snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01 July 2013, 10:01 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

If they behave anything like people seem to in general I suspect they hate ex-vegans more, something about a 'traitor to the cause' always seems to rile people up.

ETA: For the record I only know, personally, two vegans and both are perfectly happy to accommodate non-vegans.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02 July 2013, 12:03 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,237
Australia

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfresh View Post
Wait, snopes allows smoothists on this site?
I refuse to be discriminated against because of my smoothist heritage (Crunchites are heretics anyway)

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02 July 2013, 04:55 AM
Troodon Troodon is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2004
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Default

I believe it is morally wrong for anyone to eat meat; in a perfect world, killing animals for food would be a serious crime. It isn't an issue of "what you put in your body is your business" because the animals have natural rights to a similar extent that humans do. However, I don't usually bring out this line of reasoning because while I consider it to be true, I recognize that it is not going to be very convincing to most people who have been eating meat all their lives. (Here I bring it up to explain, not to convince.) People who *were* vegetarians/vegans for ethical reasons, on the other hand, do often feel guilty when confronted with this. My sister started eating meat again, but she squirms with guilt when I talk about animal rights; I have high hopes that she will return to the fold, so to speak. (And, to be fair, I squirm with guilt since I am merely a vegetarian when I am around vegans.)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02 July 2013, 06:12 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,025
Icon84

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
It's also not surprising, (the following is based purely on my own speculation), people who get really heavily invested in a cause (and I suspect this is true for many vegans given the level of commitment required) seem to get very reactionary against those who are not a part of their group, and no doubt even more so to those who leave whom they view as 'traitors'. You see it with religion, politics, nationalism, etc, why not diet.
There is a universal level of distaste for a turncoat from any group, but when leadership takes that distaste and turns it into active persecution, from shunning and shaming to stoning and burning, that is, IMO, where they stop looking like a cause or a church or a political party and start looking more like a cult.

For a member, it means whatever group you're in has taken an unhealthy turn, and become more focused on controlling its members through guilt and intimidation than actually furthering the cause at hand. You can keep your cause, just go find another group.

It's ironic how nasty people can get while they're trying to convince others of their moral high ground.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02 July 2013, 03:19 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
It isn't an issue of "what you put in your body is your business" because the animals have natural rights to a similar extent that humans do.
I assume you figure that animals in the wild aren't held to the same moral standards as humans, but what about if the animal is a pet?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02 July 2013, 04:15 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

When I try to imagine the world in 100+ years, I wonder what commonplace things will seem barbaric to our descendants. I think eating meat is probably one of them.

If that's the case, zealous vegans/vegetarians will be remembered as the only moral individuals, and the rest of us will fall somewhere on the scale of "well-meaning but misguided" to "cruel and hateful".
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02 July 2013, 05:00 PM
MooseMacD's Avatar
MooseMacD MooseMacD is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2006
Location: Park Ridge, NJ
Posts: 490
Default

One of the things I wonder about any site that tries to shame or humiliate a group of people is does it really matter if *no one* ever sees the site? It's not like exvegans.com is Facebook (or similar social network site) where I might see friends of mine post about how I am no longer vegan - I have to be told that it this site exists (and probably visit the site) in order to be shamed/humiliated.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02 July 2013, 05:33 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
I believe it is morally wrong for anyone to eat meat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
When I try to imagine the world in 100+ years, I wonder what commonplace things will seem barbaric to our descendants. I think eating meat is probably one of them.
You're trying to take death out of the ecosystem.

I don't know if that's morally wrong, exactly; but it isn't possible. Death and life are not separable. They're halves of the same whole. The source of death is life, and equally the source of life is death.

Objecting to specific techniques of raising animals and/or to specific slaughter techniques is another issue entirely; though I suspect our current willingness as a society to allow almost any such methods as long as it makes the meat cheaper stems from the same source as underlies some peoples' veganism: an attempt to disconnect ourselves, as humans, from an essential whole.

Different people do better, physically, on different diets. There are certainly plenty of healthy vegetarians, and it may even be possible, for some people, to be a healthy vegan. Everyone should have the right to eat the diet that they feel well on. Everyone also should have the right to restrict their diet for other reasons, just as we all restrict our lives otherwise for all sorts of other reasons. But I think it would be wise to be more cautious, in this area, about deciding whether other people are being immoral.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02 July 2013, 05:50 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
You're trying to take death out of the ecosystem.
Have you been eating the blue-green meat? Objecting to eating meat is not attempting to take death out of the ecosystem any more than objecting to mass use of pesticides is attempting to take insectovours out of the ecosystem.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02 July 2013, 05:59 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
You're trying to take death out of the ecosystem.
Animals will still die, whether we eat them or not, no?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02 July 2013, 06:04 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,619
Default

GenYus, saying that the eating of meat is in all cases essentially immoral is rather like objecting to any method whatsoever of insect control. Objecting to mass use of hazardous pesticides is more equivalent to objecting to particular methods of raising meat or slaughter, which I specifically said is in a different category.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02 July 2013, 06:13 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,311
Default

Okay fine. Change it to "is like saying that objecting to the use of pesticides is like trying to take insectovours out of the ecosysytem." Either way, objecting to eating of meat is miles away from trying to take death out of the ecosystem. I guess you could deliberately think that she was saying that our descendants would think that us allowing animals in the wild to eat other animals was barbaric, but without that twisting, it makes no sense to think that eating meat equates to not wanting any animal to die.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02 July 2013, 06:14 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
Animals will still die, whether we eat them or not, no?
Yes; and they will be eaten.*

On what grounds therefore is it never moral for humans to do the eating?



*At least, unless the bodies are embalmed or sealed within a modern landfill; in which case, they're prevented (at least for some time) from returning their components into other forms of life; thereby diminishing the fertility of the system as a whole, and reducing the total life available.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02 July 2013, 06:21 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Okay fine. Change it to "is like saying that objecting to the use of pesticides is like trying to take insectovours out of the ecosysytem."
Trying to take insectivores out of the ecosystem is nothing like objecting to the mass use of pesticides. One of the objections to the mass use of pesticides is specifically that it kills insectivores. -- If you did take all insectivores out of the system, you would have a huge mess, leading to lots of extra death until things came back into balance; which would eventually happen by the production of replacement insectivores. Because everything needs to be eaten by something: that's how life and death work.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02 July 2013, 06:24 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,758
Default

We also think rape is immoral, even though some animals engage in brutal sexual acts. Many of us think humans can be held to a different standard because we can choose to act morally. If we think eating meat is immoral, we can choose not to eat it (and expect others to follow suit).

I'm not a vegetarian myself, but it isn't at all "trying to take death out of the ecosystem." I do agree with your point about different people needing to eat different diets to be healthy though.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02 July 2013, 06:54 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,619
Default

erwins, that's a better argument; but I think it's more applicable to slaughter techniques than to the question of eating meat.

Different people come to similar positions by different routes. I have both read and spoken to people who said, not that it was immoral for humans to eat meat but fine for other species to do so, but that it was both immoral for humans to eat meat and improper for other species to be allowed to do so and that we should find means to prevent this from happening. I agree that this is not what all vegetarians believe; and that it isn't even necessarily what those vegetarians who say all meat eating by humans is immoral believe. But the misconception that it would be possible to remove all meat eaters from the system and have everything else go cheerfully along as if nothing had happened does exist. GenYus' statement in post 34 of this thread that removing all insectivores from the system would be equivalent to ending all mass application of pesticides reads to me as being in the same category.

I should however have phrased my original post in this thread differently, because I don't know that the people I was answering held that position. It would have been better to start with "Are you trying to take death out of the system?" than with "You're trying to take death out of the ecosystem."

And I am not at all sure that it's a consistent position to hold "something needs to eat meat, which sustains the system that sustains us, but it's morally wrong for us to do the eating." It's true that other apes smash infant apes' heads in but we should not smash babies' heads in; but we're not relying on the fact that the apes do this in order for us to be able to stay alive. -- We are relying in part on the wasps, though; and I don't know that the fact that their reproductive behavior is impossible for us gets us off the hook if we're trying to consider this as a logical issue.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02 July 2013, 07:35 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Trying to take insectivores out of the ecosystem is nothing like objecting to the mass use of pesticides.
How about it is like taking the NFBSKing nitpicking crap out of an argument?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02 July 2013, 08:18 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,265
Default

The argument should never be for taking all insectivores out of the ecosystem - it's about removing them from an area. The only argument I've ever seen for removing all of any kind of species, is that we humans should genetically engineer the death of the handful of species of mosquitoes which are vectors for malaria. They are, apparently, not unique and whatever eats them would quickly adapt to eating something else. I find it hard to disagree with that.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02 July 2013, 08:50 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,758
Default

No one is advocating taking insectivores out of the ecosystem. GenYus was making an analogy about thorny locust's argument, pointing out that the two things were NOT equivalent. Just as saying that eating meat is immoral (for humans) is not the same as trying to take death out of the ecosystem.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02 July 2013, 08:58 PM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
Animals will still die, whether we eat them or not, no?
It's not even that. The bulk of meat come from mass farmed domesticated animals.

In the Western World the animals we eat for meat wouldn't be alive in the first place otherwise, for the most part.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? Rebochan The Bad Gastronomer 42 17 July 2013 10:03 PM
Baby starved by vegan mother snopes Medical 1 25 May 2013 02:49 AM
Donald Trump Outs Jon Stewart as a Jew snopes Soapbox Derby 34 27 April 2013 06:34 PM
Vegan couture: Faux meets fabulous tagurit Social Studies 7 08 February 2013 06:08 PM
Your gut-wrenching guide to gastronomic gross-outs snopes Food 0 24 February 2007 10:50 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.