Vegans are not funny January 7, 2002 1:55 PM Subscribe
why is it that everytime someone makes a post that mentions veganism or vegetarianism, a dozen or so folks stand up at once and make little jokes about how they eat meat?
As someone who commented on this thread a few times (despite myself, I suck sometimes) as a vegetarian... I was a bit shocked by how many caustics attacks there are in there.
But really, the fault seems to lie with crash_davis, if you ask me, he posted a troll by proxy. There is no way any kind of reasonable discussion is going to come from an article like that one.
9/11/Terrorism needs a Godwin's Law corrolary.
posted by malphigian at 2:08 PM on January 7, 2002
But really, the fault seems to lie with crash_davis, if you ask me, he posted a troll by proxy. There is no way any kind of reasonable discussion is going to come from an article like that one.
9/11/Terrorism needs a Godwin's Law corrolary.
posted by malphigian at 2:08 PM on January 7, 2002
I think it's just another example of people being callous. If you have to be funny, don't be an a-hole about it. It's not that hard. Just remember to think how you would feel on the butt end of the joke.
Not to raise the "look at what's happened recently" thread once again, but it's indicative of the recent tone. We have self aggrandizing posts, outright idiotic posts, and an increase in antagonistic posts.
Tell me how wrong I am. Please.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:20 PM on January 7, 2002
Not to raise the "look at what's happened recently" thread once again, but it's indicative of the recent tone. We have self aggrandizing posts, outright idiotic posts, and an increase in antagonistic posts.
Tell me how wrong I am. Please.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:20 PM on January 7, 2002
personally, i see these threads and just shake my head and move on. i don't make jokes about people who wear leather. i don't hate people or berate them because they eat veal. i don't like watching people eat meat. but it's their choice, not mine. and the people who have respect for others are the ones that will honestly ask why you are a vegetarian or vegan, instead of offering you a piece of steak or chicken and having an 'i bet you never heard that one before' chuckle. and i admit, there are some dumbass vegetarians and vegans out there that have some screw loose thinking they are the one that will get the world off eating meat. and the need to punch them square in the face is strong. but the same need comes into play with these people that make all the little jokes. it seems to be a grade school like tactic.
ew, you have cooties cause you don't eat meat.
posted by chrisroberts at 2:24 PM on January 7, 2002
ew, you have cooties cause you don't eat meat.
posted by chrisroberts at 2:24 PM on January 7, 2002
it seems to be a grade school like tactic.
Couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly what it is. That's what's been bugging me lately.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:26 PM on January 7, 2002
Couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly what it is. That's what's been bugging me lately.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:26 PM on January 7, 2002
Perhaps most of the new MeFi members are still in grade school?
I admit, I participated in the "funny" of that post. But that's what it was, brainless, occasionally witty humor. Okay, the occasional post contained some vitriolic comments, but in the context of the thread, I don't think anyone should take those comments personally.
posted by insomnyuk at 2:31 PM on January 7, 2002
I admit, I participated in the "funny" of that post. But that's what it was, brainless, occasionally witty humor. Okay, the occasional post contained some vitriolic comments, but in the context of the thread, I don't think anyone should take those comments personally.
posted by insomnyuk at 2:31 PM on January 7, 2002
meat's a big part of some people's lives. i would say that some interpret things as an implicit criticism of lifestyle, definitely. it doesn't help that some vegans (maybe not necessarily vegetarians) consider it their moral obligation not to eat meat, for then the meat-eaters interpret that as having said "you're a bad person for eating meat, unlike myself." (and that may indeed have been the vegan intention.)
i don't know. my sister's boyfriend is vegetarian, but mostly out of health concerns. when he comes over to my family's, we prepare vegetarian food for him in addition to what we have. it's not a bother for us, but it is a sort of compensation (not having an appropriate vegetarian meal at first) that some may not appreciate having to perform.
posted by moz at 2:33 PM on January 7, 2002
i don't know. my sister's boyfriend is vegetarian, but mostly out of health concerns. when he comes over to my family's, we prepare vegetarian food for him in addition to what we have. it's not a bother for us, but it is a sort of compensation (not having an appropriate vegetarian meal at first) that some may not appreciate having to perform.
posted by moz at 2:33 PM on January 7, 2002
But it's very important to some people, insomnyuk. You know that. If you make "vitriolic comments", people will get offended. Alls I'm saying is don't people realize that?
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:33 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:33 PM on January 7, 2002
It's fear.
I'm instantly reminded of a bunch of high school jocks standing around in a locker room talking about 'fags' (butts firmly against the wall). The inane 'the more it squeals the better it tastes'-type comments reminds me of little kids running up to the church fence, spitting over the top and running away again (only to spend the rest of the day looking up with a worried expression on their faces). Wow - you're just like, so totally hardcore. 1 ph34r j00, d00d.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:38 PM on January 7, 2002
I'm instantly reminded of a bunch of high school jocks standing around in a locker room talking about 'fags' (butts firmly against the wall). The inane 'the more it squeals the better it tastes'-type comments reminds me of little kids running up to the church fence, spitting over the top and running away again (only to spend the rest of the day looking up with a worried expression on their faces). Wow - you're just like, so totally hardcore. 1 ph34r j00, d00d.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:38 PM on January 7, 2002
Obiwanwasabi: I've almost commented to this thread three times--erasing my thorughts each time because I couldn't put them into words. You just did it for me. People fear what they don't understand.
posted by jpoulos at 2:52 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by jpoulos at 2:52 PM on January 7, 2002
It would have been nice to see less vitriol directed at the vegetarians. It would also have been nice to see people avoid subjects like flatulence and armpit hair and other typical gross-out humor subjects. It just seems awfully immature and coarse around here sometimes.
posted by anapestic at 2:58 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by anapestic at 2:58 PM on January 7, 2002
People fear what they don't understand.
While this may be true, I don't think it's what's going on here. I think it's just an easy button to push -- people know that a lot of vegetarians/vegans are touchy on the subject -- and it seems now around here that whenever there's an easy button to push, it gets pushed an awful lot.
posted by MarkAnd at 3:00 PM on January 7, 2002
While this may be true, I don't think it's what's going on here. I think it's just an easy button to push -- people know that a lot of vegetarians/vegans are touchy on the subject -- and it seems now around here that whenever there's an easy button to push, it gets pushed an awful lot.
posted by MarkAnd at 3:00 PM on January 7, 2002
Did anyone notice how ridiculous the original article was? It begged for mockery:
"I think it is speciesist to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day..."
I will not tell you my food preference, because it has no bearing on my opinions, but aside from a few sophomoric comments, it was a fun thread for a while.
It is awfully immature and coarse around here sometimes, thicken up the skin a bit.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 3:01 PM on January 7, 2002
"I think it is speciesist to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day..."
I will not tell you my food preference, because it has no bearing on my opinions, but aside from a few sophomoric comments, it was a fun thread for a while.
It is awfully immature and coarse around here sometimes, thicken up the skin a bit.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 3:01 PM on January 7, 2002
If you have to be funny, don't be an a-hole about it
Sometimes it's hard to tell where the funny< -->ahole line is. I'm not a big fan of Adam Sandler (I think he's an ahole) but a lot of people think he's funny. Did my comment venture into ahole territory? If so, I apologize. Just relating a life experience. A coarse, immature one.
In defense of the meat-eaters, let's be honest and admit that the Vegans are a little prone to grabbing and waving the moral high ground, what with the slaughterhouse photos and the Soylent Brown. What's the natural reaction to self-righteousness and moral indignation? Defensiveness, and overt demonstrations of callousness - obiwan's fence-spitting. I'm not sure that it's fear generated by lack of understanding, though - what's to understand? You all eat vegetables - it isn't Wicca or anything. Not much to get. moz is closer to the truth - the implicit moral challenge. That's what gets people in an eff-you mood.
posted by UncleFes at 3:03 PM on January 7, 2002
Sometimes it's hard to tell where the funny< -->ahole line is. I'm not a big fan of Adam Sandler (I think he's an ahole) but a lot of people think he's funny. Did my comment venture into ahole territory? If so, I apologize. Just relating a life experience. A coarse, immature one.
In defense of the meat-eaters, let's be honest and admit that the Vegans are a little prone to grabbing and waving the moral high ground, what with the slaughterhouse photos and the Soylent Brown. What's the natural reaction to self-righteousness and moral indignation? Defensiveness, and overt demonstrations of callousness - obiwan's fence-spitting. I'm not sure that it's fear generated by lack of understanding, though - what's to understand? You all eat vegetables - it isn't Wicca or anything. Not much to get. moz is closer to the truth - the implicit moral challenge. That's what gets people in an eff-you mood.
posted by UncleFes at 3:03 PM on January 7, 2002
I guess the real lesson here is that any extremes cause trouble, it's the grey area in-between where I prefer to dwell.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:09 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:09 PM on January 7, 2002
It's pretty clear to me, being a vegetarian myself. I've gotten lots of undeserved flak in the past and I think I know why.
Most people's initial experiences with vegetarians were interactions with self-righteous people. If you think back to the 50's and 60's, if you didn't eat meat, you were trying to say something.
I think the problem will work itself out in a generation or so, but I've gotten a lot of similar first reactions to the jokes being tossed about on that thread. I have to tell people before they vilify me for hating their lifestyle, it's a personal health choice and I don't care if they eat a gallon of mayonnaise and rack of lamb at every meal. I'm not the type of person that hates meat-eaters. Hopefully, the non-self-righteous set that does it for health reasons and not for all the pomp and circumstance of standing up for an issue will eventually become the majority of vegetarians people have encounters with.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:19 PM on January 7, 2002
Most people's initial experiences with vegetarians were interactions with self-righteous people. If you think back to the 50's and 60's, if you didn't eat meat, you were trying to say something.
I think the problem will work itself out in a generation or so, but I've gotten a lot of similar first reactions to the jokes being tossed about on that thread. I have to tell people before they vilify me for hating their lifestyle, it's a personal health choice and I don't care if they eat a gallon of mayonnaise and rack of lamb at every meal. I'm not the type of person that hates meat-eaters. Hopefully, the non-self-righteous set that does it for health reasons and not for all the pomp and circumstance of standing up for an issue will eventually become the majority of vegetarians people have encounters with.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:19 PM on January 7, 2002
Apparently, vegetarians aren't taken seriously.
posted by crunchland at 3:29 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by crunchland at 3:29 PM on January 7, 2002
i'll confess, i would be a vegetarian, but i'm allergic to most nuts, fruits and veggies, and the standard grains....and so i would probably starve. I practically do already. So i have to deal with a bit of a learning curve to cook&survive without meat. Someday i will be at least mostly harmless and a non-meat-eater.
That thread...it seems like it should have been a little more light-hearted. the multiple Mac vs. PC threads today were more civil.
Hopefully, the non-self-righteous set that does it for health reasons and not for all the pomp and circumstance of standing up for an issue will eventually become the majority of vegetarians people have encounters with.
maybe it depends on where you live and who you know...because that is already the case for me.
posted by th3ph17 at 3:31 PM on January 7, 2002
That thread...it seems like it should have been a little more light-hearted. the multiple Mac vs. PC threads today were more civil.
Hopefully, the non-self-righteous set that does it for health reasons and not for all the pomp and circumstance of standing up for an issue will eventually become the majority of vegetarians people have encounters with.
maybe it depends on where you live and who you know...because that is already the case for me.
posted by th3ph17 at 3:31 PM on January 7, 2002
quitting meat was one of the best things I've ever done for myself, which is why I really don't have any patience whatsoever for carnivorous attitudes.
posted by mcsweetie at 3:40 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by mcsweetie at 3:40 PM on January 7, 2002
Apparently, vegetarians aren't taken seriously.
I think the problem is different than that. I think that they are taken seriously to a fault. The Meat Industry is as American as Guns and apple pie.
I agree with mathowie, that perception will eventually work itself out. Vegetarianism used to be more of a vocal counter-culture thing (the annoying preaching of vegetarian friends I had as little as ten years ago still rings in my ears.)
Nowadays I get little grief at all for eating meat in front of, what seems to me, an increasing number of vegetarians who share my eat and let eat philosophy.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:45 PM on January 7, 2002
I think the problem is different than that. I think that they are taken seriously to a fault. The Meat Industry is as American as Guns and apple pie.
I agree with mathowie, that perception will eventually work itself out. Vegetarianism used to be more of a vocal counter-culture thing (the annoying preaching of vegetarian friends I had as little as ten years ago still rings in my ears.)
Nowadays I get little grief at all for eating meat in front of, what seems to me, an increasing number of vegetarians who share my eat and let eat philosophy.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:45 PM on January 7, 2002
quitting meat was one of the best things I've ever done for myself, which is why I really don't have any patience whatsoever for carnivorous attitudes.
And it is the implicit assumption that what is best for you is best for everyone else that others lack patience for.
Not trying to start anything, just saying.
posted by kindall at 3:49 PM on January 7, 2002
And it is the implicit assumption that what is best for you is best for everyone else that others lack patience for.
Not trying to start anything, just saying.
posted by kindall at 3:49 PM on January 7, 2002
The problem with this thread isn't fear, or lack of understanding, it's the post itself. How could that statement lead to anything but a free-for-all? I've never seen a more blatant example of troll bait. That one should go in a textbook.
In fact when we have an FAQ I say that FFP goes in as the example of a bad post which is guaranteed to devolve to chaos.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:03 PM on January 7, 2002
In fact when we have an FAQ I say that FFP goes in as the example of a bad post which is guaranteed to devolve to chaos.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:03 PM on January 7, 2002
Some of the crap comments in that post reminds me of a lot of snide remarks I used to get as a vego. I never tried to put my opinions on people and never advertised that I was a vego. I remember quite clearly when a friend of mine said that he was going to start eating two portions of meat at every meal. The reason? Just so he could make up for the fact that I wasn't eating any.
People get really weird when something is different to what they know and are used to. Even though I had no problems with him eating meat; never preached my lifestyle to him; didn't get into ethical debates about animals with him, he still felt the need to make a big deal out of it.
Sometimes, vegetarians/vegans and animal rights folks live a nice, quite life and don't impose their beliefs on others. Yet the amount of times I have had the hunter, carnivore, and supposed friend try to convert me back to eating meat is amazing.
posted by cyniczny at 4:18 PM on January 7, 2002
People get really weird when something is different to what they know and are used to. Even though I had no problems with him eating meat; never preached my lifestyle to him; didn't get into ethical debates about animals with him, he still felt the need to make a big deal out of it.
Sometimes, vegetarians/vegans and animal rights folks live a nice, quite life and don't impose their beliefs on others. Yet the amount of times I have had the hunter, carnivore, and supposed friend try to convert me back to eating meat is amazing.
posted by cyniczny at 4:18 PM on January 7, 2002
I've never seen a more blatant example of troll bait.
"For 35 million chickens in the United States alone, every single night is a terrorist attack." In an open letter to the Vegan Voice, Karen Davis, president of United Poultry Concerns, compares the poultry industry to the September 11 tragedy. "I think it is speciesist to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day, and what they endure every day because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them."
What's wrong with this post? I've seen an hour-long documentary about this woman. She's entirely serious and her home is one vast recovery centre for ill-treated battery chicken.
The post draws attention to how extreme some people can get about animal welfare. Karen Davis's point is that everybody hates chickens; that they're unloveable; but that their nervous systems are just as complex as a lot of animals we do care about more.
It's a variation on the abuse-of-the-word-"Holocaust" theme. It's interesting and prompted a good discussion - with some very good jokes thrown in. The unpleasantness - nothing outrageous, as far as I could see - is entirely each unpleasant poster's fault. Not mr_ crash_davis's.
Even if it was a "look at how kooky this woman is" post, what would be wrong with that? Such things are a staple here at MetaFilter.
Anyway: since when are mocking and thinking about something mutually exclusive?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:25 PM on January 7, 2002
"For 35 million chickens in the United States alone, every single night is a terrorist attack." In an open letter to the Vegan Voice, Karen Davis, president of United Poultry Concerns, compares the poultry industry to the September 11 tragedy. "I think it is speciesist to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day, and what they endure every day because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them."
What's wrong with this post? I've seen an hour-long documentary about this woman. She's entirely serious and her home is one vast recovery centre for ill-treated battery chicken.
The post draws attention to how extreme some people can get about animal welfare. Karen Davis's point is that everybody hates chickens; that they're unloveable; but that their nervous systems are just as complex as a lot of animals we do care about more.
It's a variation on the abuse-of-the-word-"Holocaust" theme. It's interesting and prompted a good discussion - with some very good jokes thrown in. The unpleasantness - nothing outrageous, as far as I could see - is entirely each unpleasant poster's fault. Not mr_ crash_davis's.
Even if it was a "look at how kooky this woman is" post, what would be wrong with that? Such things are a staple here at MetaFilter.
Anyway: since when are mocking and thinking about something mutually exclusive?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:25 PM on January 7, 2002
For the record, a "carnivore" eats only meat. Most people are "omnivores.
posted by jpoulos at 4:25 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by jpoulos at 4:25 PM on January 7, 2002
Today's post was doomed from the start Chicken terrorism? I dunno.
Personally, I think it's great that people make comments about how much they love pork chops and such in all the vegetarian threads. It lets me know who the cretins are right off the bat.
posted by Doug at 4:45 PM on January 7, 2002
Personally, I think it's great that people make comments about how much they love pork chops and such in all the vegetarian threads. It lets me know who the cretins are right off the bat.
posted by Doug at 4:45 PM on January 7, 2002
We have self aggrandizing posts, outright idiotic posts, and an increase in antagonistic posts.
True, Kafakesque, but I must add that we've had a set of very excellent posts of late as well--liam's on Wittegenstein being the latest example. Things are looking up from my point of view.
posted by y2karl at 4:46 PM on January 7, 2002
True, Kafakesque, but I must add that we've had a set of very excellent posts of late as well--liam's on Wittegenstein being the latest example. Things are looking up from my point of view.
posted by y2karl at 4:46 PM on January 7, 2002
I don't think it's so much an antipathy for vegetarians(I have none, I've dated several vegetarians and none of them gave me any shit for my bacon-cheeseburger-loving lifestyle) as it was a reaction to the ridiculous over statement of the story in the link. Also coming on the heels of couple of other threads about PETA's antics, I think the meat-eating contingent at MeFi was feeling kinda punchy.
Most thinkin' folk have no problem with people becoming vegetarians, it's more the rather mouthy contingent among them who berate you over your steak like reformed ex-smokers seeing you light up. Sanctimony is always irritating.
Quite frankly, I'd like a moratorium on carnivore vs. herbivore for a while, along with banning use of the word "strawman."
Plus I want my pony.(But only so I can eat him)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on January 7, 2002
Most thinkin' folk have no problem with people becoming vegetarians, it's more the rather mouthy contingent among them who berate you over your steak like reformed ex-smokers seeing you light up. Sanctimony is always irritating.
Quite frankly, I'd like a moratorium on carnivore vs. herbivore for a while, along with banning use of the word "strawman."
Plus I want my pony.(But only so I can eat him)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on January 7, 2002
yeah y6, I'm rather tired of terrorism being cycled into old arguments.
There’s also a cultural aspect at work with reaction to vegetarians. I went vegetarian through college. Glad I did—to this day I don't eat very much meat and can't remember the last time I drank cow milk. I didn’t become a leaf eater for my health, but it’s a very easy way to keep weight off.
Whenever a friend found out “I didn't dig on swine” (or even cow) they asked me out for BBQ. I think they felt uncomfortable with the idea and wanted to turn me back. Being around someone who consciously chose to give something up was just unsettling. Not that my friends thought I knew something they didn’t, just that I was acting outside of their understanding of the norm. My friends wanted to bring me back to the fold.
Saying no to something in this culture is the opposite of what we’re taught. We’re supposed to say yes to experiences; you can measure how self-actualized you are by how much pleasure you feel on a daily basis. Self-denial becomes the thing that you’re supposed to avoid. What’s more, meat-eaters see vegetarians as defining themselves in the negative (they don’t eat meat) — the opposite of the American expansionist definition of self. Compare that to traditional eastern perception of self: roles, formalities and differences.
(I’m not making a qualitative statement on this. Pleasure seeking (“pursuit of happiness”) works for some, but comes to a head with those willing to give-up otherwise pleasurable activities.)
Compare Western vegetarianism to Ramadan (month-long daylight fast) or similiarly the very widespread personal prohibition on alcohol. Islamic culture teaches self-denial as a way to achieve a greater happiness. In the least, it builds character. A bartender in Istanbul and I got around to talking about our lives. He told me he didn’t drink, never had. His culture supported and encouraged him in this. Imagine the self-control—he poured gin for a living.
Quite the opposite of the atmosphere most vegetarians live in the US. Add the old cowboy mystique and it becomes almost unpatriotic to skip the steak for the potatos.
I wonder if vegetarians in Brazil and Argentina are looked upon similarly. Brazil is very conscious of meat production, as they’re even bigger meat eaters than Americans. It's easier to get non-industrial produced meat there.
posted by raaka at 4:50 PM on January 7, 2002
There’s also a cultural aspect at work with reaction to vegetarians. I went vegetarian through college. Glad I did—to this day I don't eat very much meat and can't remember the last time I drank cow milk. I didn’t become a leaf eater for my health, but it’s a very easy way to keep weight off.
Whenever a friend found out “I didn't dig on swine” (or even cow) they asked me out for BBQ. I think they felt uncomfortable with the idea and wanted to turn me back. Being around someone who consciously chose to give something up was just unsettling. Not that my friends thought I knew something they didn’t, just that I was acting outside of their understanding of the norm. My friends wanted to bring me back to the fold.
Saying no to something in this culture is the opposite of what we’re taught. We’re supposed to say yes to experiences; you can measure how self-actualized you are by how much pleasure you feel on a daily basis. Self-denial becomes the thing that you’re supposed to avoid. What’s more, meat-eaters see vegetarians as defining themselves in the negative (they don’t eat meat) — the opposite of the American expansionist definition of self. Compare that to traditional eastern perception of self: roles, formalities and differences.
(I’m not making a qualitative statement on this. Pleasure seeking (“pursuit of happiness”) works for some, but comes to a head with those willing to give-up otherwise pleasurable activities.)
Compare Western vegetarianism to Ramadan (month-long daylight fast) or similiarly the very widespread personal prohibition on alcohol. Islamic culture teaches self-denial as a way to achieve a greater happiness. In the least, it builds character. A bartender in Istanbul and I got around to talking about our lives. He told me he didn’t drink, never had. His culture supported and encouraged him in this. Imagine the self-control—he poured gin for a living.
Quite the opposite of the atmosphere most vegetarians live in the US. Add the old cowboy mystique and it becomes almost unpatriotic to skip the steak for the potatos.
I wonder if vegetarians in Brazil and Argentina are looked upon similarly. Brazil is very conscious of meat production, as they’re even bigger meat eaters than Americans. It's easier to get non-industrial produced meat there.
posted by raaka at 4:50 PM on January 7, 2002
Diet is not a moral issue, and those who would make it so suffer from moral confusion and are the same type (the evidence suggests) motivated to proselytize (through argument, guilt, ridicule or "humor").
posted by rushmc at 5:09 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by rushmc at 5:09 PM on January 7, 2002
first: why is it that everytime someone makes a post that mentions veganism or vegetarianism...?
and then: ....why I really don't have any patience whatsoever for carnivorous attitudes
didn't you just answer your own question here? if you have strong feelings about groups of people based on the food they eat, or attitudes reflected in same, why is it tough to believe that other people with different diets feel the same way?
I think rebecca's comment in this thread originally was spot-on, while the woman who wrote the original article was being a bit, um, hyperbolic, she wasn't talking to the peanut gallery of MeFi or any other non-veggie group. Not that she shouldn't have been taken to task for her comments, but basically sending her [somewhat extreme?] message to MeFi was in some ways begging for backlash.
posted by jessamyn at 5:24 PM on January 7, 2002
and then: ....why I really don't have any patience whatsoever for carnivorous attitudes
didn't you just answer your own question here? if you have strong feelings about groups of people based on the food they eat, or attitudes reflected in same, why is it tough to believe that other people with different diets feel the same way?
I think rebecca's comment in this thread originally was spot-on, while the woman who wrote the original article was being a bit, um, hyperbolic, she wasn't talking to the peanut gallery of MeFi or any other non-veggie group. Not that she shouldn't have been taken to task for her comments, but basically sending her [somewhat extreme?] message to MeFi was in some ways begging for backlash.
posted by jessamyn at 5:24 PM on January 7, 2002
rushmc: Diet is not a moral issue
Perhaps I don't understand your point, because it is not difficult to imagine morally horrific dietary choices. Would it not be a moral issue if someone was found who dined upon live human children? I don't know of anyone that's done such a thing, but after Dahmer it's not inconceivable.
posted by NortonDC at 5:37 PM on January 7, 2002
Perhaps I don't understand your point, because it is not difficult to imagine morally horrific dietary choices. Would it not be a moral issue if someone was found who dined upon live human children? I don't know of anyone that's done such a thing, but after Dahmer it's not inconceivable.
posted by NortonDC at 5:37 PM on January 7, 2002
"What's wrong with this post?"
If I were to have shown you that post yesterday and asked you whether it would lead to a rational Mefi discussion, of anything, let alone "how extreme some people can get about animal welfare", what would you have guessed the chances were?
How about what the chances the it would turn into a thread hijacking, chaotic mess?
Maybe that post could have lead to a great discussion somewhere else, maybe it could have led to a great documentary. But we aren't talking about somewhere else, and we aren't talking about a documentary.
Wishing that Metafilter was just good friends chatting over Port won't make it so.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:41 PM on January 7, 2002
If I were to have shown you that post yesterday and asked you whether it would lead to a rational Mefi discussion, of anything, let alone "how extreme some people can get about animal welfare", what would you have guessed the chances were?
How about what the chances the it would turn into a thread hijacking, chaotic mess?
Maybe that post could have lead to a great discussion somewhere else, maybe it could have led to a great documentary. But we aren't talking about somewhere else, and we aren't talking about a documentary.
Wishing that Metafilter was just good friends chatting over Port won't make it so.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:41 PM on January 7, 2002
I wonder if vegetarians in Brazil and Argentina are looked upon similarly
Raaka: I know a few Brazilian vegetarians and one close friend is Argentinian and vegetarian. As could be glossed from your own attitude(great post,btw!) it's no big deal. Everyone eats what they like. In Brazil(and Portugal), where there are very few vegetarian menus, if you go to a restaurant and say you're vegetarian, everyone will fall over himself to come up with a spectacular all-veggie meal.
In a word: it's charming. Everybody else feels guilty in a nice way. There's certainly no animosity.
A lot of vegetarians are mostly vegetarians anyway. Meat is repulsive to them. V.S.Naipaul said somewhere it was "the biting through tendons" that put him off.
Isn't it all about what you choose to put into your body? I mean, I eat steak but I wouldn't touch rabbit. I practically eat nothing but fish, but would vomit if I had to eat grey mullet.
Although I disagree with rushmc - diet is a moral issue - the truth is it's 99% a matter of taste and disgust and 1% advocacy.
So why are vegetarians in America regarded as fanatic carnivore-haters? All they hate is meat. And why do meat-eaters think vegetarians and vegans are somehow funny? Vegetarians don't take the piss out of people who can't stand radishes...
I guess the only intelligent attitude is just to politely say "No, thank you" and "You don't know what you're missing" and leave it at that.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:52 PM on January 7, 2002
Raaka: I know a few Brazilian vegetarians and one close friend is Argentinian and vegetarian. As could be glossed from your own attitude(great post,btw!) it's no big deal. Everyone eats what they like. In Brazil(and Portugal), where there are very few vegetarian menus, if you go to a restaurant and say you're vegetarian, everyone will fall over himself to come up with a spectacular all-veggie meal.
In a word: it's charming. Everybody else feels guilty in a nice way. There's certainly no animosity.
A lot of vegetarians are mostly vegetarians anyway. Meat is repulsive to them. V.S.Naipaul said somewhere it was "the biting through tendons" that put him off.
Isn't it all about what you choose to put into your body? I mean, I eat steak but I wouldn't touch rabbit. I practically eat nothing but fish, but would vomit if I had to eat grey mullet.
Although I disagree with rushmc - diet is a moral issue - the truth is it's 99% a matter of taste and disgust and 1% advocacy.
So why are vegetarians in America regarded as fanatic carnivore-haters? All they hate is meat. And why do meat-eaters think vegetarians and vegans are somehow funny? Vegetarians don't take the piss out of people who can't stand radishes...
I guess the only intelligent attitude is just to politely say "No, thank you" and "You don't know what you're missing" and leave it at that.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:52 PM on January 7, 2002
Except that many do know what they're avoiding (they may not miss it at all).
posted by NortonDC at 5:58 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by NortonDC at 5:58 PM on January 7, 2002
A lot of vegetarians are mostly vegetarians anyway
Dammit, forgot to stress the "mostly", meaning most vegetarians eat the less disgusting fishy and meaty things now and then.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:58 PM on January 7, 2002
Dammit, forgot to stress the "mostly", meaning most vegetarians eat the less disgusting fishy and meaty things now and then.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:58 PM on January 7, 2002
She's entirely serious and her home is one vast recovery centre for ill-treated battery chicken.
Something about this doesn't sound right (replace "battered" chicken with battered women, for starters). I think people are reacting to the idea that people like this consider chickens as valuable as people. It doesn't matter what the context of the idea is, it's the fact that it exists which I think made people feel free to belittle her (and chickens, by extension) as much as possible. Do you think if a private letter Jerry Falwell wrote to a close friend condemned, oh, lets say vegetarians to hell, people would simply ignore it based upon it's context? Absolutely not.
p.s. nortonDC, this must be extremely ironic for you, since your blog "Tastes Like Chicken" :)
posted by insomnyuk at 6:17 PM on January 7, 2002
Something about this doesn't sound right (replace "battered" chicken with battered women, for starters). I think people are reacting to the idea that people like this consider chickens as valuable as people. It doesn't matter what the context of the idea is, it's the fact that it exists which I think made people feel free to belittle her (and chickens, by extension) as much as possible. Do you think if a private letter Jerry Falwell wrote to a close friend condemned, oh, lets say vegetarians to hell, people would simply ignore it based upon it's context? Absolutely not.
p.s. nortonDC, this must be extremely ironic for you, since your blog "Tastes Like Chicken" :)
posted by insomnyuk at 6:17 PM on January 7, 2002
And it is the implicit assumption that what is best for you is best for everyone else that others lack patience for.
I never said it was best for everyone. what I meant by carnivorous attitudes are people that rag on me for not eating meat, like I've made some huge mistake in doing so. sorry if that wasn't clear.
also, skallas, I really don't understand where your hostility is coming from. I didn't even make the post, mr_crash_davis did. in fact, I didn't even participate in the thread. did you just misread or something?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:59 PM on January 7, 2002
I never said it was best for everyone. what I meant by carnivorous attitudes are people that rag on me for not eating meat, like I've made some huge mistake in doing so. sorry if that wasn't clear.
also, skallas, I really don't understand where your hostility is coming from. I didn't even make the post, mr_crash_davis did. in fact, I didn't even participate in the thread. did you just misread or something?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:59 PM on January 7, 2002
wow, me and skallas are on the same side for a change! Must be some alternative universe type of deal or something...
posted by jonmc at 7:02 PM on January 7, 2002
posted by jonmc at 7:02 PM on January 7, 2002
Whoops, I thought 13598 was yours. As for my post, what you just apologized for what I wrote about.
?
posted by jonmc at 7:55 PM on January 7, 2002
?
posted by jonmc at 7:55 PM on January 7, 2002
I think its because a lot us love hamburgers and steak (some of us waaay to much), and we can't figure out why you don't like them too. I have one or two friends that are vegetarians and my mother has dipped in and out a couple times. I just can't resist the urge to grill them a nice juicy burger.
And, as matt said, I've also encountered a few vegetarians with the "holier-than-thou" attitude.
posted by owillis at 8:43 PM on January 7, 2002
And, as matt said, I've also encountered a few vegetarians with the "holier-than-thou" attitude.
posted by owillis at 8:43 PM on January 7, 2002
Congratulations, insomnyuk, you are the first person to grok the irony of my blog's name that doesn't know me personally.
My long-neglected, apparently bit-rotting blog, at that...
posted by NortonDC at 8:45 PM on January 7, 2002
My long-neglected, apparently bit-rotting blog, at that...
posted by NortonDC at 8:45 PM on January 7, 2002
Food's one of the big three needs. I'm not surprised that some people respond aggressively to a front-page quote calling them terrorists for eating a chicken sandwich.
Still, that terrible front-page post led to this groovy meta-discussion, so I'm not complaining.
posted by rcade at 9:30 PM on January 7, 2002
Still, that terrible front-page post led to this groovy meta-discussion, so I'm not complaining.
posted by rcade at 9:30 PM on January 7, 2002
> I think people are reacting to the idea that people like
> this consider chickens as valuable as people.
Some certainly do, but they aren't saying it's good to kill people. They are saying it's bad to kill animals (including people) unnecessarily, and eating other animals for pleasure is certainly unnecessary killing.
That of course riles meat-eaters, who, either directly or by proxy, all kill for fun.
posted by pracowity at 11:43 PM on January 7, 2002
> this consider chickens as valuable as people.
Some certainly do, but they aren't saying it's good to kill people. They are saying it's bad to kill animals (including people) unnecessarily, and eating other animals for pleasure is certainly unnecessary killing.
That of course riles meat-eaters, who, either directly or by proxy, all kill for fun.
posted by pracowity at 11:43 PM on January 7, 2002
rcade: I agree with your first point, but I don't think the post was terrible. It was provocative, and something I hadn't heard before, and it generated reams (if it were to be printed) of discussion.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:09 AM on January 8, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 6:09 AM on January 8, 2002
I think it degenerates because of two factors: the first is the moral defense factor coming from some vegetarians- much like in the pro-choice/pro-life debate, one contingent thinks it's murder, a wholly indefensible act being done for no good reason but convenience, while the other side disgrees with the moral foundation that it's murder at all.
The second factor is that people share food as a social activity. What's the standard courtship first date? Dinner and a movie. What do people do to talk over business? Get together for lunch. All of our rituals, from a wedding's rehearsal dinner, to a funeral's casserole wake, incorporate food, both as a gesture of respect and a bridge to some level of intimacy. It's how we show we care about other people, or how we prove we'd like to get to know someone better.
When somebody rejects your food, they reject you. Thus, you get knee-jerk reactions from the omnivores with the more mainstream food, because vegetarians have already "rejected" them. In return, you get knee-jerk reactions from the vegetarians because their food has been rejected, and them along with it. It's hard to carry on a respectful discourse with somebody who starts the conversation by slighting you- even though that was never the intention at all.
posted by headspace at 6:52 AM on January 8, 2002
The second factor is that people share food as a social activity. What's the standard courtship first date? Dinner and a movie. What do people do to talk over business? Get together for lunch. All of our rituals, from a wedding's rehearsal dinner, to a funeral's casserole wake, incorporate food, both as a gesture of respect and a bridge to some level of intimacy. It's how we show we care about other people, or how we prove we'd like to get to know someone better.
When somebody rejects your food, they reject you. Thus, you get knee-jerk reactions from the omnivores with the more mainstream food, because vegetarians have already "rejected" them. In return, you get knee-jerk reactions from the vegetarians because their food has been rejected, and them along with it. It's hard to carry on a respectful discourse with somebody who starts the conversation by slighting you- even though that was never the intention at all.
posted by headspace at 6:52 AM on January 8, 2002
Hopefully, the non-self-righteous set that does it for health reasons and not for all the pomp and circumstance of standing up for an issue will eventually become the majority of vegetarians people have encounters with.
I have a line I use when I encounter surprise or maliciousness from people because of my vegetarianism:
"It's a diet, not a religion".
posted by walrus at 6:53 AM on January 8, 2002
I have a line I use when I encounter surprise or maliciousness from people because of my vegetarianism:
"It's a diet, not a religion".
posted by walrus at 6:53 AM on January 8, 2002
Would it not be a moral issue if someone was found who dined upon live human children?
There would no doubt be one or more immoral acts being perpetrated in such a case, but I would argue that the dietary aspect would not be among them.
Similarly, there may be good cases against many of the acts which support our diets (the manner in which cattle, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. are frequently raised and slaughtered, for example), but these are separate issues from meat-eating vs. vegetarianism, IMO.
posted by rushmc at 7:08 AM on January 8, 2002
There would no doubt be one or more immoral acts being perpetrated in such a case, but I would argue that the dietary aspect would not be among them.
Similarly, there may be good cases against many of the acts which support our diets (the manner in which cattle, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. are frequently raised and slaughtered, for example), but these are separate issues from meat-eating vs. vegetarianism, IMO.
posted by rushmc at 7:08 AM on January 8, 2002
I'd say the immoral act is a human eating a live human child. Do you disagree? If you agree then diet does have a moral dimension.
And since you did not limit your statement to meated vs. meatless diet comparisons, I do not feel compelled to limit my questioning of your statement to that.
posted by NortonDC at 7:29 AM on January 8, 2002
And since you did not limit your statement to meated vs. meatless diet comparisons, I do not feel compelled to limit my questioning of your statement to that.
posted by NortonDC at 7:29 AM on January 8, 2002
it's nice knowing that there are quite a few other vegetarian/vegan people out there (in this peer group, if that's what it is).
posted by kv at 7:47 AM on January 8, 2002
posted by kv at 7:47 AM on January 8, 2002
I've always found that people will give you crap about what you eat regardless. As a child, I was one of those terribly fussy eaters and ate mostly baloney sandwiches and hamburgers for about 15 years, and even today there are things I still don't like, specifically chocolate or desserts. And people have ALWAYS harped on it -- "you don't like ICE CREAM?? OHMIGOD!!" Friends, relatives, acquaintances, restaurant staff, it doesn't matter. If I say "no thank you" to dessert, I hear "Oh, she's being GOOD!" as if there is some moral choice going on, when in fact I just don't want to eat it because it doesn't taste good to me. And it doesn't stop with what I won't eat -- Checkers in the supermarket comment on what I'm buying. Officemates comment on what I'm eating for lunch, even if it's something totally innocuous like a sub sandwich. So being a vegetarian has made little difference in the number of dumb remarks I hear about food. Maybe vegetarianism in particular sets off some people in a snarky way, but to me the comments I hear are no different from all the other nosiness.
posted by JanetLand at 8:10 AM on January 8, 2002
posted by JanetLand at 8:10 AM on January 8, 2002
i'll be honest and say that i've never quite understood the moral argument against eating meat. being organic, the contents of your salad were once/are alive, were they not? they must die to satisfy your appetite. i do understand health concerns, but i am honestly curious about the moral question. i suppose it is the sentience of animals that unhinges some people; in that the the argument is more similar to pro-life vs. pro-choice than you might think at first blush.
posted by moz at 8:32 AM on January 8, 2002
posted by moz at 8:32 AM on January 8, 2002
That of course riles meat-eaters, who, either directly or by proxy, all kill for fun.
Sigh. See, this is the sort of thing that makes me reach for the steak sauce.
Has anyone said that meatpackers are in it for the thrill and joy of the job? Meat-eaters kill animals to eat, not for fun. You can object to it, fine, but framing it in this manner is a false and cheap rhetorical ploy.
Or, try this and see how it scans: [Meat eating] of course riles vegetarians, who, either directly or by proxy, all [are humorless judgmental scolds].
posted by Skot at 8:34 AM on January 8, 2002
Sigh. See, this is the sort of thing that makes me reach for the steak sauce.
Has anyone said that meatpackers are in it for the thrill and joy of the job? Meat-eaters kill animals to eat, not for fun. You can object to it, fine, but framing it in this manner is a false and cheap rhetorical ploy.
Or, try this and see how it scans: [Meat eating] of course riles vegetarians, who, either directly or by proxy, all [are humorless judgmental scolds].
posted by Skot at 8:34 AM on January 8, 2002
You ever notice how contemporary language treats eating as work? When I am at the restaurant, and I slow down, the waitperson will ask me "Are you still working on that?" When my three-year-old (Jasper the Invincible) finishes his puddin', I tell him (by social conditioning, I am sure) "Good job!" When I finish eating a gigantic lunch, and go back to work, I need a nap.
posted by adampsyche at 8:38 AM on January 8, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 8:38 AM on January 8, 2002
Has anyone said that meatpackers are in it for the thrill and joy of the job?
the flavor of meat is so enjoyable that meat-eaters opt to eat more of it, instead of stopping.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:46 AM on January 8, 2002
the flavor of meat is so enjoyable that meat-eaters opt to eat more of it, instead of stopping.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:46 AM on January 8, 2002
I've always found that people will give you crap about what you eat regardless.
You might have a point ... I always ate everything before trying a vegetarian diet a few years ago (on a whim), so I wouldn't have noticed. Incidentally I've never regretted it and generally feel more enervated and healthy as a result, but that might just be me. I certainly wouldn't proselytise vegetarianism, in much the same way as I'd hope no-one would try to tell me what to eat. The morality of the issue comes with a sliding scale in any case, cuz you've sure as shit got to eat something.
posted by walrus at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2002
You might have a point ... I always ate everything before trying a vegetarian diet a few years ago (on a whim), so I wouldn't have noticed. Incidentally I've never regretted it and generally feel more enervated and healthy as a result, but that might just be me. I certainly wouldn't proselytise vegetarianism, in much the same way as I'd hope no-one would try to tell me what to eat. The morality of the issue comes with a sliding scale in any case, cuz you've sure as shit got to eat something.
posted by walrus at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2002
moz - Does eating an apple kill the tree? Your equivalance has holes in it. Tread with care.
posted by NortonDC at 10:07 AM on January 8, 2002
posted by NortonDC at 10:07 AM on January 8, 2002
i'll be honest and say that i've never quite understood the moral argument against eating meat.
have you ever known an animal, wild or domesticated, to run away from you? (surely everyone has had this experience at least once!) now, have you ever seen a child playing with a struggling animal, or pulling on it's tail, or just basically causing it misery? but how did you know it was miserable?
just like human beings, animals are capable of fairly profound sensations like fear and terror and pain and what-have-you, and as a vegetarian I'd rather just not eat meat than put animals through those sensations especially since not eating meat is such a healthy alternative. and besides, I know I could never bring myself to hold down a struggling animal, lop it's head off, wait until it quit kicking, carve it, etc. so I'd be a hypocrite if I let someone else do it for me knowing how reprehensible killing is, especially in slaughterhouse conditions.
furthermore, I hope you were kidding about the plants thing. killing a plant vs. killing an animal? but if you weren't, then consider that just about every plant we eat isn't "killed" but rather separated from a host. the part we eat is dead but the actual plant lives on to produce more foodstuffs. and besides, I would rip up a flower sooner than I would a chicken.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:15 AM on January 8, 2002
have you ever known an animal, wild or domesticated, to run away from you? (surely everyone has had this experience at least once!) now, have you ever seen a child playing with a struggling animal, or pulling on it's tail, or just basically causing it misery? but how did you know it was miserable?
just like human beings, animals are capable of fairly profound sensations like fear and terror and pain and what-have-you, and as a vegetarian I'd rather just not eat meat than put animals through those sensations especially since not eating meat is such a healthy alternative. and besides, I know I could never bring myself to hold down a struggling animal, lop it's head off, wait until it quit kicking, carve it, etc. so I'd be a hypocrite if I let someone else do it for me knowing how reprehensible killing is, especially in slaughterhouse conditions.
furthermore, I hope you were kidding about the plants thing. killing a plant vs. killing an animal? but if you weren't, then consider that just about every plant we eat isn't "killed" but rather separated from a host. the part we eat is dead but the actual plant lives on to produce more foodstuffs. and besides, I would rip up a flower sooner than I would a chicken.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:15 AM on January 8, 2002
the flavor of meat is so enjoyable that meat-eaters opt to eat more of it, instead of stopping.
mcsweetie, here's the way I read your sentence:
the flavor of meat is so enjoyable that meat-eaters opt to eat more of it, instead of [curbing their utter moral deficiency by] stopping.
Is it really so hard to understand that this sort of posturing is very, very tiresome and rather stifling for encouraging rational debate?
posted by Skot at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2002
mcsweetie, here's the way I read your sentence:
the flavor of meat is so enjoyable that meat-eaters opt to eat more of it, instead of [curbing their utter moral deficiency by] stopping.
Is it really so hard to understand that this sort of posturing is very, very tiresome and rather stifling for encouraging rational debate?
posted by Skot at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2002
if thats the way you read the sentence, then the problem is you because I didn't write it that way. as much as you'd like to think so, I don't think of myself as some moral juggernaut just because I don't eat meat.
I can understand why that sort of posturing is very tiresome, etc. but it's important to distinguish between when it is happening from when you're wishing it to happen.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:23 AM on January 8, 2002
I can understand why that sort of posturing is very tiresome, etc. but it's important to distinguish between when it is happening from when you're wishing it to happen.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:23 AM on January 8, 2002
Translation: It's not posturing if I say it isn't.
when I read this statement, my brain actually interprets it as this:
Translation: your choice of lifestyle is someone offensive to me so I will use this opportunity to discredit you by denying the sincerity of the things you say, whether I can prove it or not.
if I have misinterpretted you, I apologize in advance!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:57 AM on January 8, 2002
when I read this statement, my brain actually interprets it as this:
Translation: your choice of lifestyle is someone offensive to me so I will use this opportunity to discredit you by denying the sincerity of the things you say, whether I can prove it or not.
if I have misinterpretted you, I apologize in advance!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:57 AM on January 8, 2002
the flavor of meat is so enjoyable that meat-eaters opt to eat more of it, instead of stopping.
The thing that is offensive here is not the implication of a moral failure, but the implication that it would be natural to stop eating meat, like there's some kind of "friction" that would cause the meatball to eventually stop rolling if only we weren't pushing it so hard. In other words, if only we'd stop and think for a moment, instead of blindly following our senses, surely we'd stop eating meat! Since we still are eating meat, we must never have bothered to think.
Speaking only for myself, it is the implication of stupidity and/or laziness that I find objectionable.
And just because you didn't consciously intend to say that doesn't mean you don't mean it. Our words often reveal more than we intend.
posted by kindall at 11:15 AM on January 8, 2002
The thing that is offensive here is not the implication of a moral failure, but the implication that it would be natural to stop eating meat, like there's some kind of "friction" that would cause the meatball to eventually stop rolling if only we weren't pushing it so hard. In other words, if only we'd stop and think for a moment, instead of blindly following our senses, surely we'd stop eating meat! Since we still are eating meat, we must never have bothered to think.
Speaking only for myself, it is the implication of stupidity and/or laziness that I find objectionable.
And just because you didn't consciously intend to say that doesn't mean you don't mean it. Our words often reveal more than we intend.
posted by kindall at 11:15 AM on January 8, 2002
I wonder why so many of mcsweetie's entirely innocent comments are taken as insincere posturing or thinly-veiled moral accusation.
posted by UncleFes at 11:51 AM on January 8, 2002
posted by UncleFes at 11:51 AM on January 8, 2002
Mcsweetie: I don't know you or know anything about you, but judging from your posts on this thread (and previous posts, for that matter), I'm going to guess that you are either late-high school or early-college in age. I'll also posit that as you get a little older you'll realize how back-handed comments like yours will be interpreted, and how much they resemble the subtle evangelics of a preacher trying not to sound preachy. Kindall was right about our words revealing more than we intend.
Chances are, there will always be people who eat meat and then those that don't. The reason right now you're seeing "a dozen or so folks stand up at once and make little jokes about how they eat meat" is because vegetarians have been so shrill about their own beliefs for the last thirty years that it put a lot of people off. What you're seeing is cyclical backlash, and it shouldn't surprise you.
By the way, I'm a vegetarian.
posted by Karl at 12:00 PM on January 8, 2002
Chances are, there will always be people who eat meat and then those that don't. The reason right now you're seeing "a dozen or so folks stand up at once and make little jokes about how they eat meat" is because vegetarians have been so shrill about their own beliefs for the last thirty years that it put a lot of people off. What you're seeing is cyclical backlash, and it shouldn't surprise you.
By the way, I'm a vegetarian.
posted by Karl at 12:00 PM on January 8, 2002
moz: fruits and vegetables actually are actually meant to be eaten, as much as such a concept can be said to exist. Apple trees grow apples in the hope that you'll find them delicious and eat them. The only moral slight against the tree is that we throw the seeds away, instead of scattering them across the land in our bowel movements.
The next wave of eco-friendliness, perhaps?
posted by jaek at 12:17 PM on January 8, 2002
The next wave of eco-friendliness, perhaps?
posted by jaek at 12:17 PM on January 8, 2002
Can we eat animals if the mother was planning to eat them herself?
posted by rcade at 12:18 PM on January 8, 2002
posted by rcade at 12:18 PM on January 8, 2002
ew. this is long. sorry about that.
mcsweetie:
just like human beings, animals are capable of fairly profound sensations like fear and terror and pain and what-have-you, and as a vegetarian I'd rather just not eat meat than put animals through those sensations especially since not eating meat is such a healthy alternative. and besides, I know I could never bring myself to hold down a struggling animal, lop it's head off, wait until it quit kicking, carve it, etc. so I'd be a hypocrite if I let someone else do it for me knowing how reprehensible killing is, especially in slaughterhouse conditions.
i think these are fine and respectable views to have, mcsweetie. i have trouble with demarkating sensation as the benchmark for moral consideration, myself. let us say that i give an animal anasthesia: these sensations which you abhor animals of suffering would no longer be an issue. is it ok now?
i suspect you'd say no. the potential for sensation is still there, after all. in a practical sense, however, the issue of sensation is bypassed. to me, potential seems like a precarious stance to take as well. people, animals and plants have potential for a lot of things, requiring us to qualify what sort of potential and in what situations. (i think about bioethics, for example. that's a mess, if you've ever studied it.)
i wasn't kidding about the plants, either. perhaps plants have adapted to creating fruits to spread seeds while perhaps some plants produce vegetables so that they are eaten rather than the plant as a whole. these are direct survival strategies that have evolved and they prevent the "host" from being killed. is it that which makes fruit and vegetables more preferable than animals to you? (i would say animals have never evolved any such mechanism because there was never enough selective pressure; either there were too many animals for slaughter to make a difference or the animals were slaughtered to extinction.)
jaek:
Apple trees grow apples in the hope that you'll find them delicious and eat them. The only moral slight against the tree is that we throw the seeds away, instead of scattering them across the land in our bowel movements.
that is quite a moral slight. i would say apples are meant to spread the seeds of the apple tree, and that alone. if that doesn't happen, as far as the apple tree could be concerned, the apple was wasted.
posted by moz at 12:34 PM on January 8, 2002
mcsweetie:
just like human beings, animals are capable of fairly profound sensations like fear and terror and pain and what-have-you, and as a vegetarian I'd rather just not eat meat than put animals through those sensations especially since not eating meat is such a healthy alternative. and besides, I know I could never bring myself to hold down a struggling animal, lop it's head off, wait until it quit kicking, carve it, etc. so I'd be a hypocrite if I let someone else do it for me knowing how reprehensible killing is, especially in slaughterhouse conditions.
i think these are fine and respectable views to have, mcsweetie. i have trouble with demarkating sensation as the benchmark for moral consideration, myself. let us say that i give an animal anasthesia: these sensations which you abhor animals of suffering would no longer be an issue. is it ok now?
i suspect you'd say no. the potential for sensation is still there, after all. in a practical sense, however, the issue of sensation is bypassed. to me, potential seems like a precarious stance to take as well. people, animals and plants have potential for a lot of things, requiring us to qualify what sort of potential and in what situations. (i think about bioethics, for example. that's a mess, if you've ever studied it.)
i wasn't kidding about the plants, either. perhaps plants have adapted to creating fruits to spread seeds while perhaps some plants produce vegetables so that they are eaten rather than the plant as a whole. these are direct survival strategies that have evolved and they prevent the "host" from being killed. is it that which makes fruit and vegetables more preferable than animals to you? (i would say animals have never evolved any such mechanism because there was never enough selective pressure; either there were too many animals for slaughter to make a difference or the animals were slaughtered to extinction.)
jaek:
Apple trees grow apples in the hope that you'll find them delicious and eat them. The only moral slight against the tree is that we throw the seeds away, instead of scattering them across the land in our bowel movements.
that is quite a moral slight. i would say apples are meant to spread the seeds of the apple tree, and that alone. if that doesn't happen, as far as the apple tree could be concerned, the apple was wasted.
posted by moz at 12:34 PM on January 8, 2002
"the flavor of meat is so enjoyable that meat-eaters opt to eat more of it, instead of stopping."
I just finished reading Steven King's Dreamcatcher where an alien becomes obsessed with the taste of bacon.
As for the thread, it spiralled because it's one of those topics that no one is going to change sides on, and one side is on the side of claiming their side is morally correct.
It can never end good.
An an aside, the crude remark about pussy would have made soda go through my nose if I was drinking at the time I read it.
posted by rich at 12:39 PM on January 8, 2002
I just finished reading Steven King's Dreamcatcher where an alien becomes obsessed with the taste of bacon.
As for the thread, it spiralled because it's one of those topics that no one is going to change sides on, and one side is on the side of claiming their side is morally correct.
It can never end good.
An an aside, the crude remark about pussy would have made soda go through my nose if I was drinking at the time I read it.
posted by rich at 12:39 PM on January 8, 2002
rushmc and Norton DC: to come back to the moral issue of diet, which is the most important, I'd say it would go something like this:
Is it morally acceptable for a rational being, capable of making ethical decisions, to derive succour and pleasure from acts which cause pain, suffering and death, when other forms of survival are available?
Note that this exempts hunters and fishers who hunt for food when no other form of survival is available.
An extreme, but still moral standpoint would be: It's not morally right to survive if this means taking another life.
Everything else is open to debate, but this single question has to be moral. Vegetarians, by choosing to survive on plants, are not responsible for any pain, suffering or death.
You can minimize the pain, the suffering, the number of killings; but that means you've already answered "yes" to the essential question.
You can eat insects, less sentient fish; have cattle killed by the most "humane" methods(in itself laughable, given how savage they still are for freakin' human beings)and draw up as many hierarchies("bison yes; kitty no")as you want.
But there is a clear-cut yes and a no to the above question.
That is why diet is a moral issue.
I am not a vegetarian and so I must concede that the vegetarians have the higher, i.e human moral standpoint.
Put it another way: what's immoral about living without directly or indirectly benefiting from the death of other living creatures? Nothing.
The comparison with animals is silly. Animals don't have threads on MetaFilter, much less MeTa, on what they eat.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:56 PM on January 8, 2002
Is it morally acceptable for a rational being, capable of making ethical decisions, to derive succour and pleasure from acts which cause pain, suffering and death, when other forms of survival are available?
Note that this exempts hunters and fishers who hunt for food when no other form of survival is available.
An extreme, but still moral standpoint would be: It's not morally right to survive if this means taking another life.
Everything else is open to debate, but this single question has to be moral. Vegetarians, by choosing to survive on plants, are not responsible for any pain, suffering or death.
You can minimize the pain, the suffering, the number of killings; but that means you've already answered "yes" to the essential question.
You can eat insects, less sentient fish; have cattle killed by the most "humane" methods(in itself laughable, given how savage they still are for freakin' human beings)and draw up as many hierarchies("bison yes; kitty no")as you want.
But there is a clear-cut yes and a no to the above question.
That is why diet is a moral issue.
I am not a vegetarian and so I must concede that the vegetarians have the higher, i.e human moral standpoint.
Put it another way: what's immoral about living without directly or indirectly benefiting from the death of other living creatures? Nothing.
The comparison with animals is silly. Animals don't have threads on MetaFilter, much less MeTa, on what they eat.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:56 PM on January 8, 2002
My kid likes turkey bacon.
posted by adampsyche at 12:56 PM on January 8, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 12:56 PM on January 8, 2002
Else there would be hell, the like of which camgirls and wet weekdays would be cherry blossom in comparison!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:57 PM on January 8, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:57 PM on January 8, 2002
And just because you didn't consciously intend to say that doesn't mean you don't mean it. Our words often reveal more than we intend.
fair enough!
What you're seeing is cyclical backlash, and it shouldn't surprise you.
yeah...the issue I was trying to raise though was that it was inappropiate in the discussion of that article.
I wonder why so many of mcsweetie's entirely innocent comments are taken as insincere posturing or thinly-veiled moral accusation.
it's simple, really. clearly I am some kind of raging vegi-nazi, whose bitter contempt for regular people doing their own thing is so intense that not even a wholly conscious effort on my part to mask these discords is enough to keep them from slipping out. I also use babies as hockey pucks.
let us say that i give an animal anasthesia: these sensations which you abhor animals of suffering would no longer be an issue. is it ok now?
ok for me to eat? I would have to say no. in a nutshell, pain and death = bad, so I try to live in a way that causes as little of each as possible.
is it that which makes fruit and vegetables more preferable than animals to you?
I eat them because they aren't animals. I think it's kinda silly to bring evolution into mix because I don't think anybody picks their diet with evolutionary obligation in mind.
lastly, I realize vegetarianism isn't for everybody. a friend of mine has crohn's disease and meaty foods are good for him. thats fine by me. th3ph17 has a lot of food allergies and thats also fine by me. some people have different metabolisms, some people just like the flavor, and thats fine too. really y'all, it's all good!
posted by mcsweetie at 1:11 PM on January 8, 2002
fair enough!
What you're seeing is cyclical backlash, and it shouldn't surprise you.
yeah...the issue I was trying to raise though was that it was inappropiate in the discussion of that article.
I wonder why so many of mcsweetie's entirely innocent comments are taken as insincere posturing or thinly-veiled moral accusation.
it's simple, really. clearly I am some kind of raging vegi-nazi, whose bitter contempt for regular people doing their own thing is so intense that not even a wholly conscious effort on my part to mask these discords is enough to keep them from slipping out. I also use babies as hockey pucks.
let us say that i give an animal anasthesia: these sensations which you abhor animals of suffering would no longer be an issue. is it ok now?
ok for me to eat? I would have to say no. in a nutshell, pain and death = bad, so I try to live in a way that causes as little of each as possible.
is it that which makes fruit and vegetables more preferable than animals to you?
I eat them because they aren't animals. I think it's kinda silly to bring evolution into mix because I don't think anybody picks their diet with evolutionary obligation in mind.
lastly, I realize vegetarianism isn't for everybody. a friend of mine has crohn's disease and meaty foods are good for him. thats fine by me. th3ph17 has a lot of food allergies and thats also fine by me. some people have different metabolisms, some people just like the flavor, and thats fine too. really y'all, it's all good!
posted by mcsweetie at 1:11 PM on January 8, 2002
what's immoral about living without directly or indirectly benefiting from the death of other living creatures? Nothing.
Naturally. But "not immoral" covers both "moral" and "morally neutral."
posted by kindall at 2:05 PM on January 8, 2002
Naturally. But "not immoral" covers both "moral" and "morally neutral."
posted by kindall at 2:05 PM on January 8, 2002
Is it morally acceptable for a rational being, capable of making ethical decisions, to derive succour and pleasure from acts which cause pain, suffering and death, when other forms of survival are available?
There is a yes or no answer to that question, but that presupposes several things:
1) Survival is a higher virtue than quality of life. Sometimes it is, and sometimes its not.
2) Humans are rational beings. This is obviously disproven everyday. Humans are frequently capable of rational decisions, but "rational" is situational and often relative. Even Kant equivocated on that point, and ended up running to the necessity of God for our blanket claim to being rational.
3) Short term decision making will have moral results, when the balance of interaction is yet to be seen. As a rational being, I can choose to kill no other living thing. There may be serious ramafications to that choice that no one can forsee which seriously impact my and my species survival. The illusion of reason makes us frequently more comfortable than we should be, until something we didn't concider comes back to bite us in the ass.
Thank you, Miguel, for laying out the moral dillema in a clearly stated question. But I have to answer with a well thought out - maybe.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:06 PM on January 8, 2002
There is a yes or no answer to that question, but that presupposes several things:
1) Survival is a higher virtue than quality of life. Sometimes it is, and sometimes its not.
2) Humans are rational beings. This is obviously disproven everyday. Humans are frequently capable of rational decisions, but "rational" is situational and often relative. Even Kant equivocated on that point, and ended up running to the necessity of God for our blanket claim to being rational.
3) Short term decision making will have moral results, when the balance of interaction is yet to be seen. As a rational being, I can choose to kill no other living thing. There may be serious ramafications to that choice that no one can forsee which seriously impact my and my species survival. The illusion of reason makes us frequently more comfortable than we should be, until something we didn't concider comes back to bite us in the ass.
Thank you, Miguel, for laying out the moral dillema in a clearly stated question. But I have to answer with a well thought out - maybe.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:06 PM on January 8, 2002
wulfgar!:
2) Humans are rational beings. This is obviously disproven everyday. Humans are frequently capable of rational decisions, but "rational" is situational and often relative. Even Kant equivocated on that point, and ended up running to the necessity of God for our blanket claim to being rational.
on a tangent: camus wrote an interesting essay called The Myth of Sisyphus in which he refers to a number of philosophers doing the same, including Chekhov and Kierkegaard. camus called this phenomenon "philosophical suicide."
posted by moz at 2:12 PM on January 8, 2002
2) Humans are rational beings. This is obviously disproven everyday. Humans are frequently capable of rational decisions, but "rational" is situational and often relative. Even Kant equivocated on that point, and ended up running to the necessity of God for our blanket claim to being rational.
on a tangent: camus wrote an interesting essay called The Myth of Sisyphus in which he refers to a number of philosophers doing the same, including Chekhov and Kierkegaard. camus called this phenomenon "philosophical suicide."
posted by moz at 2:12 PM on January 8, 2002
what's immoral about living without directly or indirectly benefiting from the death of other living creatures?
One other point. Its immoral because its impossible. We benefit indirectly (and frequently directly) from the death of other living creatures all the time (bacteria, over population concerns, compost from living matter, ...). The choice to live as that question presuposses is a choice to live ignorantly of our role in our environment and a willful lie about our own interaction in the changing natural world. That's immoral.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:16 PM on January 8, 2002
One other point. Its immoral because its impossible. We benefit indirectly (and frequently directly) from the death of other living creatures all the time (bacteria, over population concerns, compost from living matter, ...). The choice to live as that question presuposses is a choice to live ignorantly of our role in our environment and a willful lie about our own interaction in the changing natural world. That's immoral.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:16 PM on January 8, 2002
Wulfgar!
I agree with you and other posters who put me right about hunting. I hadn't distinguished between those who hunt to eat - not just eat what they hunt, when they could have something else - and those who hunt for "sport".
I recall another member - sorry I can't remember the name, but the message got through - saying that real hunters, such as his father, despised the "sporting" element.
Rationality essentially means humanity - including the capacity to be "irrational", meaning not using your brain. Animals cannot be morally judged because "morality" is a concept and their brains are unable to process concepts. It's as simple as that.
Holding up animals as an example of morality("they only kill to eat")or immorality("they eat their young")is just as nonsensical.
As for bacteria, give me a break, dear old Wulfgar! You could make a good argument for them, if you were an extreme, deep green ecologist, who maintained that all life, whether vegetable, mineral, chemical or animal is sacred and to be equally valued.
The key here is pain and suffering. Although we haven't yet found out whether more primitive nervous systems(prawns, for instance, were the object of a famous court case in the UK)are capable of pain, there is empirical evidence that their behaviour, when afflicted, at least denotes some kind of discomfort.
I.e. - the fish gasping for air cannot be insensitive. The "instinct" argument is just mumbo-jumbo.
But we're talking about chickens, cows, pigs - very sophisticated animals who do feel pain.
Vegetarians eat plants. Plants - yes, I too was impressed by that Roald Dahl short story about the screaming roses! - do not suffer. They're there to be admired or eaten or whatever by animals, from the ant to the Dalai Lama.
Benefitting from death, to address your last point, is an important question, but secondary to the primary question.
Consider roadkill - if something's already dead and nobody voluntarily killed it. We can benefit from that without remorse.
Same goes with organ transplants.
It's causing death, pain and suffering, whether directly or indirectly(and 99,99% do it indirectly by buying the flesh of dead animals)that's the issue.
Vegetarians don't do it. We do. The least we could do is face up to it.
I do think that there's a lot of leeway(can you say that?)for us causers. Some extreme vegetarians lump us all together but there is a difference between someone who buys cosmetics tested on animals(Clinique and Estée Lauder in general are blameless, for example)and someone who doesn't care.
Same with battery chickens, farmed fish, cooped-up veal and all the rest.
But that's our problem as meat-eaters and killers - not the vegetarians'.
So my point is: it's actually very simple. We just have to face up to it.
It's obscene to pretend there's a moral equivalence between vegetarians and us. And we do have a lot to learn from them, if we could only have the intelligence to parse their more extreme statements, looking for clues that would minimize pain, suffering and death.
Sorry for going on so long!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:02 PM on January 8, 2002
I agree with you and other posters who put me right about hunting. I hadn't distinguished between those who hunt to eat - not just eat what they hunt, when they could have something else - and those who hunt for "sport".
I recall another member - sorry I can't remember the name, but the message got through - saying that real hunters, such as his father, despised the "sporting" element.
Rationality essentially means humanity - including the capacity to be "irrational", meaning not using your brain. Animals cannot be morally judged because "morality" is a concept and their brains are unable to process concepts. It's as simple as that.
Holding up animals as an example of morality("they only kill to eat")or immorality("they eat their young")is just as nonsensical.
As for bacteria, give me a break, dear old Wulfgar! You could make a good argument for them, if you were an extreme, deep green ecologist, who maintained that all life, whether vegetable, mineral, chemical or animal is sacred and to be equally valued.
The key here is pain and suffering. Although we haven't yet found out whether more primitive nervous systems(prawns, for instance, were the object of a famous court case in the UK)are capable of pain, there is empirical evidence that their behaviour, when afflicted, at least denotes some kind of discomfort.
I.e. - the fish gasping for air cannot be insensitive. The "instinct" argument is just mumbo-jumbo.
But we're talking about chickens, cows, pigs - very sophisticated animals who do feel pain.
Vegetarians eat plants. Plants - yes, I too was impressed by that Roald Dahl short story about the screaming roses! - do not suffer. They're there to be admired or eaten or whatever by animals, from the ant to the Dalai Lama.
Benefitting from death, to address your last point, is an important question, but secondary to the primary question.
Consider roadkill - if something's already dead and nobody voluntarily killed it. We can benefit from that without remorse.
Same goes with organ transplants.
It's causing death, pain and suffering, whether directly or indirectly(and 99,99% do it indirectly by buying the flesh of dead animals)that's the issue.
Vegetarians don't do it. We do. The least we could do is face up to it.
I do think that there's a lot of leeway(can you say that?)for us causers. Some extreme vegetarians lump us all together but there is a difference between someone who buys cosmetics tested on animals(Clinique and Estée Lauder in general are blameless, for example)and someone who doesn't care.
Same with battery chickens, farmed fish, cooped-up veal and all the rest.
But that's our problem as meat-eaters and killers - not the vegetarians'.
So my point is: it's actually very simple. We just have to face up to it.
It's obscene to pretend there's a moral equivalence between vegetarians and us. And we do have a lot to learn from them, if we could only have the intelligence to parse their more extreme statements, looking for clues that would minimize pain, suffering and death.
Sorry for going on so long!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:02 PM on January 8, 2002
Quite frankly, I'd like a moratorium on carnivore vs. herbivore for a while, along with banning use of the word "strawman."
So...if I EAT this strawman, does that make me a carnivore or an herbivore?
posted by rushmc at 8:12 PM on January 8, 2002
So...if I EAT this strawman, does that make me a carnivore or an herbivore?
posted by rushmc at 8:12 PM on January 8, 2002
Is it morally acceptable for a rational being, capable of making ethical decisions, to derive succour and pleasure from acts which cause pain, suffering and death, when other forms of survival are available?
I'm assuming that you mean to say "pain, suffering, and death to animals" here, although you do not specify the targets. Although you phrase it rather dramatically, I would say that given the fact that we have evolved to seek, acquire, desire, and require (to an extent) such sustenance, that the burden of proof that we need apply a post-evolutionary moral determination to the question is upon you.
An extreme, but still moral standpoint would be: It's not morally right to survive if this means taking another life.
That is not a moral standpoint; that is defeatism and suicidal ideation, both of which are despicable and contrary to both reason and instinct.
Everything else is open to debate, but this single question has to be moral. Vegetarians, by choosing to survive on plants, are not responsible for any pain, suffering or death.
They are most certainly responsible for death (the cessation of life), and as for "pain" and "suffering," I do not concede that you have the evidence to support such a contention. (I will, however, happily concede that animals almost certainly suffer MORE than any plant, both in the normal course of their lives and in their experience of our killing/eating them. And yet, what is suffering in the absence of consciousness? Merely a pattern of electrochemical activation? None of us know.)
Put it another way: what's immoral about living without directly or indirectly benefiting from the death of other living creatures? Nothing.
Again, plants are generally recognized as living, if not creatures. More important, I think, is what I took to be Wulfgar!'s point, that few if any edible plants would exist if not for the actions in life AND death of myriad animals, from lowly nematodes all the way up the food chain. Millions of animals have died for every one that lives today, IN ORDER THAT that one can exist. Ditto for plants. It becomes meaningless to talk about not benefitting indirectly from death: without it, none of us would exist, much less eat.
It's obscene to pretend there's a moral equivalence between vegetarians and us.
If you truly believe that, my friend, then you condemn yourself as a hypocrite, which to my mind is worse, even, than a murderer.
posted by rushmc at 8:31 PM on January 8, 2002
I'm assuming that you mean to say "pain, suffering, and death to animals" here, although you do not specify the targets. Although you phrase it rather dramatically, I would say that given the fact that we have evolved to seek, acquire, desire, and require (to an extent) such sustenance, that the burden of proof that we need apply a post-evolutionary moral determination to the question is upon you.
An extreme, but still moral standpoint would be: It's not morally right to survive if this means taking another life.
That is not a moral standpoint; that is defeatism and suicidal ideation, both of which are despicable and contrary to both reason and instinct.
Everything else is open to debate, but this single question has to be moral. Vegetarians, by choosing to survive on plants, are not responsible for any pain, suffering or death.
They are most certainly responsible for death (the cessation of life), and as for "pain" and "suffering," I do not concede that you have the evidence to support such a contention. (I will, however, happily concede that animals almost certainly suffer MORE than any plant, both in the normal course of their lives and in their experience of our killing/eating them. And yet, what is suffering in the absence of consciousness? Merely a pattern of electrochemical activation? None of us know.)
Put it another way: what's immoral about living without directly or indirectly benefiting from the death of other living creatures? Nothing.
Again, plants are generally recognized as living, if not creatures. More important, I think, is what I took to be Wulfgar!'s point, that few if any edible plants would exist if not for the actions in life AND death of myriad animals, from lowly nematodes all the way up the food chain. Millions of animals have died for every one that lives today, IN ORDER THAT that one can exist. Ditto for plants. It becomes meaningless to talk about not benefitting indirectly from death: without it, none of us would exist, much less eat.
It's obscene to pretend there's a moral equivalence between vegetarians and us.
If you truly believe that, my friend, then you condemn yourself as a hypocrite, which to my mind is worse, even, than a murderer.
posted by rushmc at 8:31 PM on January 8, 2002
I'd say the immoral act is a human eating a live human child. Do you disagree?
I do indeed.
If A) you really (and realistically) mean that this person kills the child and then eats it, I would argue that it is the murder that is immoral.
If B) you are describing the extremely bizarre scenario in which this person eats the child while they are still alive, then I would argue that it is the torture (intentional pain-causing) and the lack of respect for the rights and autonomy of the child that are immoral.
In either case, the eating is irrelevant.
posted by rushmc at 8:35 PM on January 8, 2002
I do indeed.
If A) you really (and realistically) mean that this person kills the child and then eats it, I would argue that it is the murder that is immoral.
If B) you are describing the extremely bizarre scenario in which this person eats the child while they are still alive, then I would argue that it is the torture (intentional pain-causing) and the lack of respect for the rights and autonomy of the child that are immoral.
In either case, the eating is irrelevant.
posted by rushmc at 8:35 PM on January 8, 2002
You could make a good argument for them, if you were an extreme, deep green ecologist, who maintained that all life, whether vegetable, mineral, chemical or animal is sacred and to be equally valued.
Miguel, the problem is that the line between differing values of life appears static until put to a "rational" test. Then it just kinda moves to suit purpose.
It's obscene to pretend there's a moral equivalence between vegetarians and us. And we do have a lot to learn from them, if we could only have the intelligence to parse their more extreme statements, looking for clues that would minimize pain, suffering and death.
But that is the whole point, that there is no moral difference at all between vegetarians and us. That they choose not to participate in killing their sustinance is moral only if you accept their premises, which to some degree, I don't. There is no overiding will that shows omnivorism to be immoral, and yet many think that there is. You are correct that all of us have much to learn from lifestyles that differ from our own. But to bring it back to the point of this meta-discussion, those who dismiss my lifestyle out of hand because of their choices and will of moral good, stand farther against the open acceptance they would have than I do. Vegetarians support the free economy that tortures animals for food just as I do. That they don't buy animal products is a hoax and an illusion. They support the system which produces what they abhor. The difference is, they have the luxury of blaming me for their moral pain. Purhaps where I think you ere is that many of us immoral "carnivores" do "face up" to that fact, but aren't rationally troubled by it; and that really pisses those who live a lie off. I eat meat, and it doesn't ring the death knell of the human species that I do it. They have to deal with that. Many vegetarians in this debate do so quite well. This thread is based on the persecution complex of those who don't.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:52 PM on January 8, 2002
Miguel, the problem is that the line between differing values of life appears static until put to a "rational" test. Then it just kinda moves to suit purpose.
It's obscene to pretend there's a moral equivalence between vegetarians and us. And we do have a lot to learn from them, if we could only have the intelligence to parse their more extreme statements, looking for clues that would minimize pain, suffering and death.
But that is the whole point, that there is no moral difference at all between vegetarians and us. That they choose not to participate in killing their sustinance is moral only if you accept their premises, which to some degree, I don't. There is no overiding will that shows omnivorism to be immoral, and yet many think that there is. You are correct that all of us have much to learn from lifestyles that differ from our own. But to bring it back to the point of this meta-discussion, those who dismiss my lifestyle out of hand because of their choices and will of moral good, stand farther against the open acceptance they would have than I do. Vegetarians support the free economy that tortures animals for food just as I do. That they don't buy animal products is a hoax and an illusion. They support the system which produces what they abhor. The difference is, they have the luxury of blaming me for their moral pain. Purhaps where I think you ere is that many of us immoral "carnivores" do "face up" to that fact, but aren't rationally troubled by it; and that really pisses those who live a lie off. I eat meat, and it doesn't ring the death knell of the human species that I do it. They have to deal with that. Many vegetarians in this debate do so quite well. This thread is based on the persecution complex of those who don't.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:52 PM on January 8, 2002
More important, I think, is what I took to be Wulfgar!'s point, that few if any edible plants would exist if not for the actions in life AND death of myriad animals, from lowly nematodes all the way up the food chain. Millions of animals have died for every one that lives today, IN ORDER THAT that one can exist.
Spot on target.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:05 PM on January 8, 2002
Spot on target.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:05 PM on January 8, 2002
If you truly believe that, my friend, then you condemn yourself as a hypocrite, which to my mind is worse, even, than a murderer.
Does this mean you may now execute and eat me?
Boy, rushmc, I'm an amateur at dramatics compared to you. :)
If you mean a hypocrite is someone who does things he knows to be morally inferior to other courses of action open to him, then put me down as one. And the whole human race, while you're at it.
I do wish I was a better person. I do wish I had the courage and ungreediness to become a vegetarian. I do feel guilty when I eat meat and still go on eating it.
That's not hypocritical, just pathetic. ;)
To me a hypocrite is someone who pretends all his actions are the moral equivalent of others. Who wants to eat the flesh of dead animals and be morally right.
Whatever happened to honesty? To saying "Yes, I realize this chicken suffered but I'm going to eat it anyway"? Isn't that the opposite of hypocrisy?
The "everybody's doing it" mentality and "the world is full of life-forms, darling" attitude is just gravy.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:34 AM on January 9, 2002
Does this mean you may now execute and eat me?
Boy, rushmc, I'm an amateur at dramatics compared to you. :)
If you mean a hypocrite is someone who does things he knows to be morally inferior to other courses of action open to him, then put me down as one. And the whole human race, while you're at it.
I do wish I was a better person. I do wish I had the courage and ungreediness to become a vegetarian. I do feel guilty when I eat meat and still go on eating it.
That's not hypocritical, just pathetic. ;)
To me a hypocrite is someone who pretends all his actions are the moral equivalent of others. Who wants to eat the flesh of dead animals and be morally right.
Whatever happened to honesty? To saying "Yes, I realize this chicken suffered but I'm going to eat it anyway"? Isn't that the opposite of hypocrisy?
The "everybody's doing it" mentality and "the world is full of life-forms, darling" attitude is just gravy.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:34 AM on January 9, 2002
rushmc - If B) you are describing the extremely bizarre scenario in which this person eats the child while they are still alive, then I would argue that it is the torture (intentional pain-causing) and the lack of respect for the rights and autonomy of the child that are immoral.
You can avoid the torture issue by anesthetizing the live child. So the human child you are chewing on does not feel pain, nor does he or she have any awareness. So I'll ask again, is the act of eating a live human child immoral? Is there nothing morally wrong with holding an anesthetized child in your hands and chewing on him or her, biting chunks off and swallowing them until there is nothing more to eat?
posted by NortonDC at 4:28 AM on January 9, 2002
You can avoid the torture issue by anesthetizing the live child. So the human child you are chewing on does not feel pain, nor does he or she have any awareness. So I'll ask again, is the act of eating a live human child immoral? Is there nothing morally wrong with holding an anesthetized child in your hands and chewing on him or her, biting chunks off and swallowing them until there is nothing more to eat?
posted by NortonDC at 4:28 AM on January 9, 2002
You ignored my second (which in fact, is my primary) objection, that every person has an innate right not to be harmed, damaged or killed, and that that right would be violated by such a scenario as you propose. It is on THAT grounds that it would be morally wrong. Cutting the child up into little chunks is indefensible; whether you eat the chunks or throw them at passing cars is irrelevant.
posted by rushmc at 7:40 AM on January 9, 2002
posted by rushmc at 7:40 AM on January 9, 2002
You are missing my point, rushmc. It is entirely possible for one person's diet to come in conflict with your idea that "every person has an innate right not to be harmed, damaged or killed." Furthermore, the diet itself, the act eating itself, not any preparatory action, can be the source of the conflict.
You're visiting your mother in the hospital. Walking down the hallway, you notice a little girl that just came back from an appendicitis operation, and she's still under general anaesthesia.
You look around - no one in sight! Hmm, why not just wander in nonchalantly, lean over her bed and start chewing? She would probably taste more like veal than chicken, though.
So, there's no cutting, no pain, no kidnapping, no home invasion, just the tender meat of a girl yielding to your masticulation, just the act of eating a live human child.
Is it just possible that this dietary choice is immoral? Might this dietary choice conflict with your statement that "every person has an innate right not to be harmed, damaged or killed?"
posted by NortonDC at 9:05 AM on January 9, 2002
You're visiting your mother in the hospital. Walking down the hallway, you notice a little girl that just came back from an appendicitis operation, and she's still under general anaesthesia.
You look around - no one in sight! Hmm, why not just wander in nonchalantly, lean over her bed and start chewing? She would probably taste more like veal than chicken, though.
So, there's no cutting, no pain, no kidnapping, no home invasion, just the tender meat of a girl yielding to your masticulation, just the act of eating a live human child.
Is it just possible that this dietary choice is immoral? Might this dietary choice conflict with your statement that "every person has an innate right not to be harmed, damaged or killed?"
posted by NortonDC at 9:05 AM on January 9, 2002
MiguelCardoso wrote:
"Anyway: since when are mocking and thinking about something mutually exclusive?"
As one of the perpetrators of a "suffering=tasty" comment, I have to agree with the above. One person's "darkly humorous" is another's "snide". Apologies for hurt feelings.
My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, so I've been over this ground a lot. On top of this, I am a former chef who really enjoys broiling up a choice cut of cow now and then, and, while I have nothing against them personally, I feel that people who choose not to eat meat are denying themselves some fantastic culinary experiences.
I don't agree with much of the moral absolutism that seems to underly a lot of vegetarianism and veganism. Humans make these kinds of hazy moral distinctions all the time. I see vegetarianism as simply a lifestyle choice, and I respect it as such.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:45 AM on January 9, 2002
"Anyway: since when are mocking and thinking about something mutually exclusive?"
As one of the perpetrators of a "suffering=tasty" comment, I have to agree with the above. One person's "darkly humorous" is another's "snide". Apologies for hurt feelings.
My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, so I've been over this ground a lot. On top of this, I am a former chef who really enjoys broiling up a choice cut of cow now and then, and, while I have nothing against them personally, I feel that people who choose not to eat meat are denying themselves some fantastic culinary experiences.
I don't agree with much of the moral absolutism that seems to underly a lot of vegetarianism and veganism. Humans make these kinds of hazy moral distinctions all the time. I see vegetarianism as simply a lifestyle choice, and I respect it as such.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:45 AM on January 9, 2002
you know, I'm a vegetarian and my husband is not, and it's absolutely no issue at all. we haven't even talked about it much. I almost never cook or eat meat (though I did make turkey for thanksgiving and I made him meatloaf for Valentine's Day last year) and when we go out, he orders a burger.
he says he doesn't miss eating meat at all, and I don't care a bit what he eats when we're out.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:14 AM on January 9, 2002
he says he doesn't miss eating meat at all, and I don't care a bit what he eats when we're out.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:14 AM on January 9, 2002
I almost never cook or eat meat (though I did make turkey for thanksgiving and I made him meatloaf for Valentine's Day last year)
It better have been heart-shaped!
posted by jonmc at 11:24 AM on January 9, 2002
It better have been heart-shaped!
posted by jonmc at 11:24 AM on January 9, 2002
Is it just possible that this dietary choice is immoral? Might this dietary choice conflict with your statement that "every person has an innate right not to be harmed, damaged or killed?"
Um...since you ARE harm/damage/killing her, I would say yes. You're using the same examples over and over, and I've already explained why they are not applicable. So what is your point, because you've lost me?
posted by rushmc at 2:28 PM on January 9, 2002
Um...since you ARE harm/damage/killing her, I would say yes. You're using the same examples over and over, and I've already explained why they are not applicable. So what is your point, because you've lost me?
posted by rushmc at 2:28 PM on January 9, 2002
If you mean a hypocrite is someone who does things he knows to be morally inferior to other courses of action open to him
Yes, that is exactly how I would define it.
I do wish I was a better person. I do wish I had the courage and ungreediness to become a vegetarian. I do feel guilty when I eat meat and still go on eating it.
That's not hypocritical, just pathetic. ;)
Perhaps both? But if you've acknowledged and accepted it, it certainly isn't my place to go on about it.
To me a hypocrite is someone who pretends all his actions are the moral equivalent of others...
But as reprehensible as that may be, it does not meet the definition of a hypocrite, which is, essentially, one who says one thing yet does another. And you are making a lot of unproven assumptions in such ideas as "pretends," "all," and a perceived comparison to others.
...Who wants to eat the flesh of dead animals and be morally right.
And yet, you have not demonstrated that these two things are, in fact, incompatible, though you believe them to be. And since there are more who believe that they ARE compatible than those who share your view, one must concede that, realistically, it is at least possible that they might be compatible. In which case your assumptions are false and your tirade unwarranted and unfair.
posted by rushmc at 2:36 PM on January 9, 2002
Yes, that is exactly how I would define it.
I do wish I was a better person. I do wish I had the courage and ungreediness to become a vegetarian. I do feel guilty when I eat meat and still go on eating it.
That's not hypocritical, just pathetic. ;)
Perhaps both? But if you've acknowledged and accepted it, it certainly isn't my place to go on about it.
To me a hypocrite is someone who pretends all his actions are the moral equivalent of others...
But as reprehensible as that may be, it does not meet the definition of a hypocrite, which is, essentially, one who says one thing yet does another. And you are making a lot of unproven assumptions in such ideas as "pretends," "all," and a perceived comparison to others.
...Who wants to eat the flesh of dead animals and be morally right.
And yet, you have not demonstrated that these two things are, in fact, incompatible, though you believe them to be. And since there are more who believe that they ARE compatible than those who share your view, one must concede that, realistically, it is at least possible that they might be compatible. In which case your assumptions are false and your tirade unwarranted and unfair.
posted by rushmc at 2:36 PM on January 9, 2002
it is at least possible that they might be compatible
Yes, point taken, rushmc. I think my mistake was omitting the counterpart to the circularity of "morally superior", which would have been to add "for those accepting these premisses" which, for someone like you, arguing from an utilitarian - or someone else from a relativist - standpoint, would not be accepted.
Hence, no absolute conclusion is possible.
This would also explain the hypocrisy accusation. I still think "I am a hypocrite" is more honest than trying to pretend all my values and actions are gloriously coherent and that all my principles can be derived from studying my behaviour; whereas, with most meat-eaters, it's the other way round. First they eat. Then they come up with the reasons.
I do believe, though, they are incompatible. You can - philosophers since Epicurus have done it a lot - consider diet to be a moral question. I do. You don't.
Fair enough. At least you've complicated matters for me, which is always good.
I'm sorry if it sounded like a tirade. I'm enjoying this. I know it's slipshod and all but this is the Internet and it's good to argue and disagree with you, for once!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:26 PM on January 9, 2002
Yes, point taken, rushmc. I think my mistake was omitting the counterpart to the circularity of "morally superior", which would have been to add "for those accepting these premisses" which, for someone like you, arguing from an utilitarian - or someone else from a relativist - standpoint, would not be accepted.
Hence, no absolute conclusion is possible.
This would also explain the hypocrisy accusation. I still think "I am a hypocrite" is more honest than trying to pretend all my values and actions are gloriously coherent and that all my principles can be derived from studying my behaviour; whereas, with most meat-eaters, it's the other way round. First they eat. Then they come up with the reasons.
I do believe, though, they are incompatible. You can - philosophers since Epicurus have done it a lot - consider diet to be a moral question. I do. You don't.
Fair enough. At least you've complicated matters for me, which is always good.
I'm sorry if it sounded like a tirade. I'm enjoying this. I know it's slipshod and all but this is the Internet and it's good to argue and disagree with you, for once!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:26 PM on January 9, 2002
NortonDC: I agree that it's wrong to chew on a little girl. But how is it any worse than cutting up a little girl without eating her? It's grosser, sure, but killing/maiming a little girl is bad even if you don't eat her. (It's the damage or death that matters.)
By your logic, you wouldn't have any problem with a chicken getting cut up into little pieces as long as nobody eats it.
posted by gleemax at 6:40 PM on January 9, 2002
By your logic, you wouldn't have any problem with a chicken getting cut up into little pieces as long as nobody eats it.
posted by gleemax at 6:40 PM on January 9, 2002
(That last bit wasn't serious, but you probably knew that already.)
posted by gleemax at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2002
posted by gleemax at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2002
You can - philosophers since Epicurus have done it a lot - consider diet to be a moral question.
One can view anything through a moral lens...and in some sense, that may be a good thing. But in another, it is superfluous in many instances and just tends to muck things up.
I have considered whether it is appropriate to consider diet a moral issue, and have not found any argument persuasive that it is. This is not the same as assuming that it is not, or cobbling up a justification after the fact to support my innate desires.
I'm enjoying this. I know it's slipshod and all but this is the Internet and it's good to argue and disagree with you, for once!
I totally agree, and hope I haven't come across as too belligerent and heavy-handed. I figured you'd understand.
posted by rushmc at 10:10 PM on January 9, 2002
One can view anything through a moral lens...and in some sense, that may be a good thing. But in another, it is superfluous in many instances and just tends to muck things up.
I have considered whether it is appropriate to consider diet a moral issue, and have not found any argument persuasive that it is. This is not the same as assuming that it is not, or cobbling up a justification after the fact to support my innate desires.
I'm enjoying this. I know it's slipshod and all but this is the Internet and it's good to argue and disagree with you, for once!
I totally agree, and hope I haven't come across as too belligerent and heavy-handed. I figured you'd understand.
posted by rushmc at 10:10 PM on January 9, 2002
It's the damage or death that matters.
Exactly. Apparently I wasn't being clear enough in stating this, somehow?
posted by rushmc at 10:11 PM on January 9, 2002
Exactly. Apparently I wasn't being clear enough in stating this, somehow?
posted by rushmc at 10:11 PM on January 9, 2002
I feel that people who choose not to eat meat are denying themselves some fantastic culinary experiences.
You forget that most vegetarians start out as meat eaters. Personally I find that vegetables, if properly cooked (and I mean spend at least as long on preparation time and recipe as you might on a meat dish) provide a wider range of tastes and textures than meats. Then there are legumes, pulses, etc. Shaped soya products, mycoprotein and suchlike can also be used to provide textural variance.
Obviously one could enjoy both meat and vegetables together, but I choose not to. I have never felt that I am limiting my culinary delight: I'm a food and drink freak, and I enjoy variety. If I wanted to eat meat I would. I'm not doing it for moral reasons, although I must admit that I feel nice and fluffy about not killing animals. That's a side-effect.
The reason I am vegetarian is that I honestly feel healthier and more enervated when I don't eat meat. I get up earlier and do more stuff. My body feels more sensual, and I get less aches and pains. I realise fully that it could be just me ... we all have differing dietary needs. Anyway, giving up meat is a hell of a lot easier than cigarettes, from long experience, and I don't miss it at all.
On the moral dilemma of eating meat, there isn't one, IMO. No-one asked to be born an omnivore. We fight entropy any way we can. If you have a particular preference then by all means follow it, but don't expect me to.
posted by walrus at 4:43 AM on January 10, 2002
You forget that most vegetarians start out as meat eaters. Personally I find that vegetables, if properly cooked (and I mean spend at least as long on preparation time and recipe as you might on a meat dish) provide a wider range of tastes and textures than meats. Then there are legumes, pulses, etc. Shaped soya products, mycoprotein and suchlike can also be used to provide textural variance.
Obviously one could enjoy both meat and vegetables together, but I choose not to. I have never felt that I am limiting my culinary delight: I'm a food and drink freak, and I enjoy variety. If I wanted to eat meat I would. I'm not doing it for moral reasons, although I must admit that I feel nice and fluffy about not killing animals. That's a side-effect.
The reason I am vegetarian is that I honestly feel healthier and more enervated when I don't eat meat. I get up earlier and do more stuff. My body feels more sensual, and I get less aches and pains. I realise fully that it could be just me ... we all have differing dietary needs. Anyway, giving up meat is a hell of a lot easier than cigarettes, from long experience, and I don't miss it at all.
On the moral dilemma of eating meat, there isn't one, IMO. No-one asked to be born an omnivore. We fight entropy any way we can. If you have a particular preference then by all means follow it, but don't expect me to.
posted by walrus at 4:43 AM on January 10, 2002
gleemax and rushmc - You're getting closer. The point is that eating something necessarily includes doing damage to that thing. Run around and do damage to things and you'll eventually come up against a moral issue.
Therefore what one includes in their diet necessarily has a moral dimension.
For creatures that operate with a moral awareness (and I'm this includes humans), diet is a moral issue.
posted by NortonDC at 6:12 AM on January 10, 2002
Therefore what one includes in their diet necessarily has a moral dimension.
For creatures that operate with a moral awareness (and I'm this includes humans), diet is a moral issue.
posted by NortonDC at 6:12 AM on January 10, 2002
Foul! You've now switched mid-stream from "eating a living GIRL" to "doing damage to things." First of all, they are not even close to being the same thing, and secondly, you continue to confuse the two separate things that I've been attempting to show are distinct: eating, and doing things to procure/prepare that which you eat.
posted by rushmc at 7:30 AM on January 10, 2002
posted by rushmc at 7:30 AM on January 10, 2002
rushmc - you continue to confuse the two separate things that I've been attempting to show are distinct: eating, and doing things to procure/prepare that which you eat.
Chewing is not preparation, it is a part of the act itself.
You've now switched mid-stream from "eating a living GIRL" to "doing damage to things."
"Eating a living girl" is inside the set defined by "doing damage to things."
posted by NortonDC at 7:47 AM on January 10, 2002
Chewing is not preparation, it is a part of the act itself.
You've now switched mid-stream from "eating a living GIRL" to "doing damage to things."
"Eating a living girl" is inside the set defined by "doing damage to things."
posted by NortonDC at 7:47 AM on January 10, 2002
NortonDC wrote:
"For creatures that operate with a moral awareness (and I'm [hoping] this includes humans), diet is a moral issue."
This is starting to smell of "the personal is political". By your definition, everything humans do has a moral dimension, and must be contemplated and justified in those terms. To follow up on your statement: do you research and approve the conditions under which every product you buy is manufactured? If your shoelaces were sewn by an underage Malaysian sweatshopper, would you still consider it moral to wear those shoes?
posted by Ty Webb at 10:02 AM on January 10, 2002
"For creatures that operate with a moral awareness (and I'm [hoping] this includes humans), diet is a moral issue."
This is starting to smell of "the personal is political". By your definition, everything humans do has a moral dimension, and must be contemplated and justified in those terms. To follow up on your statement: do you research and approve the conditions under which every product you buy is manufactured? If your shoelaces were sewn by an underage Malaysian sweatshopper, would you still consider it moral to wear those shoes?
posted by Ty Webb at 10:02 AM on January 10, 2002
Ty Webb - Whether or not I did would be a reflection upon my character, not the logic of my positions.
posted by NortonDC at 10:44 AM on January 10, 2002
posted by NortonDC at 10:44 AM on January 10, 2002
NortonDC-
Precisely my point. A position can be completely logically sound and still ultimately be unrealistic.
So, again, is it a weakness of your character that you don't research the conditions under which every product in you rhome was manufactured? And is it a personal flaw if you continue to wear shoes that you know were made by mistreated workers?
posted by Ty Webb at 11:41 AM on January 10, 2002
Precisely my point. A position can be completely logically sound and still ultimately be unrealistic.
So, again, is it a weakness of your character that you don't research the conditions under which every product in you rhome was manufactured? And is it a personal flaw if you continue to wear shoes that you know were made by mistreated workers?
posted by Ty Webb at 11:41 AM on January 10, 2002
As I sit contemplating my woven belt, cloth watch band and non-leather shoes made in America, it occurs to me that you may wish keep this away from the personal.
If you see a flaw in my reasoning, please share it. If you seek a flaw in my self, hold on to that thought and nurture it into a complete model of your superiority over me, just do it privately.
posted by NortonDC at 12:08 PM on January 10, 2002
If you see a flaw in my reasoning, please share it. If you seek a flaw in my self, hold on to that thought and nurture it into a complete model of your superiority over me, just do it privately.
posted by NortonDC at 12:08 PM on January 10, 2002
NortonDc, come one, don't get touchy.
I'll repeat the question:
So, again, is it a weakness of your character that you don't research the conditions under which every product in you rhome was manufactured? And is it a personal flaw if you continue to wear shoes that you know were made by mistreated workers?
posted by Ty Webb at 12:36 PM on January 10, 2002
I'll repeat the question:
So, again, is it a weakness of your character that you don't research the conditions under which every product in you rhome was manufactured? And is it a personal flaw if you continue to wear shoes that you know were made by mistreated workers?
posted by Ty Webb at 12:36 PM on January 10, 2002
NortonDC:
Fair enough, I'll rephrase the question: Do you see it as a weakness of one's character if one doesn't research the conditions under which every product in his/her home was manufactured? And is it a personal flaw if one continues to wear shoes that one knows were made by mistreated workers?
posted by Ty Webb at 1:05 PM on January 10, 2002
Fair enough, I'll rephrase the question: Do you see it as a weakness of one's character if one doesn't research the conditions under which every product in his/her home was manufactured? And is it a personal flaw if one continues to wear shoes that one knows were made by mistreated workers?
posted by Ty Webb at 1:05 PM on January 10, 2002
That's progress. Now establish how any possible answer could invalidate the reasoning behind my statement that "what one includes in their diet necessarily has a moral dimension."
I don't see any possible connection between your questions and my reasoning, and therefore I see your questions as irrelevant. Convince me that they could invalidate my reasoning (before the entry falls off of the main MeTa page) and I'll address them.
posted by NortonDC at 1:43 PM on January 10, 2002
I don't see any possible connection between your questions and my reasoning, and therefore I see your questions as irrelevant. Convince me that they could invalidate my reasoning (before the entry falls off of the main MeTa page) and I'll address them.
posted by NortonDC at 1:43 PM on January 10, 2002
A position can be completely logically sound and still ultimately be unrealistic.
Only if the logic doesn't prove what the logician claims that it does. I've read this many times, and find NortonDC's logic to be sound ... That the morality of any action is based on the circumstance of that individual action, not the action itself as he wished to claim. No logic has been provided to show that eating (putting something {anything} in your mouth, chewing, and swallowing) is a moral or immoral action. Diet, of coarse, provides the "what" for what we put in our mouths, but it remains, as rushmc claimed, that the procurement of that what is lends the moral character to eating, not the eating itself. That is, as NortonDC has quite well shown, situational and built on concerns that go well beyond the action, and into its relationships with cause and effect. After all, it was said:
Run around and do damage to things and you'll eventually come up against a moral issue.
By the way, NortonDC, I'm probably giving you more credit than you deserve. You said, in your example of the little girl:
So, there's no cutting
That is the purpose and action of teeth. The act of cutting. If you step outside of what is real, you won't get a real contradiction as you portray. The morally driving circumstance is that those teeth are cutting a little girl, as opposed to wax fruit, so rushmc was correct in not following your logic. It was unreal.
As to Ty Webb's point, I will keep it as impersonal as possible. I strongly suggest that any who support the cultures in which western humans live, have a tacit complicency with damage done to other beings we see as more morally valuable than the bacteria we slaughter by the millions with our antibiotics. Those who choose to hold a moral high ground about the situational choice of other's diet, should be aware of their own support of the life relationships in which we do it. This thread is not about what's wrong with eating meat. It's about why meat-eaters can't just accept the moral superiority of vegans. I for one, will ... when they earn it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:45 PM on January 10, 2002
Only if the logic doesn't prove what the logician claims that it does. I've read this many times, and find NortonDC's logic to be sound ... That the morality of any action is based on the circumstance of that individual action, not the action itself as he wished to claim. No logic has been provided to show that eating (putting something {anything} in your mouth, chewing, and swallowing) is a moral or immoral action. Diet, of coarse, provides the "what" for what we put in our mouths, but it remains, as rushmc claimed, that the procurement of that what is lends the moral character to eating, not the eating itself. That is, as NortonDC has quite well shown, situational and built on concerns that go well beyond the action, and into its relationships with cause and effect. After all, it was said:
Run around and do damage to things and you'll eventually come up against a moral issue.
By the way, NortonDC, I'm probably giving you more credit than you deserve. You said, in your example of the little girl:
So, there's no cutting
That is the purpose and action of teeth. The act of cutting. If you step outside of what is real, you won't get a real contradiction as you portray. The morally driving circumstance is that those teeth are cutting a little girl, as opposed to wax fruit, so rushmc was correct in not following your logic. It was unreal.
As to Ty Webb's point, I will keep it as impersonal as possible. I strongly suggest that any who support the cultures in which western humans live, have a tacit complicency with damage done to other beings we see as more morally valuable than the bacteria we slaughter by the millions with our antibiotics. Those who choose to hold a moral high ground about the situational choice of other's diet, should be aware of their own support of the life relationships in which we do it. This thread is not about what's wrong with eating meat. It's about why meat-eaters can't just accept the moral superiority of vegans. I for one, will ... when they earn it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:45 PM on January 10, 2002
NortonDC wrote:
>I don't see any possible connection between your questions and my reasoning, and therefore I see your questions as irrelevant.< br>
Wait, I thought you weren't answering my questions because you didn't want to talk about your character. Which is it?
I'm just following your statement to it's logical conclusion. If, as you stated, "what one includes in their diet necessarily has a moral dimension", then wouldn't the same hold true for the clothes one wears, the items in one's home, the gasoline in one's car, and the materials of which one's house is made? Wouldn't it be incumbent on a truly moral individual to research the origin of every single product or manufacturer he or she purchases?
Wulfgar-
I, too, find NortonDC's logic to be sound. And completely unrealistic.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:00 PM on January 10, 2002
>I don't see any possible connection between your questions and my reasoning, and therefore I see your questions as irrelevant.< br>
Wait, I thought you weren't answering my questions because you didn't want to talk about your character. Which is it?
I'm just following your statement to it's logical conclusion. If, as you stated, "what one includes in their diet necessarily has a moral dimension", then wouldn't the same hold true for the clothes one wears, the items in one's home, the gasoline in one's car, and the materials of which one's house is made? Wouldn't it be incumbent on a truly moral individual to research the origin of every single product or manufacturer he or she purchases?
Wulfgar-
I, too, find NortonDC's logic to be sound. And completely unrealistic.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:00 PM on January 10, 2002
"Eating a living girl" is inside the set defined by "doing damage to things."
It also represents one extreme of that set, and therefore is not representative of all other members of the set.
posted by rushmc at 5:57 PM on January 10, 2002
It also represents one extreme of that set, and therefore is not representative of all other members of the set.
posted by rushmc at 5:57 PM on January 10, 2002
I am posting this on behalf of NortonDC, who emailed its text to me this evening. He is having difficulty contacting MetaTalk, and I am happy to post this here for him. He says:
Wulfgar! - The morally driving circumstance is that those teeth
are cutting a little girl, as opposed to wax fruit, so rushmc was correct in
not following your logic.
You're right that I haven't fully addressed that. It was a concious choice
for brevity's sake (believe it or not).
There is a lot to be said about the idea that the morality of the act can
not be separated from the necessary preparations for the act. An
awful lot, unfortunately, so instead I worked with a defintion of the
act itself, the human eating of food, that included chewing.
I am comfortable with that definition, and it's useful to advance the
discussion, but my argument does not actually rest upon it. It is a
convenience and an immense time-saver for all involved.
While working with a definition of human eating that includes masticulation,
the moral question resorts back to whether or not there is a moral
difference between chewing upon a live human girl and consuming her and
chewing upon wax fruit and consuming it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:22 PM on January 10, 2002
Wulfgar! - The morally driving circumstance is that those teeth
are cutting a little girl, as opposed to wax fruit, so rushmc was correct in
not following your logic.
You're right that I haven't fully addressed that. It was a concious choice
for brevity's sake (believe it or not).
There is a lot to be said about the idea that the morality of the act can
not be separated from the necessary preparations for the act. An
awful lot, unfortunately, so instead I worked with a defintion of the
act itself, the human eating of food, that included chewing.
I am comfortable with that definition, and it's useful to advance the
discussion, but my argument does not actually rest upon it. It is a
convenience and an immense time-saver for all involved.
While working with a definition of human eating that includes masticulation,
the moral question resorts back to whether or not there is a moral
difference between chewing upon a live human girl and consuming her and
chewing upon wax fruit and consuming it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:22 PM on January 10, 2002
Thanks, Wulfgar! (!(?))
Ty Webb - If, as you stated, "what one includes in their diet necessarily has a moral dimension", then wouldn't the same hold true for the clothes one wears, the items in one's home, the gasoline in one's car, and the materials of which one's house is made?
Your statements fail to establish a truly logically parallel situation, because the other examples you cite are not, in the strictest sense, necessary to life. Food is.
Your questions remain irrelevant to the truth of my assertions. But they are worthwile questions independently.
rushmc
>"Eating a living girl" is inside the set defined by "doing
>damage to things."
It also represents one extreme of that set, and therefore is not representative of all other members of the set.
and previously:
Diet is not a moral issue, and those who would make it so suffer from moral confusion and are the same type (the evidence suggests) motivated to proselytize (through argument, guilt, ridicule or "humor").
It doesn't need to represent any others to make diet a moral issue. That fact there exists even a single immoral dietary choice makes all dietary choices moral concerns.
posted by NortonDC at 6:13 AM on January 11, 2002
Ty Webb - If, as you stated, "what one includes in their diet necessarily has a moral dimension", then wouldn't the same hold true for the clothes one wears, the items in one's home, the gasoline in one's car, and the materials of which one's house is made?
Your statements fail to establish a truly logically parallel situation, because the other examples you cite are not, in the strictest sense, necessary to life. Food is.
Your questions remain irrelevant to the truth of my assertions. But they are worthwile questions independently.
rushmc
>"Eating a living girl" is inside the set defined by "doing
>damage to things."
It also represents one extreme of that set, and therefore is not representative of all other members of the set.
and previously:
Diet is not a moral issue, and those who would make it so suffer from moral confusion and are the same type (the evidence suggests) motivated to proselytize (through argument, guilt, ridicule or "humor").
It doesn't need to represent any others to make diet a moral issue. That fact there exists even a single immoral dietary choice makes all dietary choices moral concerns.
posted by NortonDC at 6:13 AM on January 11, 2002
I'm still just beggin' ya to eat me. Eat me raw, eat me cooked, I don't give a flying fuck.
Just eat me.
And you know who I'm talking to, here.
Eat me.
Love,
StWC.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:31 AM on January 11, 2002
Just eat me.
And you know who I'm talking to, here.
Eat me.
Love,
StWC.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:31 AM on January 11, 2002
NortonDC wrote:
>Your statements fail to establish a truly logically parallel situation, because the other examples you cite are not, in the strictest sense, necessary to life. Food is.< br>
Sorry, but clothes and shelter are, in the strictest sense, necessary to life. With due respect, why are you so adamant about not answering the question?
Don't confuse logical coherence with truth. Again, I'm not challenging your logic, I'm just showing that something can be both completely logically sound and totally unrealistic.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:08 AM on January 11, 2002
>Your statements fail to establish a truly logically parallel situation, because the other examples you cite are not, in the strictest sense, necessary to life. Food is.< br>
Sorry, but clothes and shelter are, in the strictest sense, necessary to life. With due respect, why are you so adamant about not answering the question?
Don't confuse logical coherence with truth. Again, I'm not challenging your logic, I'm just showing that something can be both completely logically sound and totally unrealistic.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:08 AM on January 11, 2002
Ty Webb - Sorry, but clothes and shelter are, in the strictest sense, necessary to life.
No, they are not. Climates exist where they are not required. Choosing to live outside those climates does not make them absolute requirements.
why are you so adamant about not answering the question?
Because it has no bearing on my assertion that diet is a moral issue. It is a distraction in already long thread.
posted by NortonDC at 10:58 AM on January 11, 2002
No, they are not. Climates exist where they are not required. Choosing to live outside those climates does not make them absolute requirements.
why are you so adamant about not answering the question?
Because it has no bearing on my assertion that diet is a moral issue. It is a distraction in already long thread.
posted by NortonDC at 10:58 AM on January 11, 2002
That fact there exists even a single immoral dietary choice makes all dietary choices moral concerns.
By that reasoning, ANY choice could be argued to possess a necessarily moral basis, because you can always increase the scope enough to find a set inclusive of some "moral" choice and whatever choice you are considering ("gee, I *could* use my teeth to eat someone, so whether I brush my teeth or not is now a moral choice..."). Too vague to be useful.
posted by rushmc at 11:32 AM on January 11, 2002
By that reasoning, ANY choice could be argued to possess a necessarily moral basis, because you can always increase the scope enough to find a set inclusive of some "moral" choice and whatever choice you are considering ("gee, I *could* use my teeth to eat someone, so whether I brush my teeth or not is now a moral choice..."). Too vague to be useful.
posted by rushmc at 11:32 AM on January 11, 2002
NortonDC--Food and shelter are both basic necessities, that is common knowledge. Some societies use less shelter than others, true, but it is still a necessity. If you're going to challenge basic anthropology, why not let's argue over whether human companionship is a necessity?
It seems the only way you can maintain your position of moral superiority is to declare inconvenient questions irrelevant, and split hairs over 'direct parallels'.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:34 AM on January 11, 2002
It seems the only way you can maintain your position of moral superiority is to declare inconvenient questions irrelevant, and split hairs over 'direct parallels'.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:34 AM on January 11, 2002
Ty Webb - It seems the only way you can maintain your position of moral superiority is to declare inconvenient questions irrelevant, and split hairs over 'direct parallels'.
Excuse you? Where did I claim moral superiority? Who has established a record of pushing this toward the personal and who has established a record of keeping it abstract?
Food and shelter are both basic necessities, that is common knowledge.
Common knowledge is frequently wrong, that is common knowledge. Now, would you care to try supporting your assertions with more intellectual vigor than merely saying "other people agree with me?"
And while you're at it, You still have established no means for any answer to your question to invalidate my assertion. It's still irrelevant. "Splitting hairs" indeed. Establish that before coming back with what is otherwise a wholly irrelevant distraction to the question at hand.
rushmc - "Useful" is not the measure of right and wrong. What you're really saying is that it's inconvenient to deal with the moral dimension of diet.
Tough. It's still there.
posted by NortonDC at 1:15 PM on January 11, 2002
Excuse you? Where did I claim moral superiority? Who has established a record of pushing this toward the personal and who has established a record of keeping it abstract?
Food and shelter are both basic necessities, that is common knowledge.
Common knowledge is frequently wrong, that is common knowledge. Now, would you care to try supporting your assertions with more intellectual vigor than merely saying "other people agree with me?"
And while you're at it, You still have established no means for any answer to your question to invalidate my assertion. It's still irrelevant. "Splitting hairs" indeed. Establish that before coming back with what is otherwise a wholly irrelevant distraction to the question at hand.
rushmc - "Useful" is not the measure of right and wrong. What you're really saying is that it's inconvenient to deal with the moral dimension of diet.
Tough. It's still there.
posted by NortonDC at 1:15 PM on January 11, 2002
No, what I'm saying is that your definition of the parameters of moral applicability is so tremendously general that it waters down the concept to the point of meaninglessness. And since I don't accept the precept (quite) that morality = meaningless, I reject your definition in favor of my own, more limited in scope but more accurately reflective of the reality I perceive.
posted by rushmc at 12:14 AM on January 12, 2002
posted by rushmc at 12:14 AM on January 12, 2002
rushmc - There are several fatal flaws in your assertions. Let's start with the biggest, and most revealing.
First, you are abandonning your own statement:
Diet is not a moral issue
That statement does not rest upon the "applicability" of the moral dimension of diet in decisions about diet, it rests upon the existence of morality in concerns of diet. Now that I have proven your original statement to be wrong, you are trying to say that the moral dimension is insignificant, except that so far you have failed to make the necessary first step in such an argument, namely acknowledging that your previous statement is wrong. Until you have acknowledged the existence of the moral issue in diets, you can not discuss the nature of that moral issue.
Second, you are assuming the affirmative on a novel proposition in this discussion, namely that "your [NortonDC's] definition of the parameters of moral applicability is so tremendously general that it waters down the concept to the point of meaninglessness." This assertion is wrong. If you wish to counter my assesment of that assertion, the burden rests with you since you are arguing the affirmative.
Third, you are conflating distinct concepts of "morality" and "moral applicability." The existence of the first does not depend upon the second.
Fourth, for you to define your personal morality so that diet is never a moral concern, you must declare that if a human consumes a live human child it is not a moral concern.
posted by NortonDC at 9:25 AM on January 12, 2002
First, you are abandonning your own statement:
Diet is not a moral issue
That statement does not rest upon the "applicability" of the moral dimension of diet in decisions about diet, it rests upon the existence of morality in concerns of diet. Now that I have proven your original statement to be wrong, you are trying to say that the moral dimension is insignificant, except that so far you have failed to make the necessary first step in such an argument, namely acknowledging that your previous statement is wrong. Until you have acknowledged the existence of the moral issue in diets, you can not discuss the nature of that moral issue.
Second, you are assuming the affirmative on a novel proposition in this discussion, namely that "your [NortonDC's] definition of the parameters of moral applicability is so tremendously general that it waters down the concept to the point of meaninglessness." This assertion is wrong. If you wish to counter my assesment of that assertion, the burden rests with you since you are arguing the affirmative.
Third, you are conflating distinct concepts of "morality" and "moral applicability." The existence of the first does not depend upon the second.
Fourth, for you to define your personal morality so that diet is never a moral concern, you must declare that if a human consumes a live human child it is not a moral concern.
posted by NortonDC at 9:25 AM on January 12, 2002
You're just talking nonsense now. The fact remains that you have NOT demonstrated any moral component to diet. As I have pointed out repeatedly (and you have ignored), the moral component in every one of your rather bizarre examples is NOT in the dietary aspect of the example, but in peripheral considerations. Since you decline to address that (or any of the similar points brought up by others in the thread), I'm done. Bon appetit.
posted by rushmc at 12:40 AM on January 13, 2002
posted by rushmc at 12:40 AM on January 13, 2002
Hah!
It is you who has failed to articulate any logical flaw in any part of my reasoning, most likely because it isn't there.
the moral component in every one of your rather bizarre examples is NOT in the dietary aspect of the example
Yes, it is. Diet is what a person chooses to consume as food. A live human girl is among the set of available food choices. The act of a human consuming a live human girl as food is immoral, and therefore there exists an immoral dietary choice. The act of a human consuming an apple is not immoral. Therefore different diet choices have different moral value. Therefore the choices that make up a diet have a moral component. Therefore diet is a moral issue.
Every bit of this has been covered previously in this thread, and not a bit of it has been shown to be untrue.
Feel free to drop the discussion. I don't see anywhere for you to turn for support either.
posted by NortonDC at 9:25 AM on January 13, 2002
It is you who has failed to articulate any logical flaw in any part of my reasoning, most likely because it isn't there.
the moral component in every one of your rather bizarre examples is NOT in the dietary aspect of the example
Yes, it is. Diet is what a person chooses to consume as food. A live human girl is among the set of available food choices. The act of a human consuming a live human girl as food is immoral, and therefore there exists an immoral dietary choice. The act of a human consuming an apple is not immoral. Therefore different diet choices have different moral value. Therefore the choices that make up a diet have a moral component. Therefore diet is a moral issue.
Every bit of this has been covered previously in this thread, and not a bit of it has been shown to be untrue.
Feel free to drop the discussion. I don't see anywhere for you to turn for support either.
posted by NortonDC at 9:25 AM on January 13, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I admit that there are some militant vegans out there, but I'm not one of them. I even eat an occasional piece of bacon.
still, some people react to vegetarianism as if it were an implicit criticism of their lifestyle instead of just a different choice. so I guess that's where the jokes come from: the metafilter tradition of reacting to a different way of thinking as a threat.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:06 PM on January 7, 2002