The Immorality Of Eating Meat When There Are Vegi Alternatives Do People Care?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

a reply to: FormOfTheLord


Is this over your head or are you continually side-stepping the issue? Your morals are not everyone's morals. You have acknowledged this. If it's "immoral" for you then fine, don't do it.

Why do you seem to expect others to live by your morals?

If you have no sense of morality why enter a discussion based on morality lolz. . . .Some people. . . .

Because I do have some morals. Why deflect and attack rather than try to answer the question? Are you having trouble reconciling your 'superposition' on the issue?

Why do you say someone has "No sense of morality" when the truth is they just have different sense of morality than you do?



What happened to this?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Dont get me wrong its your choices and lives do what you will, however I do enjoy philosophical topics that get people thinking.



I am not pushing my lifestyle choice, to each thier own, do what you feel good with, follow your bliss.

Well?

Where are your morals when it comes to mass slaughter of animals when there is no need? Do you even care?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Where are your morals when it comes to mass slaughter of animals when there is no need?

I believe it would be cruel to eat them alive.

Do you even care?

My heart is with the plants that are slaughtered in the name of sanctimony. And the bugs, slaughtered by mowers during needless lawn abuse.

ETA: You're still deflecting. Why do you expect others to have your morals, contrary to your previous statements?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

And you weren't paying very much attention.
All I can say is watch it again.

I find it ridiculous to compare an animal to a plant
Get real ...

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Very good point.

A life is a life right OP?.
How many lives do we kill cultivating veg and stuff?.
Look it is fine you choose to be what ever you want but we are omnivores and one day we will grow our meat and that will be the beginning of the end of the many species of animals you want to live just like If we all gave up eating them.

I appreciate vegitarians, really I do... I wish the majority of Alaskan were vegitarian because less rats, more cheese. But personally? Hell no! There is no immorality involved, either. You can look at it one of two ways.

1. If you believe in Creationism, then you believe God placed man in authority over all creatures of the Earth, including using them for food.

2. If you're an evolutionist, then you believe in survival of the fittest and you recognize that those canine teeth humans have aren't for ripping apart the flesh of a black bean burger. Nowhere in evolutionary theory does the word "morality" appear.

My diet is majority meat. I mostly eat low-carb, high protein, medium fat, the Atkins diet, or close to it. My meats of choice are personally killed wild game (moose, caribou, ptarmigan) and personally caught fish (salmon, halibut, pike, hooligan). Most indiginous people of the arctic eat that same diet and have for centuries.

The idea of 3D printed food or laboratory created artificial meat sounds disgusting to me.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ooh ya, nothing quite like an Alaskan halibut burger, or halibut tacos, or halibut anything! Also when fishing season comes around I love the plenitude of smoked salmon that makes its way around to everybody.

I stated earlier that I try to eat primarily vegan, but our natural Alaskan seafood and lean wild game are truly blessed treats to behold.

My issues with meat are directed towards the mass produced mainstream stuff. They treat the animals with such cruelty and pump them full of all kinds of garbage. That is messed up and very much immoral.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

The Immorality Of Eating Meat When There Are Vegi Alternatives Do People Care?

It is not immoral to consume meat. However, if one purchases their meat from corporate enterprises instead of organic butchers; farms; or making their own kill; then they are contributing to the immoral practices against animals.

Again, consuming meat is not immoral when there are vegi alternatives...

For instance: The immorality of purchasing leather bags; boots; belts; couches; footballs; and the rest of the vast array of products made with leather goods can also be considered immoral when there are alternative products being sold that don't use animal by-products for manufacturing needs.

So, do I care?

Yes, I do. This is why I only purchase my meat from organic farms who treat the animals with dignity for their entire existence and also make sure that all my products I purchase are not made from animals.

There are many vegetarians who believe that because they do not eat meat makes it ok to walk around with the latest leather boots, new belt and Chanel bag. Perhaps, they take this stance due to cognitive dissonance; suppressed guilt about unresolved issues in their lives and use this perspective as a way to compensate?

Psychoanalyzing Hitler
Many psychologists and philosophers, including Stephan Cave, have suggested that vegetarianism is an expression of the vegetarian’s dread of, or refusal to accept, death[19]. This leads me to speculate that a man responsible for so many deaths may have wanted to avoid being reminded of them.

If Hitler had a shred of repressed compassion then perhaps any reminder of his horrific acts would have provoked a breakdown. There is an effect by which our mind will not let us consider information that would lead to us having to make changes in our life. Stymieing the potential for change is a side effect of the resistance to cognitive dissonance, a mental stress experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time[20].

This same effect is common in non-vegans who avoid information about the treatment of ‘food’ animals; they do it to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance. Legal Scholar and Animal rights activist Gary Francione describes the often-repressed knowledge of the paradoxical way people think about animals as ‘Moral Schizophrenia’[21]. If Hitler allowed himself to feel any remorse or horror about what he had done then the changes he would have been provoked to make would be insurmountable. To achieve consistency (and thus relief from his dissonance) he would have had to try to repair and make amends for something impossible to apologise for. By avoiding facing death on the dinner table maybe Hitler suppressed thinking about what he had done.

The psychologist Erich Fromm suggested that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a classic example of a reaction formation[22].

The reaction formation manifests itself as deliberate and obvious actions running exactly counter to their true feelings, perhaps as a form of overcompensation.

A reaction formation is a psychoanalytic concept that is at best theoretical[23]. One of it’s attractions is its apparent success in explaining seemingly odd behaviour, for example closeted gay politicians taking a strong anti gay marriage stance[24]. Some psychologists have proposed that Reaction formations are sometimes provoked by low self-esteem:

The behavior may also be seen among people who believe themselves to be “inferior” in some way and are atoning for the perceived inferiority. Cohen in fact coined the term to describe just this sort of case, illustrating his belief that gang members committed crimes as a consequence of their perceptions of social inferiority[25].

Anecdotally, I know many vegans who seem low in self-esteem and I think this could be a contributing factor in the decision to go vegan for some people. It would be interesting but beyond my research capabilities (and the scope of this article) to survey vegans and assess their average level of self-worth.

The idea of a reaction formation is based on observation of a person holding two opposing beliefs or acting in a manner dramatically contradicting their character. But contradiction is in the eye of the beholder – it could be argued that Hitler only appears to be suffering such dissonance because we have not fully examined his internal reasoning.

Like many modern vegans, Hitler was opposed to causing the unnecessary suffering of animals. It seems clear that he thought the Nazi atrocities were necessary to prevent the Jewish population to expand at the expense of the Germans[26]. This might help to explain the apparent incongruity in his ethical stance. It is horrifying to contemplate the idea that the Holocaust wouldn’t have violated this code of ethics if he deemed it necessary, which it certainly seemed he did.

rvgn.org...

So, do I care?

Yes, I do. This is why I only purchase my meat from organic farms who treat the animals with dignity for their entire existence and also make sure that all my products I purchase are not made from animals.

So what about not needing to eat meat? People eat it for pleasure of eating animal meat I guess, however we dont need it to live at all.

Do you consider it immoral to kill an animal for food when you dont need to kill and eat that animal for food, as there are plenty of alternatives?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So what about not needing to eat meat? People eat it for pleasure of eating animal meat I guess, however we dont need it to live at all.

I take it you don't own any leather belts or any products at all made with animal by-products? If you read through all the post in this thread; you will find that I already addressed that question re; eating for pleasure. I spend some time in second and third world nations where I do consume meat....and it is not for pleasure. Here, at home, I do consume meat for pleasure and no I don't find it immoral to do so. Again, I do find it immoral to purchase meats from corporate entities just like I find it immoral and conflicting that people who do not eat meat seem to support the mass production of products that use animals to do so.


Any thoughts on the rest of my post since it reflects the topic?

Psychoanalyzing Hitler

Many psychologists and philosophers, including Stephan Cave, have suggested that vegetarianism is an expression of the vegetarian’s dread of, or refusal to accept, death[19]. This leads me to speculate that a man responsible for so many deaths may have wanted to avoid being reminded of them.

If Hitler had a shred of repressed compassion then perhaps any reminder of his horrific acts would have provoked a breakdown. There is an effect by which our mind will not let us consider information that would lead to us having to make changes in our life. Stymieing the potential for change is a side effect of the resistance to cognitive dissonance, a mental stress experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time[20].

This same effect is common in non-vegans who avoid information about the treatment of ‘food’ animals; they do it to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance. Legal Scholar and Animal rights activist Gary Francione describes the often-repressed knowledge of the paradoxical way people think about animals as ‘Moral Schizophrenia’[21]. If Hitler allowed himself to feel any remorse or horror about what he had done then the changes he would have been provoked to make would be insurmountable. To achieve consistency (and thus relief from his dissonance) he would have had to try to repair and make amends for something impossible to apologise for. By avoiding facing death on the dinner table maybe Hitler suppressed thinking about what he had done.

The psychologist Erich Fromm suggested that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a classic example of a reaction formation[22].

The reaction formation manifests itself as deliberate and obvious actions running exactly counter to their true feelings, perhaps as a form of overcompensation.

A reaction formation is a psychoanalytic concept that is at best theoretical[23]. One of it’s attractions is its apparent success in explaining seemingly odd behaviour, for example closeted gay politicians taking a strong anti gay marriage stance[24]. Some psychologists have proposed that Reaction formations are sometimes provoked by low self-esteem:

The behavior may also be seen among people who believe themselves to be “inferior” in some way and are atoning for the perceived inferiority. Cohen in fact coined the term to describe just this sort of case, illustrating his belief that gang members committed crimes as a consequence of their perceptions of social inferiority[25].

Anecdotally, I know many vegans who seem low in self-esteem and I think this could be a contributing factor in the decision to go vegan for some people. It would be interesting but beyond my research capabilities (and the scope of this article) to survey vegans and assess their average level of self-worth.

The idea of a reaction formation is based on observation of a person holding two opposing beliefs or acting in a manner dramatically contradicting their character. But contradiction is in the eye of the beholder – it could be argued that Hitler only appears to be suffering such dissonance because we have not fully examined his internal reasoning.

Like many modern vegans, Hitler was opposed to causing the unnecessary suffering of animals. It seems clear that he thought the Nazi atrocities were necessary to prevent the Jewish population to expand at the expense of the Germans[26]. This might help to explain the apparent incongruity in his ethical stance. It is horrifying to contemplate the idea that the Holocaust wouldn’t have violated this code of ethics if he deemed it necessary, which it certainly seemed he did.

Thoughts?

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

It doesn't matter if its immoral or not, its a question of whether its good or bad for you. If you change it around and say is eating meat good karma? The answer is most definitely no, and the more you eat the earlier you will die and the sicker you will become. Karma is a bastard.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

It is a hard habit to break. Once a new lifestyle or habit is established, then it can flow quite well. When it comes to diet though, a complete revamp is necessary to get away from the standard meat-based one. Grocery shopping, the usual suspects at one's favorite restaurants, utilized recipes at home etc. It's especially tricky for young bachelors! One can be tricked by that constant (every 4 hour) feeling of hunger and oh so conveniently drive through a Wendy's to get a burger. But if you shrink your stomach and eat veggies, fruit and nuts and this sort of thing, perhaps every 2 hours or so, you will feel more vital with more energy and lose lots of weight or just become more lean and fit. The hard part is getting over what I call "stomach monster", because I have tried fasts and diets, but that transitional part of hunger and potentially shifting blood/sugar levels can make me, not just uncomfortable, but extremely agitated!

I find beef relatively hard to digest anyways, but I have always loved fish and chicken. Staying away from sushi might be hard - except when it is revealed that most of the fish is contaminated with radiation. By the way, I think most factory raised cows are loaded with weird hormones and are also stressed to the max, which means people who eat this meat are absorbing large amounts of cortisol and adrenaline. In that sense, it is a karmic return to humans. Also, I am pretty sure that large amounts of Amazonians burn down parts of the rainforest to raise cattle which is often used for McDonald's hamburgers. The rain forests are the lungs of the planet. So it can come down to a question of which is more awesome: the Earth or McDonald's on every second block of the ever-expanding industrial metropolis? This is not a question that average people ever think about.

A change in diet can be achieved, it just needs dedication and organization to visualize a totally different way of doing things. But same goes for any lifestyle changes. Write it down, schedule it and be determined.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So what about not needing to eat meat? People eat it for pleasure of eating animal meat I guess, however we dont need it to live at all.

I take it you don't own any leather belts or any products at all made with animal by-products? If you read through all the post in this thread; you will find that I already addressed that question re; eating for pleasure. I spend some time in second and third world nations where I do consume meat....and it is not for pleasure. Here, at home, I do consume meat for pleasure and no I don't find it immoral to do so. Again, I do find it immoral to purchase meats from corporate entities just like I find it immoral and conflicting that people who do not eat meat seem to support the mass production of products that use animals to do so.


Any thoughts on the rest of my post since it reflects the topic?

Psychoanalyzing Hitler

Many psychologists and philosophers, including Stephan Cave, have suggested that vegetarianism is an expression of the vegetarian’s dread of, or refusal to accept, death[19]. This leads me to speculate that a man responsible for so many deaths may have wanted to avoid being reminded of them.

If Hitler had a shred of repressed compassion then perhaps any reminder of his horrific acts would have provoked a breakdown. There is an effect by which our mind will not let us consider information that would lead to us having to make changes in our life. Stymieing the potential for change is a side effect of the resistance to cognitive dissonance, a mental stress experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time[20].

This same effect is common in non-vegans who avoid information about the treatment of ‘food’ animals; they do it to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance. Legal Scholar and Animal rights activist Gary Francione describes the often-repressed knowledge of the paradoxical way people think about animals as ‘Moral Schizophrenia’[21]. If Hitler allowed himself to feel any remorse or horror about what he had done then the changes he would have been provoked to make would be insurmountable. To achieve consistency (and thus relief from his dissonance) he would have had to try to repair and make amends for something impossible to apologise for. By avoiding facing death on the dinner table maybe Hitler suppressed thinking about what he had done.

The psychologist Erich Fromm suggested that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a classic example of a reaction formation[22].

The reaction formation manifests itself as deliberate and obvious actions running exactly counter to their true feelings, perhaps as a form of overcompensation.

A reaction formation is a psychoanalytic concept that is at best theoretical[23]. One of it’s attractions is its apparent success in explaining seemingly odd behaviour, for example closeted gay politicians taking a strong anti gay marriage stance[24]. Some psychologists have proposed that Reaction formations are sometimes provoked by low self-esteem:

The behavior may also be seen among people who believe themselves to be “inferior” in some way and are atoning for the perceived inferiority. Cohen in fact coined the term to describe just this sort of case, illustrating his belief that gang members committed crimes as a consequence of their perceptions of social inferiority[25].

Anecdotally, I know many vegans who seem low in self-esteem and I think this could be a contributing factor in the decision to go vegan for some people. It would be interesting but beyond my research capabilities (and the scope of this article) to survey vegans and assess their average level of self-worth.

The idea of a reaction formation is based on observation of a person holding two opposing beliefs or acting in a manner dramatically contradicting their character. But contradiction is in the eye of the beholder – it could be argued that Hitler only appears to be suffering such dissonance because we have not fully examined his internal reasoning.

Like many modern vegans, Hitler was opposed to causing the unnecessary suffering of animals. It seems clear that he thought the Nazi atrocities were necessary to prevent the Jewish population to expand at the expense of the Germans[26]. This might help to explain the apparent incongruity in his ethical stance. It is horrifying to contemplate the idea that the Holocaust wouldn’t have violated this code of ethics if he deemed it necessary, which it certainly seemed he did.

Thoughts?

...hitler was a vegetarian.
He had no sympathy/empathy.
Therefore all vegetarians are hitler.

Sounds legit.

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Involutionist

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So what about not needing to eat meat? People eat it for pleasure of eating animal meat I guess, however we dont need it to live at all.

I take it you don't own any leather belts or any products at all made with animal by-products? If you read through all the post in this thread; you will find that I already addressed that question re; eating for pleasure. I spend some time in second and third world nations where I do consume meat....and it is not for pleasure. Here, at home, I do consume meat for pleasure and no I don't find it immoral to do so. Again, I do find it immoral to purchase meats from corporate entities just like I find it immoral and conflicting that people who do not eat meat seem to support the mass production of products that use animals to do so.





Any thoughts on the rest of my post since it reflects the topic?

Psychoanalyzing Hitler



Many psychologists and philosophers, including Stephan Cave, have suggested that vegetarianism is an expression of the vegetarian’s dread of, or refusal to accept, death[19]. This leads me to speculate that a man responsible for so many deaths may have wanted to avoid being reminded of them.



If Hitler had a shred of repressed compassion then perhaps any reminder of his horrific acts would have provoked a breakdown. There is an effect by which our mind will not let us consider information that would lead to us having to make changes in our life. Stymieing the potential for change is a side effect of the resistance to cognitive dissonance, a mental stress experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time[20].



This same effect is common in non-vegans who avoid information about the treatment of ‘food’ animals; they do it to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance. Legal Scholar and Animal rights activist Gary Francione describes the often-repressed knowledge of the paradoxical way people think about animals as ‘Moral Schizophrenia’[21]. If Hitler allowed himself to feel any remorse or horror about what he had done then the changes he would have been provoked to make would be insurmountable. To achieve consistency (and thus relief from his dissonance) he would have had to try to repair and make amends for something impossible to apologise for. By avoiding facing death on the dinner table maybe Hitler suppressed thinking about what he had done.



The psychologist Erich Fromm suggested that Hitler’s vegetarianism was a classic example of a reaction formation[22].



The reaction formation manifests itself as deliberate and obvious actions running exactly counter to their true feelings, perhaps as a form of overcompensation.



A reaction formation is a psychoanalytic concept that is at best theoretical[23]. One of it’s attractions is its apparent success in explaining seemingly odd behaviour, for example closeted gay politicians taking a strong anti gay marriage stance[24]. Some psychologists have proposed that Reaction formations are sometimes provoked by low self-esteem:



The behavior may also be seen among people who believe themselves to be “inferior” in some way and are atoning for the perceived inferiority. Cohen in fact coined the term to describe just this sort of case, illustrating his belief that gang members committed crimes as a consequence of their perceptions of social inferiority[25].



Anecdotally, I know many vegans who seem low in self-esteem and I think this could be a contributing factor in the decision to go vegan for some people. It would be interesting but beyond my research capabilities (and the scope of this article) to survey vegans and assess their average level of self-worth.



The idea of a reaction formation is based on observation of a person holding two opposing beliefs or acting in a manner dramatically contradicting their character. But contradiction is in the eye of the beholder – it could be argued that Hitler only appears to be suffering such dissonance because we have not fully examined his internal reasoning.



Like many modern vegans, Hitler was opposed to causing the unnecessary suffering of animals. It seems clear that he thought the Nazi atrocities were necessary to prevent the Jewish population to expand at the expense of the Germans[26]. This might help to explain the apparent incongruity in his ethical stance. It is horrifying to contemplate the idea that the Holocaust wouldn’t have violated this code of ethics if he deemed it necessary, which it certainly seemed he did.

Thoughts?

...hitler was a vegetarian.

He had no sympathy/empathy.

Therefore all vegetarians are hitler.



Sounds legit.



Å99

I know right why even dignfy that with a response, it doesnt belong in a civil discussion on morality.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: RedmoonMWC



It doesn't matter if its immoral or not, its a question of whether its good or bad for you. If you change it around and say is eating meat good karma? The answer is most definitely no, and the more you eat the earlier you will die and the sicker you will become. Karma is a bastard.

Kinda true but then we hold each other to different sets of standards, like if you kill someones pet cow or chicken and eat it you will be considered immoral and wrong because there are unwritten laws of marality, right and wrong.

As to the mass slaughter of animals when it isnt necessary thats kinda on corporations and those who support them, if a better way is to ever accepted the realization that something is wrong with the current way must be realized.

What gets me is the number of people that think its totally fine to kill animals under any circumstances, which it isnt if it is to be considered morally justified.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
So what about not needing to eat meat?

Some animals do not eat meat, but humans need to eat meat. If you do not eat meat it tends to make you go a bit silly, as seen here,

Do you consider it immoral to kill an animal for food

It is immoral to kill and eat poor innocent plants, when there is meat available. That is what is immoral.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

So what about not needing to eat meat?

Some animals do not eat meat, but humans need to eat meat. If you do not eat meat it tends to make you go a bit silly, as seen here,

Do you consider it immoral to kill an animal for food

It is immoral to kill and eat poor innocent plants, when there is meat available. That is what is immoral.

Go look at my witty response on page 7 for that lolz.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Go look at my witty response on page 7 for that lolz.

What witty response? All I see is you refusing to accept it is immoral to eat plants when there is tasty meat available....

a reply to: hellobruce

Humans need to eat meat? Not from where I'm sitting. Did you know that the Brahmin class of India don't eat meat? That many of your favorite actors and singers don't eat meat? Mohandas Gandhi and James Bevel changed their countries and the entire world while not eating meat. Eating meat is so 19th Century. Time to move forward and help to save the forests, prairies and oceans from the destruction that it's caused.

Plants have feelings, too! Damned the immoral vegetarians!

Seriously though, this argument is absolutely insane. Do you think life doesn't feed on life? Are you really so self-hating? A critical analysis clearly shows our species are omnivores, and require nutrients which can't be had through a 100% vegetarian diet.

I don't understand vegetarians. Maybe it's narcissism. Maybe it's hate for their animal nature. No clue, not my deal.