How should a Vegetarian get along with a Meat eater?

[Underwater Ophelia]

The problem here isn't that he eats meat and you don't, the problem is that neither of you has any respect for the other.

That's just blatantly obvious.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by gothicuusmaximus

Actually, our morality is probably the same, as I too view the infliction of suffering upon any living being to be, with few exceptions, unethical. The difference is that I am comfortable endorsing an unethical enterprise if doing so allows me to eat delicious chicken.

God dammit Gothicus, every time I read something you write, I explode with laughter. You are a shining example of how one can make up for moral apathy with an excellent sense of humor.

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

I support your efforts in alienating yourself from others. I respect your decision.

The death of a chicken = the bad shit that can happen in a dark ally? Hmmm...

I wasn't aware everyone here would get butt-hurt and go pout about it if I said something mildly critical about their moral system. Still, I stand by my statements.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Everyone who eats KFC has, at least once, murdered another human being and proceeded to r.ape his or her corpse.

My point exactly. Gothicus, you took the words right out of my mouth. Or would that be, putting them in?

I'll spell it out for you, Kontan.
gothicus said that "When chickens can no longer suffer the horrors our race has perpetrated against theirs and rise up in righteous fury, usurping humanity from its position as this planet's dominant species, I will accept death by firing squad."
Essentially this is morality based on dominance, or an anti-moral position. In other words, the only reason it's OK, really, is because we're stronger and can get away with it. The guy in the alley uses pretty much the same reasoning, if he's stronger, or has a gun, and he can get away with mugging you, then he'll do it. Thus, one who supports meat-eating because we're the dominant species must also support getting their corpse r.aped in a back alley, as gothicus so aptly puts it.

[Wormboy]

Besides, popeyes is better.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

Morality based on dominance, or an anti-moral position. In other words, the only reason it's OK, really, is because we're stronger and can get away with it. The guy in the alley uses pretty much the same reasoning, if he's stronger, or has a gun, and he can get away with mugging you, then he'll do it. Thus, one who supports meat-eating because we're the dominant species must also support getting their corpse r.aped in a back alley, as gothicus so aptly puts it.

As I said, the issue here isn't one of a skewed moral system, but rather an ability to ignore moral qualms under select circumstances.

The formulation of a ethical code is nothing more than the attribution of positive and negative values to all nonessential actions. Although our capacities for moral apathy differ, generally one who is capable of behaving immorally, as I most certainly am, does so when the reward of immorality (or simply neglecting to be actively moral) is of greater worth to that individual than the equivalent good deed. In my personal moral hierarchy, the life of a chicken is of less weight than the life of a human being, and, thus, many circumstances which might provoke me to be complicit in the murder of a chicken, such as my desiring KFC, would not incite me to homicide. Nevertheless, while the satisfaction of my fast food craving is not worth a human's life, the preservation of my own and those of people for whom I care is. If forced to either murder another human being or perish myself, I would choose the former. If forced to either inflict suffering on another human being or watch someone close to me suffer, I would again choose the former.

Unless you're really an uncompromisingly good person- and god save you if you are- I imagine you can conceive of situations in which you might defy your moral code as well. The only difference between us is that you place more value on chickens, or less value on your own happiness, than I do.
While I'm probably not the best example to use, as admittedly I personally do view weak and stupid human beings to be of less value than the strong and the intellectually able, only one who judges such people to be of little worth at all is capable of the aforesaid corpse r.ape, and everyone who eats KFC certainly doesn't subscribe to that idea.

[blindNsect]

It takes life to sustain life. What's the difference between plants/vegetables and flesh, besides the obvious emotional component?

[ApothoKeri]

Originally Posted by blindNsect

It takes life to sustain life. What's the difference between plants/vegetables and flesh, besides the obvious emotional component?

Well I guess that would be the inclusion of at least some element of intelligence within the animal realm and also the element of pain. Maybe vegetables do or maybe they do not share it with animals but animals most definitely do mourn their dead, feel real fear and pain as well as look to their caregivers for protection as opposed to an execution. That much we can see and know for sure.

[badteccy]

Originally Posted by BLEED REBELION!!!

Once I refused to kiss him because he had just eaten meat in front of me, .

That is just asinine.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

The problem here isn't that he eats meat and you don't, the problem is that neither of you has any respect for the other.

That's just blatantly obvious.

Seconded. ^__^

[psyches_reflection]

If you think that your dietary choices are going to cause a serious issue between yourself and your boyfriend should you live together, then perhaps you need to take a closer look at your relationship. There's plenty of potential solutions: cooking seperate meals; or meals with shared and seperate elements (shared vegetables and pasta, say, and seperate protein sources). You should be able to compromise somehow.

On the child-rearing issue, my last serious boyfriend and I discussed this a few times. I'm a vegetarian, and he's a meat-eating butcher (professionally, that's not a slanderous term). We decided that as vegetarianism is my moral choice, we'd give our children a balanced, omniverous diet (with a few veggie meals a week, so we wouldn't always have to cook seperate) and let them decide when they're ready. It's not your choice to make, it's theirs, so it's best to feed them well until they can decide for themselves.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

You have a completely different conception of morality than I do. I didn't explain my sense of morality so I won't explain why your arguments are based on assumptions that are false in my moral code.

But I will argue that the strategy of avoiding people of poor moral character is one that has been employed by civilized man for hundreds of thousands of years, and it continues to this day. Each one of us decides to avoid certain people on the basis of things like their violent behaviour, or their disrespect towards women, etc. The only difference being that if you were to avoid meat eaters (percieving this as the same sort of offensive moral action as some of the others), you would have a much, much smaller group of people to associate with in comparison. By virtue of that, my moral viewpoint does not become elitist, just different. Just because we have differing views does not mean we can't respect each other. This is the sense in which I am tolerant of other people's point of view, and I'd like it if you were the same way.

Honestly, I don't care what you do or don't eat or why, but I -do- feel it's ridiculous to avoid all meat-eaters, primarily because it's impossible. The second reason is that stereotypes of this extreme nature breed prejudice, and the last thing this world needs is more prejudice based on something not really that serious.

I'm tolerant if someone wants to go veggie, as long as they don't point fingers at me and chew me out for eating a hamburger [or whatever other meat product I may be eating at the time.]

[blindNsect]

Originally Posted by ApothoKeri

Well I guess that would be the inclusion of at least some element of intelligence within the animal realm and also the element of pain. Maybe vegetables do or maybe they do not share it with animals but animals most definitely do mourn their dead, feel real fear and pain as well as look to their caregivers for protection as opposed to an execution. That much we can see and know for sure.

Yeah, um, that would be the obvious emotional component.

[XXChristabelXX]

You choose how to live your life and he chooses his. A little mutual respect goes a long way. Frankly, if you find his carnivorous nature so unappealing, you will have no promising future together and something this moral/ethical polarizing is a sign of two completely different outlooks.

Opposites may attract, but mild opposites make it work.

Or, ironically, you can live and let live and so can he.

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

I talked to him about it. I think were cool now. THanks for all the advice everyone!


And yes we do have respect for eachother, its just confusing sometimes.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Honestly, I think you're kidding yourself. Someone who would eat meat in front of you isn't necessarily an asshole. Someone who would mock you while doing it by smacking their lips and being a jerk about it does not respect you.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

I'll spell it out for you, Kontan.
gothicus said that "When chickens can no longer suffer the horrors our race has perpetrated against theirs and rise up in righteous fury, usurping humanity from its position as this planet's dominant species, I will accept death by firing squad."
Essentially this is morality based on dominance, or an anti-moral position. In other words, the only reason it's OK, really, is because we're stronger and can get away with it. The guy in the alley uses pretty much the same reasoning, if he's stronger, or has a gun, and he can get away with mugging you, then he'll do it. Thus, one who supports meat-eating because we're the dominant species must also support getting their corpse r.aped in a back alley, as gothicus so aptly puts it.

Your logic is slightly flawed here. I too agree with Gothicus about the dominance thing. Does that mean I support the idea of a guy in an alley killing and r.aping someone because he can? Not even close. Though the logic is similar, we're comparing two kinds of FRUITS with varying acidic levels that can upset or not upset someone's stomach.

Once more, we kill chickens for food and because we can for that reason. To do otherwise is wasteful, much like killing people in alleys.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by dark_dragon_of_ice

Is it still considered r.ape then?

You wouldn't catch me dead with blackwater's cock in my ass. Yes, it's r.ape.

[ApothoKeri]

Originally Posted by blindNsect

Yeah, um, that would be the obvious emotional component.

And element of physical pain and the similarity to ourselves.

[tickingstitch]

I jump in this one late, but eh, what the hell. I’m vegetarian and have been for about 10 years, about 5 of those years I was vegan. I eat dairy now because I am extremely anemic and bruise very easily (still don’t do they egg thing though). I have had a vegan BF and a meat Eating BF and usually it is not an issue. The only time it was a problem was when I was young and immature and thought I was always right. The guy I am with now eats meat and we just go places were both of us can eat. Its pretty simple. Relationships usually end up kicking ass when people don’t try to change people... Be Friends and Lovers and don’t take the rest too serious... I’m also Hindu, and he is agnostic but it doesn’t really make much of a difference...

[ArtificialOne]

Just thought I'd chime in and let everyone know I'm a carnivore.

Thanks, have a good day.

[blindNsect]

Originally Posted by ApothoKeri

And element of physical pain and the similarity to ourselves.

How old are you?

[ApothoKeri]

Originally Posted by blindNsect

How old are you?

35 and yes I seriously can identify with an animal and what they do (rather what I can see of their social structure, fear, the way they communicate with each other, etc.). more often than I can with a vegetable. That's just me and yea there are studies where plants may feel pain, etc. Maybe they do and we don't know how to tell, maybe they don't but as far as observing an animal, seeing their social structure, communication, etc...sure there are similarities I feel we have in common, naturally we would being animals ourselves. I think that your original question was in relation to us taking a life (be it animal or vegetable) to feed our own and why we feel that way about it (aside from the emotional), as opposed to asking about the actual health benefits, economic, environmental issues with meat production, etc?. Just trying to give you an honest answer as to how I feel about it.

[blackwater1110]

OK, time to address all the admiring fans I've made on here.

Just thought I'd chime in and let everyone know I'm a carnivore.

Thanks, have a good day.

Unless you eat nothing but meat, you're an omnivore.

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_dragon_of_ice
Is it still considered r.ape then?



You wouldn't catch me dead with blackwater's cock in my ass. Yes, it's r.ape.

Wouldn't it be just the reverse? That is to say, you'd have to be dead first, in which case, it's just homicide and necrophilia.

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Honestly, I don't care what you do or don't eat or why, but I -do- feel it's ridiculous to avoid all meat-eaters, primarily because it's impossible. The second reason is that stereotypes of this extreme nature breed prejudice, and the last thing this world needs is more prejudice based on something not really that serious.

I'm tolerant if someone wants to go veggie, as long as they don't point fingers at me and chew me out for eating a hamburger [or whatever other meat product I may be eating at the time.]

I completely agree with you. I called that course cowardly. I mainly pointed it out in the first place because, well, in a specific circumstance, the dating realm, it's certainly possible, whereas in general terms you see that it's pretty much insane. I argued that sheltering one's self from anyone whose morality was different was asinine. I've never pointed fingers at anyone for eating meat. Usually, in fact, it's the other way around. Why are we arguing again?

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

As I said, the issue here isn't one of a skewed moral system, but rather an ability to ignore moral qualms under select circumstances.

The formulation of a ethical code is nothing more than the attribution of positive and negative values to all nonessential actions. Although our capacities for moral apathy differ, generally one who is capable of behaving immorally, as I most certainly am, does so when the reward of immorality (or simply neglecting to be actively moral) is of greater worth to that individual than the equivalent good deed.

Really? So the psychological satisfaction of not returning 20 bucks to the old lady who dropped it is greater than getting a free 20 bucks? Okay, crappy example, but I'm trying to go Hobbesian here and say that the main reason people choose to do the moral thing isn't because of the reward of doing the right thing is so great, but because the punishment for doing the wrong thing is so severe. Also, what about Kantian ethics? Sometimes the moral thing is not also the most psychologically pleasing thing, but that doesn't change its morality (duty argument).

In my personal moral hierarchy, the life of a chicken is of less weight than the life of a human being, and, thus, many circumstances which might provoke me to be complicit in the murder of a chicken, such as my desiring KFC, would not incite me to homicide.

There are no negative repercussions to you for eating chicken; there are plenty of negative repercussions for eating people.

Nevertheless, while the satisfaction of my fast food craving is not worth a human's life, the preservation of my own and those of people for whom I care is. If forced to either murder another human being or perish myself, I would choose the former. If forced to either inflict suffering on another human being or watch someone close to me suffer, I would again choose the former.

Agreed, I'm most definitely not denying that people act in their own self-interest and of those close to them before others. This comes into play in a second.

Unless you're really an uncompromisingly good person- and god save you if you are- I imagine you can conceive of situations in which you might defy your moral code as well.

Of course. Given the choice between killing or/torturing a chicken versus a man, I would of course choose the man. I still put my species first.

The only difference between us is that you place more value on chickens, or less value on your own happiness, than I do.

Close, sort of. The difference between you and I is that I view the infliction suffering, regardless of species, to be reprehensible. I don't really like cows that much, and I most certainly want my own happiness, but then again, there's a lot of people I don't care for much either, and since I view suffering equally, I wouldn't take advantage of either one of those species if it meant greater happiness to myself at their expense--even if I don't like them much.

I can also see the possible objection that I said just above that I'd kill the chicken before the man, so I do value humans more than other animals. I see this as akin to the situation where you have to see a family member or a member of the general public tortured. If pressed to a wall, I'll act in my own interest, in the interest of those close to me, or in the interest of my species, but that doesn't mean I'd accept the torture of other species for my own gain.

While I'm probably not the best example to use, as admittedly I personally do view weak and stupid human beings to be of less value than the strong and the intellectually able, only one who judges such people to be of little worth at all is capable of the aforesaid corpse r.ape, and everyone who eats KFC certainly doesn't subscribe to that idea.

But if we don't have the stupid people, who will serve us our KFC so that we can get into arguments about r'aping corpses in the first place?

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Your logic is slightly flawed here. I too agree with Gothicus about the dominance thing. Does that mean I support the idea of a guy in an alley killing and r.aping someone because he can? Not even close. Though the logic is similar, we're comparing two kinds of FRUITS with varying acidic levels that can upset or not upset someone's stomach.

And as gothicus mentioned and I have now elaborated on, different fruits agree with people's moral stomaches in different ways. You eat "chicken" fruit and feel fine; it makes me feel nauseous. I'll be the first to admit that morality essentially boils down to aesthetics. My point was, the only difference between the meat-eater and the back-ally r.apist is aesthetics and punishment; the logic remains unchanged.

Once more, we kill chickens for food and because we can for that reason. To do otherwise is wasteful, much like killing people in alleys.

I completely agree. I'd have no qualms about going fishing or hunting and eating what I've killed. I'm not delusional enough to believe we don't have to kill other things so we can continue to live; I'd just be mindful not to let it suffer.

I don't see the connection you're trying to draw between the wastefulness of not killing chickens and killing people.

I felt the urge to vomit as I wrote this because it sounds so preachy, and I'm much more interested in the arguments people are presenting than the topic proper; I apologize if in my fervor for debate I made anyone who read this feel the same.

[ArtificialOne]

Omnivore, true. But you miss the comedy in my statement. Even if you didn't find it funny, I'm pretty sure someone did.

Also Donner party anyone?
http://members.aol.com/DanMRosen/donner/

If you're a robot it's called recycling not cannibalism...

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

OK, time to address all the admiring fans I've made on here.

I don't not like you or anything, I'm just making my case.

Really? So the psychological satisfaction of not returning 20 bucks to the old lady who dropped it is greater than getting a free 20 bucks?

To reiterate, it depends on the individual's in question's capacity for moral apathy, a capacity which we all possess to different degrees. For some, 20 dollars might be enough to merit ignoring the guilt which results from theft.

Okay, crappy example, but I'm trying to go Hobbesian here and say that the main reason people choose to do the moral thing isn't because of the reward of doing the right thing is so great, but because the punishment for doing the wrong thing is so severe.

This is exactly what I said. Well, I said that the reward of immorality is often great (i.e. delicious chicken), but they're logically equivalent statements.

Sometimes the moral thing is not also the most psychologically pleasing thing, but that doesn't change its morality (duty argument).

Again, this is more or less exactly what I said. While I don't believe that morality is totally objective, I do believe that one who eats KFC and one who doesn't often have the same moral system. In this example, The KFC eater is simply compelled to ignore morality because KFC is so delicious.

There are no negative repercussions to you for eating chicken; there are plenty of negative repercussions for eating people.

Are you seriously implying that, if I could get away with it and I knew it would taste good, I'd eat someone? No.

Close, sort of. The difference between you and I is that I view the infliction suffering, regardless of species, to be reprehensible.

As I said multiple times, so do I. I just don't care that I'm doing the wrong thing because KFC is delicious.

I don't really like cows that much, and I most certainly want my own happiness, but then again, there's a lot of people I don't care for much either, and since I view suffering equally, I wouldn't take advantage of either one of those species if it meant greater happiness to myself at their expense--even if I don't like them much.

Because, to you, as well as to most people who don't commit homicide, that someone annoys you is not sufficient impetus to provoke a moral sin of such gravity as murder.

But if we don't have the stupid people, who will serve us our KFC so that we can get into arguments about r'aping corpses in the first place?

I don't support killing stupid people. Only very select, very extreme circumstances could force me to be complicit in homocide, a unethical act of far greater magnitude than uh... Polo...cide? Whatever, killing chickens. However, the stupid are of less value to me than the intelligent- if forced to choose between killing a smart stranger and killing a dumb stranger, I'll always pick the latter.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I don't not like you or anything, I'm just making my case.

I know. I'm very dry sometimes.

To reiterate, it depends on the individual's in question's capacity for moral apathy, a capacity which we all possess to different degrees. For some, 20 dollars might be enough to merit ignoring the guilt which results from theft.

OK, I get it. It's immoral, but you do it anyway because it's pleasurable. Also, guilt doesn't necessarily tie into it. The traditional japanese moral code is based around shame, for example, doing immoral acts that no-one else sees is not immoral; it becomes immoral if other people find out about it. Given that guilt isn't a universal phenomenon, there would be no negative attributes and greater positive attributes to keeping the money, tipping the scale in favor of the immoral action. I guess what I was trying to argue for, badly, is the existence of a moral code that is objective from these sort of aesthetic considerations (hence the mention of Kantianism).

This is exactly what I said. Well, I said that the reward of immorality is often great (i.e. delicious chicken), but they're logically equivalent statements.

Yeah, pretty much. Except the punishment as opposed to reward thing came into play with the response to Kontan, so I had to set it up here.

Again, this is more or less exactly what I said. While I don't believe that morality is totally objective, I do believe that one who eats KFC and one who doesn't often have the same moral system. In this example, The KFC eater is simply compelled to ignore morality because KFC is so delicious.

Wait a minute, so you're saying that even though you recognize the immorality of it, you do it anyway? Fuck me, why are we debating this then? I thought I had to prove that the establishment of a moral code is necessary to prevent moral apathy; you're saying that moral apathy often occurs even when someone does see an action as immoral. And I think we're both right. Without the moral code, we'd be pretty much rule by our desires; but even with it, they override the moral code on rare occasions, when in the presence of the carrot and the absence of the stick (as in the case of KFC). This would also explain a lot of things: morbidly obese people, or smokers for example, know that it's a bad idea to go on eating/smoking, but the punishment comes later, while the satisfaction of their craving is immediate. So they go on overeating or smoking.

Are you seriously implying that, if I could get away with it and I knew it would taste good, I'd eat someone? No.

Actually, I'm psychic. I knew Artificial was going to mention the Donner party. Ba-dum-bum-pish!

OK, not really. I was amplifying my point about punishment and moral aesthetics being the key differences between the meat-eater and the r.apist, which Kontan objected to. A lot of your statements happened to dovetail with my argument.

As I said multiple times, so do I. I just don't care that I'm doing the wrong thing because KFC is delicious.

Yeah, this is understandable. Very rarely, I'll eat sushi, even though survey says it's probably against my morality.

Because, to you, as well as to most people who don't commit homicide, that someone annoys you is not sufficient impetus to provoke a moral sin of such gravity as murder.

Yes, but my argument was to concentrate on animals besides humans. For example, if a fly annoys me, I don't swat it. I really don't value flies at all. My point was that not everything is boiled down to considerations of value, because then we'd be sociopaths, and thus the existence of moral systems beyond psychological gratification. Or, perhaps, the vast majority of people just value the "right" things because they've been socialized properly, so they don't really ever have to worry about how they would do if put in a moral crucible. But I'd still say that thinking a moral system through as opposed to relying on conditioning would give one a greater safeguard against immoral actions than conditioning alone.

I don't support killing stupid people. Only very select, very extreme circumstances could force me to be complicit in homocide, a unethical act of far greater magnitude than uh... Polo...cide? Whatever, killing chickens. However, the stupid are of less value to me than the intelligent- if forced to choose between killing a smart stranger and killing a dumb stranger, I'll always pick the latter.

Joke. And while I'd agree, what if this situation came up a lot, and we were left with nothing but intelligent people? How do you think that society would pan out?