have a right to an opinion on abortion, but that given the asymmetry of effect abortion has on males as compared to females, male opinion should always be subsidiary to female opinion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd contend that as men, we have a right to an opinion on abortion, but that given the asymmetry of effect abortion has on males as compared to females, male opinion should always be subsidiary to female opinion.

I was going to agree, but I don't. I don't think anyone - male or female - has, the case of abortion, the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons. A woman doesn't have that right either.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Don't be an even bigger bellend.

I'd have let it slide if you were just mildly opposed to meat production, or just didn't care to think about it. But the fervour with which you've argued against meat, followed by the revelation that you're a meat-muncher yourself makes you something of an unprincipled wanker in my book.

My user tag is the basis for most of my arguments... I see yours is, too.

 

[Spymaster]

My user tag is the basis for most of my arguments....

So you don't actually believe the guff that you've been posting here?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was going to agree, but I don't. I don't think anyone - male or female - has, the case of abortion, the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons. A woman doesn't have that right either.

I'm not talking about "the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons". As I made very plain, I'm talking about the right of a male to voice any opinion on abortion (thats pro or anti) being subsidiary to the right of a female to do so. The right to an opinion, not the right to attempt to dictate behaviour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My user tag is the basis for most of my arguments... I see yours is, too.

So he likes to wank Cockneys, so what? It's a dirty job, and not many people want to do it!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not talking about "the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons". As I made very plain, I'm talking about the right of a male to voice any opinion on abortion (thats pro or anti) being subsidiary to the right of a female to do so. The right to an opinion, not the right to attempt to dictate behaviour.

Fair enough. I don't agree. I don't think my opinion is subsidiary to that of an anti-abortion woman.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

So you don't actually believe the guff that you've been posting here?

What I believe is irrelevent. I'm merely arguing a point. I don't have to agree or disagree with that point in order to argue it, just as a lawyer doesn't have to believe in the innocence of his/her client in order to defend them.

 

[8ball]

Fair enough. I don't agree. I don't think my opinion is subsidiary to that of an anti-abortion woman.

I think when the value of an opinion is determined by who happens to be holding it, then we're in the shit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What I believe is irrelevent. I'm merely arguing a point. I don't have to agree or disagree with that point in order to argue it, just as a lawyer doesn't have to believe in the innocence of his/her client in order to defend them.

I think some measure of projection has leaked into your arguments, though. Others are not as conflicted about eating meat as you appear to be.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Humans can have interests that override their interest in being alive, such as anyone who has ever died for any cause, or for another person. Anything we say about an animal's 'interests' needs to be justified or is mere projection.

As it happens, I'm inclined to think the 'being alive' case is a pretty persuasive one when you make it in terms of animals (I think the degree of embedded anthropomorphism is probably low there). I'm less convinced about arguments relating to autonomy, self-determination and non-instrumentalism as a human would understand these things.

Notice that I am not using any substantive concept of interests here, I'm merely stipulating that being alive (leaving aside the metaphysics of what exactly that means) is a necessary precondition for having interests. Individuals may choose to risk or end their lives, but they need lives to choose to forfeit in the first place.

On the point concerning what position to begin with when considering ethical orientation towards non-human animals, I think starting from an assumption that they should be treated the same as humans and then considering if there are any arguments that refute that assumption is the most logical way to approach the subject. Its interesting to note that (nearly?) everybody on this thread agrees that (at least some) animals have moral status - i.e. some degree of welfare interest that should be protected. And everybody agrees (maybe not truxta!) that humans have moral status. The question then becomes what differences are there that justify differential moral treatment. Its interesting to explore what these differences are and whether they really can be evoked to justify the killing of animals for meat. I'm yet to hear anything even remotely compelling that does this (though I am prepared to be proven wrong) so I have arrived at the conclusion that eating meat must be wrong (save in situations of necessity). The problem with starting from the position that all non-human animals are in a sui generis category of moral concern is that allows individuals to smuggle in all sorts of assumptions and appeals to tradition and authority without providing any reasons for their position.

I'm afraid I won't be able to address anymore points or questions on this thread - its diverted far too much of my time already! It's been interesting though... I could discuss this one forever!

 

[8ball]

The problem with starting from the position that all non-human animals are in a sui generis category of moral concern is that allows individuals to smuggle in all sorts of assumptions and appeals to tradition and authority without providing any reasons for their position.

I'm afraid I won't be able to address anymore points or questions on this thread - its diverted far too much of my time already! It's been interesting though... I could discuss this one forever!

Re: the bit in bold. I think that is a danger, but it just means you have to watch out for that sort of thing. Just as starting from an assumption of equivalence can allow people to smuggle in ropey anthropomorphisms.

It's been one of the better threads on this (even though not the subject of OP) in that there's been some actual communication.