I recently got into a debate with this vegetarian/animal rights person. It occurred to me that vegetarianism in general is very similar to religious belief. Now I cannot speak for all of whom do not eat meat, but you know who are you are! If you don't know, then check to see if you are the following:
1). if you witness a person step on an insect you break down in tears
2). you have t-shirts opposing the clubbing of baby seals
3). you have a constant need to tell normal people that eating meat is immoral
4). you value the life of an animal higher than that of a human
5). your eyes water up at the sight of freshly slain wild-life (e.g., deer, turkey, pheasant, moose, elk, and bears)
6). you refuse to use mouse-traps and think of mice as being part of your family
Those are just a few examples of the actions committed by those whom are being refereed to in this blog post.
Many of these people make the claim that animals feel just as much pain as we do. While animals do feel pain, we have no way of knowing the amount of pain experienced—and it would vary from case to case and from one particular animal versus another. Hell, even the amount of pain people feel vary between individuals (but that is neither here nor there). The point here is that there is no way of knowing the amount of pain an actual animal experiences when it is harvested for its resources. Pain itself cannot be experienced objectively, and no human knows what it is like to be a chicken. Sure, being killed as a chicken perhaps may cause some pain, but, considering the size of the chicken's brain, we cannot expect the experience to be like that of a human. But, the thing is, these people don't actually care about suffering as much as they care about complaining. If they really were concerned about stopping suffering they would spend an equal amount of time complaining about genocides in Africa, for example. There is more than enough pain and misery within the human race to keep these pessimistic noisy individuals feeling depressed. So why don't they focus on that? Well, because they hate themselves, and the human race in general.
Vegetarians often suffer from mental problems like depression and anxiety (I know this from personal observation), and I also believe that mental illness is linked to this sort of behavior. In fact, I will take it even a step further and claim that the thoughts and avoidance of meat borders on an OCD. This post is just a general one regarding this abnormal behavior, I will be addressing more of the 'mental illness' aspects of it down the road. For any of you that were butt-hurt by this post, here is a tissue.
Dude you made so many good points here : D
ReplyDeleteI met a vegetarian that is determined to convert every single person she meets to vegetarianism... I always thought that it's great that she's so passionate about saving animals, sometimes I do feel a bit bad about eating dead animals... but when you think about it, lots of animals kill and eat animals, right? So what's wrong with us doing it?
There are lots of vitamins in meat that can't be found in any other foods, (I know I'd be lost without meat because I hate veggies so much xD)so isn't it human nature to hunt?
Have a nice day~~
PS sorry for any spelling errors, I'm a 'tard.
thanks :)
ReplyDeleteMost vegetarians believe they are being open-minded. However, the cause for their vegetarianism is a misfiring of their anti-cannibalism hardwiring. It is innate for most humans to be sickened by the thought eating another human. Vegetarians distort reality and begin to view animals as being humans, thus causing them to be sickened by the idea of eating animals.
It's always fun to use this argument against vegetarians, because when you do, they get thrown off their silly talking points and don't know what to say :)
I am an atheist, and also a vegetarian. There are many reasons that I am uncomfortable killing a human. Some of these are ethical axioms which, through introspection, I have elected to adhere to in an attempt to maximize my own satisfaction in life. I would (in the vast majority of circumstances) not kill a human, because a human is a consciouse being, and I choose to respect consciousness by preserving it. I, however, make no effort to spare the "life" of variouse sporazoa or bateria, because I believe that it has been clearly demonstrated that these things do not posess the necessary constituents of consciousness. It is, in my opinion, quite evident that consciousness is less like an "on/off" switch and more like an emergent property of increasingly complex nervouse systems. It must be true then that, somewhere between the nonexistence of the bacterial nervous system and that of a human being, there is a "line", which delineates the point at which I should not destroy an object. This is not a black and white issue, but a matter of degree. While science in this area is in it's infancy, there is some evidence. When trapped and tortured, the corresponding vocalizations, terror, frenzied attempts to escape, and possible aggression are easily observed in both humans and many other animals. This is directly in line with the observed similarities between large vertibrate nervous systems. It is my guess that humans are more "conscious" than mice, and mice more "conscious" than fruit flies. Drawing the aforementioned line of delineation therefore is a matter of weighing the risk of killing reasonably conscious creatures against my own convienence. Fortunately, not eating most animals is quite easy, and also has the side benefit of avoiding many of the calorie rich foods in the modern human diet which, when over-consumed, have deleterious effects on health and statistically shorten average lifespan. I should again emphasize that this is, in my opinion, not a black and white moral issue. In harvesting wheat I am sure that many mice die, and I am likely to perhaps hit birds or various other terrestrial creatures with my car, but vastly reducing the number of animals with highly developed nervous systems (including humans) that I destroy is a good thing, quite easy, and has side benefits, not the least of which is the satisfaction gained from deliberately and logically constructing the moral doctrines which govern my behavior.
ReplyDeleteIn reading the above commentary, I see not so much a logical or philosphical analysis of vegetarianism, but a culturally and politically-tinged list of complaints about "hippies" and their fashionable, underthought, senseless and often hypocritical stances on moral issues. I could easily join in on these complaints, but thought I'd express the reasoning behind my vegetarianism as a fellow atheist, and attemptedly rational person. For me, once the concept of god and all correspondingly primitive and idiotic moral principles were dispelled, it left quite open the question of why it would be wrong to kill a human animal, but fine to kill all others. This thought slept uneasily in my mind for years, but slowly took hold. I also find it suspiciously convienent that a logical assessment of the issue would happen to yield the exact same answer that had traditionally been supplied by the school of western religious thought, and which we all have comfortably incorporated into our lifestyle. It is my guess that most atheists have simply rationalized their continued killing of all animals except humans because it appears very inconvienent not to, and also because the issue is complicated by a desire to disassociate one's self from the detestable and embarassing new age left-wing neo-hippie movement which I would venture to suppose most of us are at odds with. Lastly, I wish to admit that this complex issue is still left mostly undiscussed after this rather lenghty post, but this serves as a representative tip of the iceberg.
I am an atheist, and also a vegetarian. The task of objectively and truthfully building a code of ethics which is founded in logic and consistency is a heavy and serious philosphical feat, once the wishful over-simplifications of religious dogma are disposed of. There are many reasons that I am uncomfortable killing a human. Some are ethical axioms which, through introspection, I have elected to adhere to in an attempt to maximize my own satisfaction in life. Accordingly, I choose to respect consciousness by preserving it. However, I make no effort to spare the "life" of variouse sporazoa or bateria, because I believe that it has been clearly demonstrated that these things do not posess the necessary constituents of consciousness. It is, in my opinion, quite evident that consciousness is less like an "on/off" switch and more like an emergent property of increasingly complex nervouse systems. It must be true then that, somewhere between the nonexistence of the bacterial nervous system and that of a human being, there is a "line", which delineates the point at which I should not destroy an object. This is not a black and white issue, but a matter of degree. While science in this area is in it's infancy, there is some evidence. When trapped and tortured, the corresponding vocalizations, terror, frenzied attempts to escape, and possible aggression are easily observed in both humans and many other animals. It is my guess however that humans are more "conscious" than mice, and mice more "conscious" than fruit flies. Drawing the aforementioned line of delineation therefore is a matter of weighing the risk of killing reasonably conscious creatures against my own convienence. Fortunately, not eating most animals is quite easy, and also has the side benefit of avoiding many of the calorie rich foods in the modern human diet which, when over-consumed, have deleterious effects on health and statistically shorten average lifespan. I should again emphasize that this is, in my opinion, not a black and white moral issue. In harvesting wheat I am sure that many mice die, and I am likely to perhaps hit birds or various other terrestrial creatures with my car, but vastly reducing the number of animals with highly developed nervous systems (including humans) that I destroy is a good thing, quite easy, and has side benefits, not the least of which is the satisfaction gained from deliberately and logically constructing the moral doctrines which govern my behavior.
ReplyDeleteIn reading the above commentary, I see not so much a logical or philosphical analysis of vegetarianism, but a culturally and politically-tinged list of complaints about "hippies" and their fashionable, underthought, senseless and often hypocritical stances on moral issues. I could easily join in on these complaints, but thought I'd express the reasoning behind my vegetarianism as a fellow atheist, and attemptedly rational person. For me, once the concept of god and all correspondingly primitive and idiotic moral principles were dispelled, it left quite open the question of why it would be wrong to kill a human animal, but fine to kill all others. I also find it suspiciously convienent that a logical assessment of the issue would happen to yield the exact same answer that had traditionally been supplied by the school of western religious thought, and which we all have comfortably incorporated into our lifestyle. It is my guess that most atheists have simply rationalized their continued killing of all animals except humans because it appears very inconvienent not to, and also because the issue is complicated by a desire to disassociate one's self from the detestable and embarassing new age left-wing neo-hippie movement which I would venture to suppose most of us are at odds with. Lastly, I wish to admit that this complex issue is still left mostly undiscussed after this rather lenghty post, but this serves as a representative tip of the iceberg.
I'm a Vegetarian and atheist (for 23 years). I have rarely met smug overbearing vegetarians,though they must be out there. I have however had countless experiences of meat eaters getting defensive and aggressive and projecting all sorts of prejudice my way, no reasoning be it based around considered choices pertaining towards physical nourishment, a belief system that might arise from experience,a rational conceptual argument or an ethical/ moral social justification will appease. The dogmatism of the 'vegetarianist' if you will, might be boorish and irritating or stimulating and thought provoking. It is not religious or a religion in itself, it just isn't.
ReplyDeleteyou got into a debate with a vegetarian and because of your past experiences, concluded that "all vegetarians" are delusional and closed-minded.
ReplyDeletethats a pretty closed-minded statement.
:) What is closed-minded is for you to think that is my ONLY experience with a vegetarian.
ReplyDeletevegetarians suffer from mental problems?? you are the delusional one. I'm a vegan, and I understand many people don't see it as a clear-cut issue, but you are just ridiculous...if only in your assertion of vegetarians having mental problems and depression... wtf are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteI believe I have made my case.. or rather, thank you for making it for me :)
ReplyDeleteJeremy, have you realy ever met someone who valued animals higher than humans? I personally am a vegan for 10 years, know some hundreds of vegans, and never met a opposite-speciesist, who discriminates in the other way.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what is your criterion to grant a human being such as a seriously mentally disabled orphan some moral status not to be eten, tested upon, used as slave,... I can give 4 arguments why the human species boundary is morally irrelevant and 4 other arguments why sentience is important (http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/speciesism-and-moral-illusions/). So why should I be close-minded now? Why is not the carnist with his carnist ideology a close-minded or delusional person, if we see all the psychological evidence of their cognitive dissonance, moral schizophrenia, moral disengagement,... (see my presentation of the psychology of eating meat: guilt and social status, at http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/powerpointpresentaties/)
If we are concerned about stopping suffering, then why should we spend an equal amount of time stopping genocides in africa? First: we can do both: stop eating meat and give aid to the poor in africa and do political work. But the equal amount? If I understand your argument, you are not concerned about suffering at all. Because if you are concerned about the suffering of your friend who is ill, if you spend some time X to help him, and if the african genocide is N times worse (and N is very high), you should spend N.X time working to stop the genocide, right? Now, you don't spend all of your days doing that. So if N is very high, that means X is very very low. So you are not concerned about suffering that much it seems... Anyway, you got the point I guess.
About the misfiring of my anti-cannibalism: what is wrong with firing in such a way that you get a coherent, consistent ethical system? Why do byou call it "mis"firing? Are you going to judge the vast amount of people as being victims of misfiring their hardwired empathy, as they are in favour of anti-cruelty laws for animals? Almost anyone (even meat eaters) says that torturing a dog just for fun is highly cruel and immoral. Now, I prefer an empathic misfiring above a "psychopathic" reaction towards the outgroup (other races, other peoples, other animals,...).
the observation that more vegetarians suffer from depression and anxiety is funny. 1) I'm curious, is it really the case that vegetarians suffer more from depressions? Why is this so? Because they don't like to live amongst people who support torturing animals in factory farms just for pleasure (taste of meat)? What would you feel if you lived amongst racist cannibals who really don't see that what they are ding is immoral and you are an outsider?
ReplyDelete2) I don't know whether this is used as an argument against vegetarianism. If it is, the atheist should keep in mind that there was a study that demonstrated that religious people are on average happier than atheist. I don't know if it is true, but suppose that scientists indeed find this result. What does it say about the truth or morality atheism? Not much, is the answer. 2) I
If it makes you feel better I only skimmed your post and all I got out of it was a bunch of wining. Vegetarianism should be classified as a mental illness. People need to stop over-thinking their food. Vegetarians are very similar to people that have anxiety disorders in that they over-think things to the point of not being able to live life normally.
ReplyDelete@Stijn Bruers "there was a study..." Was there? If people are to believe there actually was a scientific peer-reviewed study that concluded what you are saying this one did, please name the study's authors, the journal it was published in, and the date of publication. Without that information, what you are saying carries no more weight than saying "Religious people are happier than atheists." The logical reply is, "Who says so?" Furthermore, is an actual CAUSAL relationship observed, or is the only relationship observed correlational? (Hint: I've actually looked up the research you speak of and the data was correlational. Causation was not even tested for.) It also needs to be observed that atheist=/=vegetarian. It's entirely possible for most atheists to be less happy than believers and for vegetarians in general to be more depressed than omnivores.
ReplyDelete