Exceptions to the moral vegan diet?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 3:09 AM GMT
    I can understand the moral viewpoint regarding the killing animals for food.

    But how about if the animal dies of natural causes, of an accident, or some other unforeseen tragedy?

    Is it an ok exception to the moral vegan to eat the animal under these circumstances where there has been no pre-meditated slaughter?

    What about utilizing the other remains of the animal for practical purposes (i.e. pelts for warmth, ground up bones for fertilizer, etc.)?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 6:35 AM GMT
    The trouble with factory farming is that it's a long way off from the Native American hunting model you've described. We're a long way off from Farmer In The Dell and Charlotte's Web.

    I don't eat or wear flesh because there's an abjection to it for me. It's unclean. Like a personal taboo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 6:36 AM GMT
    This might be a legitimately interesting thread...

    Curious to know as well
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 6:39 AM GMT
    GAMRican said

    Is it an ok exception to the moral vegan to eat the animal under these circumstances where there has been no pre-meditated slaughter?





    You would have to be there the second (and I mean, the second) that animal died, hopefully from a tragic accident and not because it was sick or old, for that meat to be preservable/edible. Otherwise you'd be setting yourself up to be poisoned from that meat if you wandered upon a deal animal and thought you could consume it.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    May 21, 2012 6:48 AM GMT
    the idea behind being a vegan is that you don't consume or use any animal or animal by products. being dead changes nothing. a vegan won't consume honey, dairy, or eggs-- neither of which kill the animal. the reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal. just because you died doesn't mean we could just harvest your organs if we wanted to; you would have to give permission. so a for a vegan, this would still be a moot argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 6:54 AM GMT
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of consent were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    May 21, 2012 6:58 AM GMT
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    Vegans are delusional. It's not as if humans stop using Animal products will make Simba all of sudden stop eating meat.

    Eating and be eaten happens everywhere in the natural world. To deny that is living in a fantasy world.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    May 21, 2012 6:59 AM GMT
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    i'm just explaining the vegan mindset. i'm not a vegan, so i wouldn't be the best counsel for this case... i'm sure we can find a donkey or elephant with a prestigious pedigree to represent you in a class-action case
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 7:00 AM GMT
    calibro said
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    i'm just explaining the vegan mindset. i'm not a vegan, so i wouldn't be the best counsel for this case... i'm sure we can find a donkey or elephant with a prestigious pedigree to represent you in a class-action case


    I just want millions in punitive damages to buy more meat =o
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    May 21, 2012 7:11 AM GMT
    Considering most farm raised animals have been bred in such a way that they could not survive in nature, I consider myself moral for eating them. They get a quick, humane death as opposed to being torn to shreds by a predator or slowly starving, and they are fully eaten, used, and respected, not left half to rot like in nature.

    Eating farm animals is much more humane and moral than vegan avoidance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 7:18 AM GMT
    Medjai saidConsidering most farm raised animals have been bred in such a way that they could not survive in nature, I consider myself moral for eating them. They get a quick, humane death as opposed to being torn to shreds by a predator or slowly starving, and they are fully eaten, used, and respected, not left half to rot like in nature.

    Eating farm animals is much more humane and moral than vegan avoidance.


    that is a very odd argument. I don´t think not eating meat is morally superior in the first place, though modern farming methods are not pleasing.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    May 21, 2012 7:19 AM GMT
    GonzoTheGreat said
    Medjai saidConsidering most farm raised animals have been bred in such a way that they could not survive in nature, I consider myself moral for eating them. They get a quick, humane death as opposed to being torn to shreds by a predator or slowly starving, and they are fully eaten, used, and respected, not left half to rot like in nature.

    Eating farm animals is much more humane and moral than vegan avoidance.


    that is a very odd argument. I don´t think not eating meat is morally superior in the first place, though modern farming methods are not pleasing.


    It was deliberately facetious.

    And as a chef who is very informed and active in the local, organic, humane, etc. movement, I strongly agree.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    May 21, 2012 7:24 AM GMT
    Ariodante said
    calibro said
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    i'm just explaining the vegan mindset. i'm not a vegan, so i wouldn't be the best counsel for this case... i'm sure we can find a donkey or elephant with a prestigious pedigree to represent you in a class-action case


    I just want millions in punitive damages to buy more meat =o


    ah, what you want is a wolf in sheep's clothes lawyer
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 9:21 PM GMT
    Ariodante said
    GAMRican said

    Is it an ok exception to the moral vegan to eat the animal under these circumstances where there has been no pre-meditated slaughter?





    You would have to be there the second (and I mean, the second) that animal died, hopefully from a tragic accident and not because it was sick or old, for that meat to be preservable/edible. Otherwise you'd be setting yourself up to be poisoned from that meat if you wandered upon a deal animal and thought you could consume it.


    When I was living in Texas, one of my co-workers called in that he wouldn't be in for work. He had inadvertently hit a deer on his way to the property (a fairly swank conference resort in the Austin area). The deer really messed up the front end of his truck, but not bad enough that the vehicle could not be driven. He put the dead animal in the back of his truck and went home to dress, butcher, and package the meat.

    We had venison steaks the next night during the employee meal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 9:27 PM GMT
    offshore said
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    Vegans are delusional. It's not as if humans stop using Animal products will make Simba all of sudden stop eating meat.

    Eating and be eaten happens everywhere in the natural world. To deny that is living in a fantasy world.


    I'm not sure if I agree with the concept that Vegans are delusional. I think that the Vegans have a moral point that fundamentally appears to be based on a respect for the rights of another living animal even if we may not know if they are sentient.

    Yes, at this time (and since before I was born) the world is an eat or be eaten place. Heck, even humans have been (and are probably still being) eaten by animals or other humans.

    I view the Vegans moral argument as an aspirational standard of conduct.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 9:29 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidI can understand the moral viewpoint regarding the killing animals for food.

    But how about if the animal dies of natural causes, of an accident, or some other unforeseen tragedy?

    Is it an ok exception to the moral vegan to eat the animal under these circumstances where there has been no pre-meditated slaughter?

    What about utilizing the other remains of the animal for practical purposes (i.e. pelts for warmth, ground up bones for fertilizer, etc.)?

    It's perfectly ok under those circumstances.

    roadkill.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 9:38 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    GonzoTheGreat said
    Medjai saidConsidering most farm raised animals have been bred in such a way that they could not survive in nature, I consider myself moral for eating them. They get a quick, humane death as opposed to being torn to shreds by a predator or slowly starving, and they are fully eaten, used, and respected, not left half to rot like in nature.

    Eating farm animals is much more humane and moral than vegan avoidance.


    that is a very odd argument. I don´t think not eating meat is morally superior in the first place, though modern farming methods are not pleasing.


    It was deliberately facetious.

    And as a chef who is very informed and active in the local, organic, humane, etc. movement, I strongly agree.


    Yes, as an omnivore (and a former Hospitality Management professional with a degree from Florida International University), I'm actually much more suspect of "farm raised" animals and their products, specifically chickens, pigs, and cattle than their "free range", "organically" raised cousins.

    I have considered taking a trip to a farm to take part in the capture, slaughter, dressing, and butchering of an animal so that I can experience first hand what most people will never see. I look at the neat and cleanly wrapped little plastic trays of meat in the grocery store (displayed under lights which highlight the color of the meat to be more "attractive") and I wonder how it got there. We did butchering in my Meat Science class, but we didn't have to slaughter and dress our carcasses.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not some kind of animal-murder-ophile who is looking for jollies. I'm seeking to reconnect with the food that I eat, and so that I can understand first hand the abstraction which most people "enjoy". I've recently been able to do this living her in Northern California with some of the produce which I eat.
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    May 21, 2012 11:13 PM GMT
    GAMRican said
    offshore said
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    Vegans are delusional. It's not as if humans stop using Animal products will make Simba all of sudden stop eating meat.

    Eating and be eaten happens everywhere in the natural world. To deny that is living in a fantasy world.


    I'm not sure if I agree with the concept that Vegans are delusional. I think that the Vegans have a moral point that fundamentally appears to be based on a respect for the rights of another living animal even if we may not know if they are sentient.

    Yes, at this time (and since before I was born) the world is an eat or be eaten place. Heck, even humans have been (and are probably still being) eaten by animals or other humans.

    I view the Vegans moral argument as an aspirational standard of conduct.


    Dude I get ya, but do vegans ever think about the protozoans, insects and micro organisms they kill everyday?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2012 11:59 PM GMT
    calibro saidthe idea behind being a vegan is that you don't consume or use any animal or animal by products. being dead changes nothing. a vegan won't consume honey, dairy, or eggs-- neither of which kill the animal. the reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal. just because you died doesn't mean we could just harvest your organs if we wanted to; you would have to give permission. so a for a vegan, this would still be a moot argument.


    Is consent really the deciding factor? I know you're not a vegan but I'm sure plant life is also unable to consent to being devoured. Is there a certain measurement of sentience required for making it okay to consume one form of life over another?

    Or is causing pain the factor? Most forms of life, including most plant life, also exhibit some form of pain response but plants obviously aren't going to cry like animals to signal it. Would that be the deciding factor then?

    At this point, I don't even know why vegans avoid consuming or using animals or their byproducts except for the arbitrary choice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2012 12:02 AM GMT
    calibro saidthe idea behind being a vegan is that you don't consume or use any animal or animal by products. being dead changes nothing. a vegan won't consume honey, dairy, or eggs-- neither of which kill the animal. the reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal. just because you died doesn't mean we could just harvest your organs if we wanted to; you would have to give permission. so a for a vegan, this would still be a moot argument.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2012 1:18 AM GMT
    offshore said
    GAMRican said
    offshore said
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    Vegans are delusional. It's not as if humans stop using Animal products will make Simba all of sudden stop eating meat.

    Eating and be eaten happens everywhere in the natural world. To deny that is living in a fantasy world.


    I'm not sure if I agree with the concept that Vegans are delusional. I think that the Vegans have a moral point that fundamentally appears to be based on a respect for the rights of another living animal even if we may not know if they are sentient.

    Yes, at this time (and since before I was born) the world is an eat or be eaten place. Heck, even humans have been (and are probably still being) eaten by animals or other humans.

    I view the Vegans moral argument as an aspirational standard of conduct.


    Dude I get ya, but do vegans ever think about the protozoans, insects and micro organisms they kill everyday?


    No, we are all to busy being delusional.... dumbass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2012 1:23 AM GMT
    Animus said
    calibro saidthe idea behind being a vegan is that you don't consume or use any animal or animal by products. being dead changes nothing. a vegan won't consume honey, dairy, or eggs-- neither of which kill the animal. the reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal. just because you died doesn't mean we could just harvest your organs if we wanted to; you would have to give permission. so a for a vegan, this would still be a moot argument.


    Is consent really the deciding factor? I know you're not a vegan but I'm sure plant life is also unable to consent to being devoured. Is there a certain measurement of sentience required for making it okay to consume one form of life over another?

    Or is causing pain the factor? Most forms of life, including most plant life, also exhibit some form of pain response but plants obviously aren't going to cry like animals to signal it. Would that be the deciding factor then?

    At this point, I don't even know why vegans avoid consuming or using animals or their byproducts except for the arbitrary choice.


    There is no empirical evidence that plants feel pain.
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    May 22, 2012 1:23 AM GMT
    ^
    +1 the plants feeling pain argument has always seemed kind of desperate to me. Plants do not have brains. Without a brain they cannot feel.


    I can't speak for vegans, as I am not one. Nor do I represent any group, including vegans and vegetarians. For me, I would not eat any meat...it really does not appeal to me. After not eating it for over 20 years...I truly do not want it. I do not miss it. I do not need it.

    I will save that for the meat eaters eat the accidentally killed and animals that die of old age.
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    May 22, 2012 1:26 AM GMT
    The_Gingerhead_Man said
    offshore said
    GAMRican said
    offshore said
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    Vegans are delusional. It's not as if humans stop using Animal products will make Simba all of sudden stop eating meat.

    Eating and be eaten happens everywhere in the natural world. To deny that is living in a fantasy world.


    I'm not sure if I agree with the concept that Vegans are delusional. I think that the Vegans have a moral point that fundamentally appears to be based on a respect for the rights of another living animal even if we may not know if they are sentient.

    Yes, at this time (and since before I was born) the world is an eat or be eaten place. Heck, even humans have been (and are probably still being) eaten by animals or other humans.

    I view the Vegans moral argument as an aspirational standard of conduct.


    Dude I get ya, but do vegans ever think about the protozoans, insects and micro organisms they kill everyday?


    No, we are all to busy being delusional.... dumbass.

    Fuck off delusional cunt
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2012 1:28 AM GMT
    offshore said
    The_Gingerhead_Man said
    offshore said
    GAMRican said
    offshore said
    Ariodante said
    calibro saidthe reason is an animal cannot consent to you consuming those things, and, thus, you have no right to take it from the animal.


    Exactly how does consent function in the animal kingdom? What if a dolphin developed an affinity towards me and brought me an animal product? Could I consume it then? What about implied consent? Inaction could be considered a form of implied consent. Wouldn't there have to be plausible medium of communication between species before the concept of concept were even applicable? There are so many legal loopholes here...


    Vegans are delusional. It's not as if humans stop using Animal products will make Simba all of sudden stop eating meat.

    Eating and be eaten happens everywhere in the natural world. To deny that is living in a fantasy world.


    I'm not sure if I agree with the concept that Vegans are delusional. I think that the Vegans have a moral point that fundamentally appears to be based on a respect for the rights of another living animal even if we may not know if they are sentient.

    Yes, at this time (and since before I was born) the world is an eat or be eaten place. Heck, even humans have been (and are probably still being) eaten by animals or other humans.

    I view the Vegans moral argument as an aspirational standard of conduct.


    Dude I get ya, but do vegans ever think about the protozoans, insects and micro organisms they kill everyday?


    No, we are all to busy being delusional.... dumbass.

    Fuck off delusional cunt


    Ahhh... you're mad because I pushed back when you decided to call people names. That is cute.