> I hope you don't drive on roads, or use anything produced by the
> petrochemical industry.
I've yet to hear that humans have successfully produced crude oil from
livestock. Do you have a source of this?
> Also, have you EVER considered how many field animals die to produce
> vegetables?
1. You're creating a false dichotomy. Either a person eliminates all
things in their life that affect animals, or they eliminate none. In the
real world there are shades of grey.
2. Who are you to decide whether or not a person should care whether or
not gelatin (or chicken broth or whatever) is in their food? You're
coming from the opposite side and reacting against the idea that I'm
trying to tell you what to do, but your response is just to tell me what
to do. Seems a little ironic to me.
3. This entire post comes across as, "Yea! I really stuck it to that
vegan guy! I win!"
> Not eating meat is basically the sorriest excuse for making a
> difference I've seen, it's basically on par with believing recycling
> makes a difference. It's a small step to take with the aim of
> moralizing to everyone else how big of a difference you're making.
> Also, how many animals had to die because of habitat loss to make
> that nice house you're living in?P
This is a very defeatist attitude. It borders on the, "I'm only one
person. I can't make a difference. Why should I bother to vote,"
argument.
Secondly, who said anything anywhere about 'making a difference?' I
certainly didn't. I've only talked about living according to my own
moral code. Is living my own life according to my own moral code a
'small step to take with the aim of moralizing to everyone else?'
It borders on the, "I'm only one person. I can't make a difference. Why should I bother to vote," argument.
Whoa, here. The argument against voting is completely separate from the argument against supporting something you abhor in the market. In the latter case, all else equal, the industry will eventually do less of that thing than they would if you were supporting it, even if no one else ever changes. The effect seems small weighed against the sum total of usage, but over years, there are animals never born, raised, and killed if you choose to stop using animal products. The analogy with voting is poor, since if you, personally, choose to vote for the other side or not to vote at all, your decision has literally zero effect on the outcome.
I believe that ConAgra has a plant for doing this to left over bits of turkey.
More to the point as far as we know oil deposits are created by thermal depolymerization of plants and animals on geologic timescales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation Therefor anything produced from petroleum very likely contains dead animals.
1. There are definitely shades of grey, but I tend to think that putting animals in your tank and on your plate are largely the same. If you think that eating dead animals is wrong, then why would consuming any product of which a component was dead animals be any different? Would it be ok to just kill an animal for no reason and not consume it?
2. I'm primarily attempting to point out that your actions and your moral code are hypocritical and thus you should be ignored as someone who advocates a standard for which they are unable or unwilling to meet themselves.
3. I don't really care how it comes across, if it effectively communicates to anyone else that the lifestyle choice and moral code of people who practice veganism or vegetarianism for moral reasons are hypocritical, then it has served it's purpose. If people who are not vegans or vegetarians for moral reasons laugh at the hypocrisy then it's also effective. Sometimes you have to make Modest Proposals in order to communicate effectively.
4. I think that voting is largely ineffective and that the electoral system produces results that are far more influenced by lobbying and money than by casting votes.
5. The entire point of the post was to convince you and others that don't eat meat for moral reasons that you are NOT living your life according to your own moral code. Or that your moral code contains arbitrary exceptions for the consumption of animals for whenever you find it convenient.
I think you're attacking a straw man who you want to represent all vegetarians and vegans. Different people make the choice to give up meat for different reasons, they define veganism and vegetarianism with differing boundaries, and they practice with various levels of consistency. There's no one vegan or vegetarian moral code for you to find hypocritical, or one set of goals that vegans and vegetarians are all trying to achieve.
But in point #1 above, I think you drifted off course; the problem from my perspective isn't dead animals but rather killing animals needlessly. An animal which was dead eons before I was born is not my moral responsibility. It is my responsibility if an animal dies so that I can eat steak, if I could have just as easily had beans.
Indeed. It's an attempt to make things black and white when they're grey.
In the same way you could argue that unless you become completely carbon neutral any attempt to minimise your carbon output is pointless, or indeed if you can't stop all crime, why bother trying and stop any.
Most vegetarians aren't hypocritical because they don't claim perfection, they just claim to be doing more in this one regard than the average and in that respect they're normally correct.
> Regarding producing oil from livestock, you'll want to look into
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
>
> I believe that ConAgra has a plant for doing this to left over bits
> of turkey.
>
> More to the point as far as we know oil deposits are created by
> thermal depolymerization of plants and animals on geologic
> timescales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation
> Therefor anything produced from petroleum very likely contains dead
> animals.
>
> 1. There are definitely shades of grey, but I tend to think that
> putting animals in your tank and on your plate are largely the same.
> If you think that eating dead animals is wrong, then why would
> consuming any product of which a component was dead animals be any
> different? Would it be ok to just kill an animal for no reason and
> not consume it?
You're equating the killing of animals with the death of animals. The
animals that died eons ago to make oil were not killed by beings that
had an active choice to make (i.e. "Do I kill this animal, or do I not
kill this animal?"). An animal that died of natural causes was not
killed, and a T-Rex (or a lion for that matter) does not have a moral
dilemma when it comes to mealtime.
The only possible exception here is if you wish to postulate that some
or all of the animals that crude oil comes from were killed by
intelligent (and sentient) extra-terrestrial or terrestrial beings that
left no trace behind for us to find.
I'm also clueless as to why you question if it's ok to kill an animal
for no reason and not consume it. Most of the animal-based products that
we have on the market today come from animals that humans have raised,
and killed for the expressed purpose of creating that product. Do you
not realize that these animals would not be killed if there were no
demand for these products (or at least only a demand for similar
products that were not animal-based -- e.g. faux leather).
> 2. I'm primarily attempting to point out that your actions and your
> moral code are hypocritical and thus you should be ignored as
> someone who advocates a standard for which they are unable or
> unwilling to meet themselves.
Please point to where I was advocating a standard.
> 3. I don't really care how it comes across, if it effectively
> communicates to anyone else that the lifestyle choice and moral code
> of people who practice veganism or vegetarianism for moral reasons
> are hypocritical, then it has served it's purpose. If people who are
> not vegans or vegetarians for moral reasons laugh at the hypocrisy
> then it's also effective. Sometimes you have to make Modest
> Proposals in order to communicate effectively.
So you advocate ad hominem attacks on people based on some sort of
stereotype that you have in your own mind, but which really doesn't
match reality? As others have stated, you're trying to take the
adjective 'vegan' and create your own definition of it based on the
negative view you have of what some of the people it describes
believe.
To use a religion analogy, you're trying to condemn all Christians based
on the actions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in no way
represents all Christian religions, but they are seen as the 'canonical'
Christian religion in most people's minds. But in this case it's even
worse, because the view points that you are attacking aren't even
associated with some proper group or institution. It's just a view point
that some people who are vegetarian/vegan hold.
> 4. I think that voting is largely ineffective and that the electoral
> system produces results that are far more influenced by lobbying and
> money than by casting votes.
You're sort of missing the point that I was making with that comment. I
was just using a common defeatist view point in pop-culture as an
example.
> 5. The entire point of the post was to convince you and others that
> don't eat meat for moral reasons that you are NOT living your life
> according to your own moral code. Or that your moral code contains
> arbitrary exceptions for the consumption of animals for whenever you
> find it convenient.
Where did I define my moral code for your review? Yet you assume that
you know what it is, and attempt to viciously attack it to (presumably)
gain some sort of personal satisfaction that you have 'proved' that you
are right and someone else is wrong on the internet?
I also question why you are attempting to tell others that their moral
code should be black-and-white. Is you own personal moral code this
black-and-white? Is murder is always murder, and self-defense is no
excuse? Or do you allow an exception in that case? A picture of a naked
child is always child pornography, even if it's just the 'classic'
bathtime photo of a baby? Are these not 'arbitrary exceptions?'
2. Who are you to decide whether or not a person should care whether or not gelatin (or chicken broth or whatever) is in their food? You're coming from the opposite side and reacting against the idea that I'm trying to tell you what to do, but your response is just to tell me what to do. Seems a little ironic to me.
3. This entire post comes across as, "Yea! I really stuck it to that vegan guy! I win!"
This is a very defeatist attitude. It borders on the, "I'm only one person. I can't make a difference. Why should I bother to vote," argument.Secondly, who said anything anywhere about 'making a difference?' I certainly didn't. I've only talked about living according to my own moral code. Is living my own life according to my own moral code a 'small step to take with the aim of moralizing to everyone else?'