Thanks for responding.
I have met many a vegan who considers their diet a badge of their superiority, but I'm not trying to make a case that this is the primary reason why people choose to not eat meat, and certainly not specifically in your case.
This appears to be your way of saying that you don't consider my meatless diet to be based on a desire to appear superior. If that was your intended meaning, then I will validate it for you by telling you that you are correct. However, I made that clear in the last paragraph of my post. You must have missed it, or you read something into it that wasn't there.
I'm glad it appeared so, because that's precisely what I intended. I didn't read anything into your last paragraph other than what you wrote. I was trying to assure you that my questions weren't intended to somehow prove you were insincere.
Why is it more OK to eat an insect or a mollusk than a pig or a cow?
I don't know. You'll have to ask someone who eats insects and mollusks.
Fair enough but do you think, as Builder seems to, that there is a material distinction between eating invertebrates and eating vertebrates. If you have no opinion that's fine by me.
Why is it more OK to kill and eat a plant than to kill and eat a chicken?
You must have also missed this: If I plant a seed and a green pepper appears, I eat it and I am sustained. If I don't eat it, then I go hungry. Also, if I don't eat it, it will end up rotting on the ground and be absorbed by the earth in short time. This is good. If I eat it and then return the unused portion of the vegetables to the earth, that is good. Either way is correct function. The vegetable or apple will die regardless of whether or not I eat it. What do you think would be a more appropriate way for vegetables to die?
No, I didn't miss that at all. It explains why you will eat a plant. It doesn't explain why you won't eat a chicken. The pepper you eat could be eaten by another animal. If you don't eat it, it won't necessarily end up rotting and dying. Likewise, if you chose not to kill and eat a chicken, it may still be eaten by someone or something else. Obviously it won't be by you, but as with the vegetable or apple, regardless of whether you eat the chicken it will die. I don't know that there is an appropriate way for a plant to die. Whether it is consumed or rots, it's life force will go towards sustaining other life either directly through consumption or by creating soil nutrients that will enable other plants to grow. The same, of course, can be said for the chicken. It's life force, one way or the other, will be used in some fashion to sustain life.
Why do you believe humans eating meat represents a callous disregard for life?
Why do you believe that I believe that? My mention of a callous disregard for life was in reference to those who believe that killing a green pepper is a callous disregard for life, and therefore no different from killing a pig. Reread my post.
I have and apparently I remain confused by what you mean.
If I don't eat the flesh of other beings, but I walk on the grass, I could be accused of killing that lifeform because I perceive it to be of less value than a furry animal, and that I also probably killed a number of insects in the process. But I must walk on the grass; I also give it a cutting every so often. However, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life. A virus loosed in your bloodstream is attacked and killed by your white blood cells. Again, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life.
Your referenced walking on grass (with it's potential for killing one or more life forms) in juxtaposition with eating the flesh of other beings and then stated the importance of differentiating between correct function
(walking on grass) and callous disregard for life
You may not have meant to imply that the eating of flesh is a callous disregard for life, but I don't think's it unreasonable to have read what you wrote that way. You then went on to explain that you used the term in reference to those who believe that killing a green pepper is a callous disregard for life, and therefore no different from killing a pig
.Again there is a juxtaposition that implies killing a pig is a callous disregard for life. If you didn't mean to imply what I inferred and/or you don't think killing and eating a pig is a callous disregard for life than we should move on, however you asked why I believed that you did, and I've explained. I've no desire to belabor a point you didn't intend to make.
So, let's assume that we are referring to livestock raised and dispatched in this manner. Does this still represent a callous disregard for life?
Not if the destiny of the livestock you are referring to is to be raised and slaughtered for your meal.
Fair enough. Thanks.
So, do you believe that the destiny of livestock is to be mass-raised and slaughtered for your meal? There are people who don't believe that? Do you believe that their reasoning is unfair to others?
Clearly it is the destiny of certain livestock to be mass-raised and slaughtered for meals because it happens all of the time, and now it's my turn to urge you to reread what I wrote because I already expressed that I object to the manner in which the majority of commercial livestock intended for human tables is raised and slaughtered. I don't believe my view is unfair to anyone and so how could I think that of people who agree with me?
Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?
If killing is necessary to the survival of the human, then there's no arguing that.
Finally what about animals . . . ?
Animals are involved in their own life structures. They all eat what they eat. If a tiger doesn't kill, it doesn't eat. I'm not blind to nature.
I didn't suggest you were.
So there are a series of scenarios in which you would not argue that killing and eating an animal is a callous disregard for life or if your prefer "improper" (if there is terms with less of an implied value judgment that you would prefer me to use, please tell me). Some people eat meat. I fully accept you don't feel superior to them for not eating meat, but earlier in the thread, you indicated that you did not eat meat for both physiological and philosophical reasons. So there is a philosophical reason why you do not do what they do. I am just trying to better understand that reason.
Once I was hammered away at by someone who interpreted my admission that I don't eat meat as a slam on him/her, and society in general. I simply reassured them that I don't eat meat because I'm not willing to kill an animal unless I have to, but that I don't mean nothin' by it. That rarely satisfies those who are offended by my abstinence.
I hope you don't think I am hammering you. I really don't care if someone doesn't eat meat as long as they don't try to stop me from eating it. I don't feel threatened by their diet and if they happen to be someone who does feel superior to me because my diet includes meat, it isn't going to occupy a lot of my thoughts.
If you think I am being too persistent, just say so or don't respond further, but you are not willing to kill an animal unless you have to for some reason, and I'm interested in that reason for no other purpose than intellectual curiosity.
I will not eat the meat of mammal predators. I have no well thought out philosophical reason for this practice, just an affinity for mammal predators that makes me feel as if eating one is very wrong. This is not to suggest that your reason for not eating any meat is of the same nature as my reason for not eating the meat of mammal predators, but just an example of a reason
that happens to be my own.