Jump to content

Some questions about some of our decisions, from me, a vegan


DaN
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok so this is a diet related set of questions, so if in wrong place, moderator feel free to move it.

 

1.

 

a.What is morally wrong with eating eggs from the farm across the road who feed their chickens totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.

 

b.Also are there any arguments against the health benefits of eggs when eaten.

 

2.

 

a.What is morally wrong with eating milk or cheese from the farm across the road who feed their cows totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.

 

b.I know about the obvious arguments against dairy as a source of nutrirtion because quite clearly we are not meant to be eating or drinking it.

 

3.Does anyone have any moral objection to the idea of eating meat from an animal that has just died of natural causes?

 

PLEASE NOTE I HAVE UNDERLINED THE WORD MORAL BECAUSE APART FROM THE EGSS, I WANT ONLY MORAL COMMENTS< NOT HEALTH ONES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so this is a diet related set of questions, so if in wrong place, moderator feel free to move it.

 

1.

 

a.What is morally wrong with eating eggs from the farm across the road who feed their chickens totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.

 

If it is a FARM across the road, and not a FARM SANCTUARY, then the moral objection comes in that farms will kill chickens for food when they are no longer "productive." Also where do they get their chickens? Chick-breeding facilities will save female chicks to sell to egg producers, and "throw away" the males to suffocate to death in huge piles.

 

I see little to no moral dilemma with rescuing chickens and providing them a home where they can live out their NATURAL lives in peace, and eating any eggs that are produced.

 

I think though you also have to consider the moral implications of resorting to such measures though. The fact is that we don't need eggs to be healthy, so why would we want to muddy the waters and give those annoying people who are looking for a whole in our argument something to grasp on to? Just don't eat eggs.

 

b.Also are there any arguments against the health benefits of eggs when eaten.

 

They are high in cholesterol and fat. Plus it's just not necessary.

 

2.

 

a.What is morally wrong with eating milk or cheese from the farm across the road who feed their cows totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.

 

The same reasons apply from above (they are killed when no longer "productive"), but even more so, because for cows to produce milk they must be forcibly impregnated. What happens to the calf? Used for veal if male, or raised to be another dairy cow if female. Either way the calf has to be traumatically separated from the mother so that the farmer can steal her milk, which she produced for the calf.

 

3.Does anyone have any moral objection to the idea of eating meat from an animal that has just died of natural causes?

 

In the same sense that it is unnecessary, and thus would give anti-vegan diehards a reason to continue arguing against going vegan. This leads to less people making the leap and more animals being killed. It's more effective as agents of change for us to just not do it, thus proving to the doubters that you can be strong and healthy on a vegan diet, thus leading to more people giving up animal products, thus leading to fewer animals being killed.

 

You could also argue that since you'd be harming your own body by eating that dead animal, it is therefore immoral, but that's a little straight-edge.

 

Ultimately these kind of hypotheticals do little to further the discussion of what we're going to do as a society about this problem, and are usually only used by those above-mentioned anti-vegan diehards to try and poke ridiculous holes in our argument. I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, just that that is usually the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. a.What is morally wrong with eating eggs from the farm across the road who feed their chickens totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.

 

The point of it being morally wrong is, the chickens were bred to be used as a commodity, which is why they're at the farm in the first place. They didn't just happen to show up on their own and stick around because they loved it, so in essence, they're treated as property for use by the person who has them, were not conceived as nature would have planned, and did not live the way they would had they been independent of human contact. And, the chickens aren't laying eggs just because they're appreciative of having food and shelter - they're procreating, not giving us a gift

 

b.Also are there any arguments against the health benefits of eggs when eaten.

 

If eating a fatty, cholesterol-laden chicken abortion doesn't seem gross enough, I guess that people can knock themselves out with all the eggs they'd like.

 

2. a.What is morally wrong with eating milk or cheese from the farm across the road who feed their cows totally natural diet, are free to roam ALL day, and live great lives.

 

Same as the chickens. The cows were bred to be a commodity, and we can speculate all we want as to how "great" their lives were, but then again, a few hundred years ago people used the same arguments for slavery. I mean, what's wrong with using another living being for our own purposes so long as we give them food, shelter, and a little space to move around?

 

3.Does anyone have any moral objection to the idea of eating meat from an animal that has just died of natural causes?

 

From a waste-not-want-not perspective, there's little moral objection to eating something that died from natural causes, but it's gross to me regardless. And, simply because something died of natural causes doesn't mean that it wasn't raised to be a commodity and forced to live and work for our purposes. If you were talking about eating a dead wild cow you somehow came across in a fantasy scenario, you'd at least know it lived its life naturally. However, there's nothing really "natural" about farm-raised animals as to how their lives are, so that's the main point in all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies guys.I have replied below.Please read this post, I think it could be something truly revolutionary and give me your feedback, but please be open minded, I dont want pre-programmed responses and emotions, I want genuine responses that deal with the facts.One other request, read it all the way through before thinking of reply.Replies you may think of from reading the first paragraph, I may have added to or explained at the end.

 

What if:

 

The chickens at said farm have come from breeders, there are no wild cows/chickens available at the moment (this could be changed), so it is the only option - at the moment.But once at said farm, they are utterly free to do what they want, and the males are kept, never killed.The eggs are free to hatch as per in nature, and only a very small number are taken for consumption (2 a day out of 30-40!) All the chickens are kept and loved for their full life expectancy, until natural death.

 

As for the cows, again of course they originally come from breeder - for now.But as above, once they are at said farm, they lead totally free lives (in acres of land), with the choice to stay out or go in if its cold.The females are not forced to be inpregnated, they are mixed with male cows as per nature intended.Once pregnant, they are free to give birth and keep calves, the only difference from their wild state is that they are occasionally led into barn to be milked.As with the eggs the quantity is minimal to a level where the animal is unaffected.It would not be, I can honestly say, a bad experience for the cows, and i dont say this without experience, I have knowledge of farm animals from a young age and know distress and happiness when I see it.

 

Is there really any tangible moral objections to this? I want you guys to be open minded, not tunnel vision vegans.This type of farming is completely unheard of but could be a template for all farming, that would undoubtably be better than current farming, which we all agree is totally unacceptable.I have realised that there is no way we will EVER get all people to go vegan, but we could get all people to do my suggestion, thus cutting out cruelty to animals.

 

The dead animal thing - I find it interesting that no moral objection has been raised yet about this, the only point being made being the kind of icky eeurgh thats gross type comments , which frankly are silly because

all the plants we eat are grown in poo, and the water we drink and bathe in is basically urine that was been treated.I am still yet to find a moral problem with the idea of eating an animal that has died naturally.Again I am going along this line of thought because I think that maybe if we allow animals to live free wild lives, then when they die, take the body, and make use of it (ie eat it) then no harm has been done in that situation at all - has it?

 

I am not suggesting these ideas to us vegans because clearly we are educated enough to know we dont need meat to surive but instead it is for the billions of people who eat and will not give up meat, because at the moment, because of all these people, animals are suffering.I am trying to think of a way to solve this problem.It could be an option of the middle way, that stands a chance of bridging the gap and ending cruelty to animals which in the end should be more important to us than some moral or intellectual high ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural causes usually equates to some sort of disease. So you'd be making a pretty self-destructive choice by eating a dead animal, I would think. That or the animal would be old and the meat tough and nearly inedible.

 

Wouldn't all the roosters on that farm try to kill each other? Or at the very least, fight over the females?

 

Such a large number of cows and chickens would produce a lot of methane and greenhouse gasses or whatever.

 

That's all I got right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTE - This one's going to get long and go all over the place, but it does have a point

 

I understand where you're coming from, DaN, but even in a perfect scenario, this type of situation would not be economically feasible nor would it offer enough production of the animal products to meet the demand.

 

The animal agriculture business is a heavily streamlined operation, based off of tight profit margins as the final line for how most of it is run. If there were ways right now to keep profits the same but be less cruel to animals during their treatment while being used as resources, I don't doubt some of the more ethically-inclined people who run the show would obviously implement better standards. However, every bit that's done to reduce cruelty drops the profit margins, unless they skyrocket the costs accordingly. Why don't more people buy free-range, hormone-free beef? It costs more, that's why. Why does it cost more? Because there's more done for the welfare (until slaughter, of course), which eats up the profits that would allow such products to be cheaply sold. Trust me, there are people whose entire job it is to calculate the last penny spent raising each animal in order to maximize profits, and when profits drop, so does the standard of treatment for the animals in question. It's like dealing in non-sweatshop products - I can go to a footwear tradeshow and find a manufacturer in some part of China who will sell me athletic shoes for only $1.50 per pair (and yes, this is true, I spoke with someone who could make this happen), but what do you think you get for that? Cheap materials, poor quality, and heavily exploited labor for people that may be fortunate to make 20 cents an hour at best for their work (and they likely work in hazardous, filthy conditions as well). Sure, I could sell those shoe for $9.95 and make 10x my investment, offering a product that's still dirt cheap compared to others on the market. Then there are companies like Vegetarian Shoes (who I do support and work with), who only use union shops with exceptional fair-labor quality standards. But, the tradeoff is in the price - shoes similar to the ones I'd get for $1.50/pair from the terrible Chinese manufacturer would cost me $40-50/pair from Veg Shoes because of the quality of production and the way the workers are treated and paid. These people will make a wage that allows quality living, they'll get insurance, etc. where you can only guess how the Chinese workers are taken care of. But even at that, I hear CONSTANT requests of "How about selling some shoes that are cheap, like $30 and under?", and plenty of people say that what we sell is out of their range. People want cheap, and like my comparison, using the shoe biz as an example has a fair share of parallels to animal agriculture. Even when people KNOW how terrible it is to support cheap products that are extremely exploitative, most simply don't care enough to go for the better item. Why don't more people eat organic when they know it's better for you (not to mention it tastes better)? Price, plain and simple. See where I'm going with this?

 

In your example, if ALL farms were to eventually run in these perfect-world scenario, eggs, dairy, beef, etc. would be scarce compared to the demand because your system is neither going to be affordable for most people, nor will it allow sufficient production to meet the current demand. And that's also assuming it's even economically viable for the people who would be running such a farm, because if you have to spend $5.00 to produce each "ethical" egg that you'd have to sell for $7.00 to make a reasonable profit, you'd find that nobody would be buying them. And, when that didn't work, guess what would happen - corners would start being cut, animals welfare standards would decline rapidly, and we'd be right back to where we are now, being concerned most with the bottom dollar on what we pay vs. how the items are created and how cruel the processes are.

 

I'm doing my best to state this from a business perspective over a purely "knee-jerk vegan" one, but any way you slice it, it doesn't add up to being possible. That's why we currently have a rash of standards where you can call chickens "free-range" even when they're still jammed in a giant coop with only a square foot of space given per bird (that's 30.48 square cm to you folks across the pond ) There's a lot of greenwashing in the current standards, and even for those whose levels of welfare are higher than the usually abysmal ones, their prices are always considerably higher. Can you imagine how much more things would cost in the scenarios you mentioned? Hopefully this is becoming more clear now.

 

Finally, in the statement of it being "silly" to say that eating a carcass of something that died naturally being no worse than drinking processed, treated water or eating veggies that have been fertilized with manure, it's a giant stretch. Eating a carcass vs. something that may have come in contact with excrement at one point (providing, there's actually any trace left on the final product) isn't even remotely similar. Trust me, if I had to wash crap off of my spinach before I ate it, I'd be grossed out, but it's clean when it arrives. Biting into something that's very much similar to my own flesh is creepy to me now regardless of how it's justified, natural death or not. To you, maybe it's not, but your statement seems more to be working to convince vegans that it's okay to eat meat vs. working to convince non-vegans to find reasons NOT to eat it, which doesn't really further the ultimate mission of being as cruelty-free as possible. But, if you see it differently, that's your opinion - just don't expect much in the way of agreement from other vegans in regard to it.

 

I WISH that there were a viable middle road that non-vegans could move toward from where they are now (which hopefully would ultimately lead to veganism), but right now, it just doesn't exist, and the prospects are incredibly rare. Just speaking the truth from a business AND vegan perspective here. You asked for it, you got it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that everyone should read Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. DaN's what if is just as what if as the what if you were starving to death and their was only meat question. Roosters will fight, animals need food and water (not Free). That book really shows the reality in local small farming. I think that some vegans don't know enough about animals to represent their welfare properly. I also have a problem with the "they live for themselves and not for us". I believe that the Earth is an ecosystem and must function as balanced as possible. Factory farming screws up that balance. If people only ate meat that they hunted (like other omnivores) they would have a shorter life expectancy and fewer children survive thus keeping the balance in the ecosystem. But we screwed that all up. If we farmed in small communities only to feed ourselves and trade here and there things would be different. A good farmer respects his animals. There are too few of them left to really make a difference. If you want to eat eggs there are a few of those farmers or chicken keepers left. But, do you know where they got their hens? What happened to the roosters? You suggested it could be ok to take 2-3 eggs from 30-40. Here is a little true story for you. Last spring 3 of my hens went broody. I had to decide what to do. I could break them of it (or try), let them sit their until they changed their minds (many times they don't and just sit until they die), or i could get some eggs for them to hatch. I decided to get some eggs. I have a friend that only breeds naturally (not purposely). They just do their thing. Now let me just say that when they breed naturally they breed slowly. So I got a dozen eggs and stuck them under my girls. 4 hatched. Then summer hit and 2 died. That's nature. So if you take 2-3 a day from 30-40 eggs that means that first off you would need at least 40 hens. How would you know that if the 2-3 eggs you take are going to be the survivors or not? You don't. And do you have any idea how much shit that is to clean or how much it costs to feed them? I have 8 birds. They cost me around $25 a month and have not laid an egg in over 3 months. They have their cycles. I do it because I love chickens. I only buy and trade with other local chicken keepers that do it because they enjoy the birds. So unless you want 40 girls sitting on your shoulder eating/stealing the grapes from your hand, your scenario will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second what VeganEssentials has said.

 

I am against animals being 'owned' by humans, period. The very idea of animals being possessions and property is morally objectionable to me. No matter what kind of fantasy, 'ideal' farm scenarios anyone can think of, they all necessarily involve animals being property and I therefore have a problem with them.

 

This isn't a knee-jerk vegan reaction. My objection to animals as property is the root of my veganism and it's something I have thought through carefully. I came to the conclusion that I am against it by thinking through what I believe, and only then discovered that other people had already come to the same conclusion! I'm not against it because I think I'm supposed to be as a vegan, or anything like that.

 

I don't see any moral problem with eating roadkill or found dead animals, but it's certainly not something I would do. I find all meat gross--a rotting carcass out in the sun would be even more so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks veganessentials and others, your comments are interesting.My post was designed to throw up a line of thought that is rarely considered.As with all arguments people entrench themselves at the extremes of the argument, and that never solves much, in my opinion.I enjoy trying to find middle ways, and exposing people to the possibility that both sides are wrong.

 

I think cows living in caring captivity could well be better than their wild life.Dont forget I am talking about leaving cows in their total wild stae, whilst providing only water if necesary.When they needed vetinary attention we could provide it, when we needed a bit of milk, they could provide it.I believe we could offer them something, and they could offer us something, a symbiotic relationship.When the cows died in their natural way, their meat and skin could be used, by those who wanted to.

 

I must say, this idea that meat, eggs, dairy are poison is getting on my nerves a bit:

 

Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products.[68] Varying with available food sources in regions of habitation, and also varying with cultural and religious norms, human groups have adopted a range of diets, from purely vegetarian to primarily carnivorous

 

 

More importantly:

 

Omnivores (from Latin: omnes all, everything; vorare(infinitive) to devour) are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. They are opportunistic, general feeders not specifically adapted to eat and digest either meat or plant material exclusively

 

The B-12 subject supports the fact that infact we are not supposed to live on only plant food, or indeed only meat.Hence the word omni.

 

mollymormon wrote:

 

DaN's what if, is just as what if as the what if you were starving to death and there was only meat question

 

Until around 10,000 years ago, eating meat and eggs aswell as plants was the only option available to us.And in the future it is likely we will return to a world where the infrastructure we enjoy now, does not exist.Its not a what if argument - its the majority reality.

 

My opinion is that right now, in this very life, we can lead vegan lives, and so we should, but lets not lose sight of the fact that veganism is not our natural diet, and the current infrastructure we use to be able to be vegan is infact the most abnormal thing in our history.The supermarkets we frequent to buy our massive variety of plant food to survive are also abnormal.

 

As with my last post, this is not meant to provoke emotions, please remember, I am a vegan! This post is intended to provoke thought, discussion and interest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, Jonathan Safron Foer addresses is this very issue in his most recent book, Eating Animals.

 

If you can find it, buy it, if not, send me your address and I'll mail it to you, but I'd like it back, if possible.

 

I agree. I don't find a moral probelm with this "what if" scenario, but it's still a "what if" scenario. But, I'm one of those vegans that will buy and wear used animal products and no real qualms with it (does that make me not vegan? I refuse to buy new...but that's a different topic)

 

But really, read that book, or even just the reviews. it's very good.

 

This same sort of thing happened in California. The owner was super respectful of the animals (although they were raised for slaughter) but it was all organic, cage free, etc. He ended up getting voted out of his own farm by shareholders because it wasn't profitable enough. If that isn't a wake up call, I don't know what it. Neimann farms, or something like that, if I remember correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think cows living in caring captivity could well be better than their wild life.Dont forget I am talking about leaving cows in their total wild stae, whilst providing only water if necesary.When they needed vetinary attention we could provide it, when we needed a bit of milk, they could provide it.I believe we could offer them something, and they could offer us something, a symbiotic relationship.When the cows died in their natural way, their meat and skin could be used, by those who wanted to.

Cows don't have a wild state. Cows used for milk are entirely domesticated and shaped by humans to maximize milk production. These animals can't just be turned out into the wild. If you are talking about wild relatives of cows, I don't think it would actually be possible to just go get milk from them now and then when we felt like it. They'd be wild, and wouldn't just stand there and allow humans to come up to them and pull on their udders. Would we be able to walk up to herd of zebra and wildebeast and milk them?

 

In order for us to be able to take their milk, we'd have to keep them domesticated and controlled, and I have a moral objection to that.

 

As for using the meat and skin of animals that die naturally, why don't we already do that? Health and safety regulations forbid it. I can't imagine things changing so much that it would become legal for the meat of animals found dead to be sold. OK, maybe skin, as that doesn't have the same health implications, but not meat. If individuals wanted to forage around for dead animals and eat them themselves, that would be legally OK, but people would not be able to sell such meat to anyone else.

 

I really don't see the point of considering what we'd do in these hypothetical and frankly impossible scenarios. Whether I'd be vegan under these world conditions is about as relevant to my veganism in the real world as is that old 'if you were stranded on a desert island with no plants...' hypothetical. They don't raise any meaningful issues regarding our veganism in the world and our societies as they actually are or have potential to become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FormicaLinoleum wrote:

 

I really don't see the point of considering what we'd do in these hypothetical and frankly impossible scenarios. Whether I'd be vegan under these world conditions is about as relevant to my veganism in the real world as is that old 'if you were stranded on a desert island with no plants...' hypothetical. They don't raise any meaningful issues regarding our veganism in the world and our societies as they actually are or have potential to become.

 

As I explained in my post above, the desert island scenario is not hypothetical or impossible.It has only been possible to live as vegans for the last few centuries, for the other hundreds of thousands of years, veganism has been a hypothetical and impossible scenario.The only reason we can be vegans is due to our supermarkets - the increase in world food trade, which is highly irregular in context of the overall human state of civilisation.If this network and infrastructure were ever to break down, which it will, I am afraid our veganism would be virtually impossible in any part of the world.Your view on this subject I am afraid is totally the opposite way around.I am making this point to you because its only a matter of time before someone else does it to you in an argument, and I hate it when us vegans look bad in an argument!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason - thanks for your reply

 

It is sad that this type of farming is not possible due only to the financial aspect.Because guys like him are real farmers who do actually care for their animals in a weird kind of way.I would take them any day over these factory farmers, who are humanities worst, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FormicaLinoleum wrote:

 

I really don't see the point of considering what we'd do in these hypothetical and frankly impossible scenarios. Whether I'd be vegan under these world conditions is about as relevant to my veganism in the real world as is that old 'if you were stranded on a desert island with no plants...' hypothetical. They don't raise any meaningful issues regarding our veganism in the world and our societies as they actually are or have potential to become.

 

As I explained in my post above, the desert island scenario is not hypothetical or impossible.It has only been possible to live as vegans for the last few centuries, for the other hundreds of thousands of years, veganism has been a hypothetical and impossible scenario. The only reason we can be vegans is due to our supermarkets - the increase in world food trade, which is highly irregular in context of the overall human state of civilisation. If this network and infrastructure were ever to break down, which it will, I am afraid our veganism would be virtually impossible in any part of the world. Your view on this subject I am afraid is totally the opposite way around. I am making this point to you because its only a matter of time before someone else does it to you in an argument, and I hate it when us vegans look bad in an argument!

The point is that it’s not relevant to my life right now, right here. Who cares whether I couldn't have been vegan 1,000 years ago or couldn't be vegan right now if I lived in a rural village on a mountain top? I don't live in that time or in that place. So why should I base my decision about what to do here and now on what would or would not be possible in some completely different situation? I base my decisions on the situation I actually am in. I wouldn't have been able to use the internet 1,000 years ago either, but I certainly don't consider not using it now just because of that. Why would I?

 

These scenarios are hypothetical for me because they are not the situations I am currently in. And I'm not likely to be in them. I'm certainly not likely to be transported thousands of years into the past! I am also not likely to end up on a desert island. If our structures happen to completely break down within my lifetime and make veganism impossible, at that point I would obviously not be vegan (by definition I could not do the impossible). Again, who cares? This has zero implication for my current veganism. I’d be complete idiot to not be a vegan now, or even to have any doubt in my current veganism, just because it could be impossible for me to be one in some far-fetched scenario.

 

If a non-vegan were to ask these questions of me, I’d respond just the way I have to you. This wouldn’t make me look bad because my response is entirely reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point - you are not living a 1000 years ago so it is not relevant to your life now.

 

But thats like saying that right now at 7:00 in the evening, what happened in the morning, or what is going to happen later in the evening is not relevant.In my opinion it is relevant.

 

What happened a 1000 years ago, in my opinion, as relevant as what happened 1000 minutes ago.But I am a historian, so I guess I enjoy learning about our past and seeing how it links into our present, and how the trends of the past directly relate to the trends of the future.

 

 

When you are broad minded enough (which you are ) to comprehend our existence from day 1, up until the present moment, you can see what likely situations are coming in the future too ...... the desert island situation is actually the norm - our current situation is the unlikely exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point - you are not living a 1000 years ago so it is not relevant to your life now.

 

But thats like saying that right now at 7:00 in the evening, what happened in the morning, or what is going to happen later in the evening is not relevant.In my opinion it is relevant.

It's not like that at all.

 

What happened to me this morning is likely to be related to or affect what is happening to me now. What may happen to me or what I want to happen to me may be affected by the choices I make now. It makes sense for me to take these things into consideration when I am making a decision now. However, even though these are parts of my life, if they actually had no effect on or were not affected by my choice right now, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to ignore them in making my choices here and now.

 

Sure, in a general sense history is interesting and can be relevant, just like predictions and hopes for the future can be. However, that does not mean that every aspect of the past/future is relevant to every aspect of the present. And whether or not it was possible to be vegan in the past or it will be in the future is simply irrelevant to whether I can or should be a vegan now. If you disagree, explain how it's relevant and how it would change my decision to be vegan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And whether or not it was possible to be vegan in the past or it will be in the future is simply irrelevant to whether I can or should be a vegan now. If you disagree, explain how it's relevant and how it would change my decision to be vegan.

 

I agree!

 

However - it is relevant if you are one of these vegans going around thinking that veganism is a natural diet, and that eating meat and eggs is unhealthy, and if you are expressing those views to others like its gospel ( I am not saying you are)

 

My point to people was not to be one of those vegans because if they come up against anyone who is educated enough, they will expose those false views and make them look silly.And I hate vegans to look silly in a discussion because we need to be educated, correct, appealing, and have integrity.

 

The whole meat is a poison, eggs are unhealthy, humans are plant based animals theory is just uneducated, and paints us in a bad light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only, what, 6% of our DNA is different from a Chimpanzee, right? Aside from the occasional Senegal Bush Baby, they aren't really meat eaters. They subsist primarily on fruit. And I've never heard of them eating eggs...Maybe here and there if they found one I guess its possible. I've just never heard of it. And they definitely don't go up to cows to suckle at their teats. If we're so similar to Chimps, we should probably follow their dietary examples...Minus the bush babies of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I feel this thread is getting silly, I also feel this topic is better suited for vegetarians over vegans, and the 'organic meaties' out there. Vegans already have decided its best to not eat or harm animals and are unlikely to change that, short of selling out entirely. I feel like these questions would have more effect on the 'less converted'.

 

As vegans, we already know that farming animals is abuse, and have taken a strong stand against it.

 

I know and understand what you're getting at, dan, and I do think it's silly and irrelevant. In a perfect worl, maybe, but surely, this is not. Everyone makes the choices that they can live with, and that's the end of it.

 

And I follow where you're going with the 'eventually' scenario. But you're putting too much stock in it. You're trying to solve a problem that widespread veganism would already solve. Why complicate matters further? Additionally, what you propose just further adds to the gray area about eating animals. If 'this' is ok, then what about 'this'? Its a slippery slope and its not worth falling down.

 

Edit: one more thing. If you feel your proposal and ideas are 'the answer' (to a problem no one brought up) and are justified, why are you trying to seek justification from a forum? If you really feel what you're doing is right, then continue on that path. In the end, we all only have to answer to our own conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to clarify why we take moral objection to eggs, dairy and already dead meat.I wanted to see how strong the arguments were.

 

I think it threw up some interesting info I wasnt aware of, and made others think in a way that perhaps they hadnt before.It has become clear that our stance against eggs and dairy is justified, whilst no valid (in my opinion) argument was proposed as to what is actually wrong, morally with eating an animal that died of natural causes.

 

Plus the questions I asked in my first post in this thread are questions I have been asked by people, and I have not had an adequate answer for.

 

Thanks all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think there is nothing wrong with eating eggs from a small farm that doesn't coup the chickens into a tiny little area and also one that doesn't kill the chickens. I know a couple farms locally here and the eggs that aren't sold are thrown away. They can't just let all of them hatch or there would be a serious overpopulation on the farm.

 

a couple have made the argument that it is immoral because they are being used for there eggs. The farms i know treat there chickens extremely well kinda like how pet dogs and cats are treated. also chickens to my knowledge are domesticated animals that can't survive in the wild so better on that kinda of farm then on a factory farm and better the eggs be used to feed people rather then thrown away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

couture, the farms around where I live are similar, but I think the argument is that the chickens came from breeders, who may not treat the chickens so well as the farm, and also that taking eggs at all is cruel to the mother hen.I do agree, and for that reason, I dont eat eggs.But I think the farms we are talking about are a far better alternative for those people who are going to eat eggs whether we like it or not.Thats why I always recommend local farms to people not prepared to go vegan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's true that some might not treat them well and only have them for selling eggs. But the chickens are going to be there regardless, either that or they get killed in the wild or sent to a factory farm. so they lay eggs and the eggs need to be taken away so there's not a over population on the farm. The eggs could either be thrown away or sold to someone, either way it's going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Would it be right to eat a dead person after they died of natural causes?If i was the dead person i'd rather go back into the earth or even burnt on a funeral pyre like they used to do.I would choose option 1 over 2 though.And i don't mean buried in a cemetery either or in a box.Animals don't even eat each other after they die unless they are dying of starvation.

 

What asshole would take a drink off a young calf?

 

Eggs are gross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...