Why aren't more atheists vegan?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2016, 12:01 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 11:42 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(03-03-2016 11:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, but that argument is nonsense. Eating the animals is inserting an extra layer (trophic level), so it's a proper subset no matter how close to ideal the process is.

Fair enough. Quibbling aside, please explain how that means she has less responsibility for the deaths of animals, which I'm sure you're aware was my point.

I doubt the animals care why they're being killed. The idea that she is less guilty for not eating the animals she has helped to kill is her absurdity not mine.

Quibbling aside, you're projecting your own ethic on the matter, onto others, which arose from the fact that you never had to worry about how to obtain these nutrients, and always had the resources and ability to go to the mall and pick them up, while you were there getting your hair streaked. Like fer sure. *gum snap*

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2016, 12:01 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 11:41 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why aren't more vegans fruitarians? Harvesting fruit don't hurt the tree.

Ooo. Excellent observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hobbitgirl's post
03-03-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 10:51 AM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  The two are not necessarily connected. I was simply trying to connect the 'free thinking' aspect of the atheist community to the ethical comparison between a vegan lifestyle and a non-vegan lifestyle.
Are you implying that it is more ethical to be a vegan than it is to be a vegetarian or omnivorous eater? That would make for an interesting discussion.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
03-03-2016, 12:08 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 10:53 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(03-03-2016 10:39 AM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  But the animal in question would have had the ability to perceive pain before that happened--

What? How? Are you suggesting animals are some how 'Psychic'? If they don't see, smell, taste or other-wise experience any discomfort then... what?

(03-03-2016 10:39 AM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  Killing it quickly doesn't change the fact that you've ended a sentient beings life and just because it can't feel pain beyond that point doesn't make that act was the correct one to make.

Instantly destroying the brain of an animal pretty much does render it inert instantly.

As for 'Correct' or 'incorrect' that's a whole different thread.

(03-03-2016 10:39 AM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  The claim that we have "yet" to prove whether or not plants can experience pain is a valid point regarding the plants themselves, but what does that have to do with how we treat animals that we are already fairly certain of really do experience pain the way we do?

Because.. you're saying that it's okay to eat plants because 'X' and yet, when I point out that

A) instantly destroying the animal's brain effectively turns them into a plant like state and

B) you're only guessing that a plant like state is 'vegetative'.

A kind of 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Unless you want to eat nothing BUT vitamin supplements and card-board/starch for your existence?

You are going to have to intake biological material to survive.

You saying "It's okay to eat plants but not animals because..."

I am pointing out your lines are still arbitrary and pretty much nothing more than personal.


"But the animal in question would have had the ability to perceive pain before that happened"

"What? How? Are you suggesting animals are some how 'Psychic'? If they don't see, smell, taste or other-wise experience any discomfort then... what? "


Meaning that before the act of removing the animal of any perception/sensation/awareness that animal had every ability to do all of those things before that act, unlike in plants (to the extent of our current level of study). I don't believe that that is a correct thing to do to another animal if it is unnecessary.

What makes you think that we are consistently destroying animals brains before they are slaughtered? In most instances animals are simply rendered unconscious and are killed by slitting their throats so that they bleed out. Destroying a brain is different than being unconscious and being unconscious different than being in a vegetative state. I'm not certain which definition of vegetative you were using, but I don't think that you can apply the term "vegetative state" to a plant. A vegetative state is a disorder of consciousness in which patients with severe brain damage are in a state of partial arousal rather than true awareness.

Here is a list of the procedures that animals undergo before and during slaughter for future edification:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6909E/x6909e09.htm


I understand that a lifestyle is personal choice. I'm just wondering why more people don't question the harm that eating animals causes as compared to not eating them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
If in my lifetime artificial food is advanced to much easier availabilities and with it's potential ranges of choices and nutritional benefits, I will probably be vegan.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
03-03-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
Thanks for all the replies everyone! I've really enjoyed discussing this with you! I'll try to hop back on and discuss some of the other points made on here, but I gotta run for now. Thanks again. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2016, 12:15 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 10:32 AM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  The only statement I'm making is that being vegan causes less harm to sentient beings as compared to not being vegan.
That's debatable. There are plenty of ways to be a vegetarian or omnivore without causing any harm, explicit or otherwise, to any sentient being. Consider, for example, someone who only consumes the meat of animals that died from natural causes. This example, although admittedly far-fetched, does raise the question of whether the consumption of meat is inherently unethical or if it is only unethical in the context of a society where a lot of the meat that is available for purchase (e.g. in supermarkets) comes from slaughterhouses with cruel and inhumane slaughtering practises.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
03-03-2016, 12:15 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 10:32 AM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  The only statement I'm making is that being vegan causes less harm to sentient beings as compared to not being vegan.

That is a correct objective statement, and you are making a subjective value statement that it is "better".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
03-03-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 11:41 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why aren't more vegans fruitarians? Harvesting fruit don't hurt the tree.

What, are you advocating the slaughter of fruit embryos? The pro-lifers will get you!

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
03-03-2016, 12:26 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2016 12:32 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Why aren't more atheists vegan?
(03-03-2016 12:08 PM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  "What? How? Are you suggesting animals are some how 'Psychic'? If they don't see, smell, taste or other-wise experience any discomfort then... what? "


Meaning that before the act of removing the animal of any perception/sensation/awareness that animal had every ability to do all of those things before that act, unlike in plants (to the extent of our current level of study). I don't believe that that is a correct thing to do to another animal if it is unnecessary.

I'm sorry, could you possibly reword this statement. I don't understand the meaning/message.

(03-03-2016 12:08 PM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  What makes you think that we are consistently destroying animals brains before they are slaughtered?

Because, in the enlightened county in which I live it is understood that this is the best way to kill an animal.

(03-03-2016 12:08 PM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  In most instances animals are simply rendered unconscious and are killed by slitting their throats so that they bleed out.

Maybe in some countries. Definitely not in most instances.

Note, if you have information to share about farming/harvesting practices etc, *nods*, please do and we can all learn. Edit: Which I see below, thank you.

(03-03-2016 12:08 PM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  Destroying a brain is different than being unconscious and being unconscious different than being in a vegetative state. I'm not certain which definition of vegetative you were using, but I don't think that you can apply the term "vegetative state" to a plant. A vegetative state is a disorder of consciousness in which patients with severe brain damage are in a state of partial arousal rather than true awareness.

I am sorry that my wording was obviously poor.

Animals, as far as I am aware, in my country are rendered brain dead as instantly as possible in most cases when it comes to the preparing them for consumption. It's as simple as that. An animal rendered completely brain dead, whether through pneumatic bolt through skull or what have you, is in a less feeling state than any plant can be.

So... the fact that the animals are rendered into a state less aware than any plant and that plant might possibly have feelings (As unlikely as this may be.) was the point I was trying to make.

You seem to have no problem with eating plants. yet, you do not wish to eat animals which have been instantly rendered into a stet with less awareness of the plants you eat.

Since, I'm pretty sure, the harvesting of a lot of plants doesn't actually 'kill' them. The plants are still very much alive as they are being consumed and, in the case of salads, not even cooked but eaten raw... like Sushi....

(03-03-2016 12:08 PM)rosieisaposie Wrote:  Here is a list of the procedures that animals undergo before and during slaughter for future edification:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6909E/x6909e09.htm

I understand that a lifestyle is personal choice. I'm just wondering why more people don't question the harm that eating animals causes as compared to not eating them.

*Nods* The information above shows that the animals are treated as well as can be and operated upon as quickly as is possible so as to be effectively instantaneous in regards to their end, hence pain free as possible.

Which is what I have been posting about all along.

Please.. what is this harm to which you are referring too?

Again, when you mention the 'Not eating of' I ask again; What do you propose be done, should every one stop eating animals, in regards to the welfare of the animals which are left?

Are we to then simply... what? Allow them to gambol in the fields? To what end? There is no releasing domestic animals into the wild. That would be a far crueler fate that that which you seem to think the abattoir would deal. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: