would vegetarians be massive hypocrites?
- Features: * Truck Festival 2008: the DiS preview
- Features: * Supersonic 2008: the DiS review
- Features: * Faster Than Sound 2008: the DiS review
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS's final word(s)
- Features: * The Weekly DiScussion: your festival travel nightmares
- Features: * Supersonic 2008: the DiS preview
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day four
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day three
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day two
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day one
- Features: * In Photos: Download Festival 2008
- Features: * The Weekly DiScussion: Is stadium rock back?
- Features: * Dot To Dot 2008: the DiS review
- Features: * Primavera Sound 2008: DiS's festival highlights
- Features: * Primavera Sound 2008: DiS diary, day three
Drowned in Sound Event sponsored tours and events.
- * Subtle @ London Cargo, 21/07
- * Duel in the Deep @ London Catch 22, 22/07
- * Sparklehorse, Scout Niblett, Daniel Johnston @ Glasgow Old Fruitmarket, 23/07
- * Sonic Cathedral @ London Heavenly Social, 23/07
- * Ratatat @ London Cargo, 23/07
- * Wild Beasts @ Kendal The Brewery Centre, 25/07
- * Sparklehorse, Daniel Johnston @ Dublin Whelan's, 28/07
- * DiScover Sheffield @ Sheffield The Harley, 28/07
- * A Sunny Day In Glasgow @ Dublin Whelan's, 30/07
- * Mirror! Mirror!, Dananananaykroyd @ Edinburgh Cabaret Voltaire, 30/07
- * Mudhoney @ London Kentish Town Forum, 31/07
- * A Sunny Day In Glasgow @ Glasgow Nice N Sleazy's, 31/07
- * A Sunny Day In Glasgow @ Leeds Upstairs at the Library, 1/08
- * Club AC30 @ London The Luminaire, 2/08
- * Ratatat @ Glasgow The Captain's Rest, 2/08
Alot of them are already
how do we know they don't?
oooooohhhhhhhhhhhh
because they don't have pain receptors
or central nervousness
Fascist pig
:D
You'd know all about
central nervousness.
Would you?
Yes
you have it. A carrot doesn't.
Send me my PhD now plz.
not necessarily,
because not all veggies are so because animals feel pain. Me being one of them.
Yes
and that's why people who eat fish but call themselves vegetarians are MASSIVE HYPOCRITES
I don't get that at all.
Idiots.
Yeah, wadup with that?
they have the healthiest diet though
and everyone is pretty hypocritical in many ways so i guess it all balances out...
i swear down
when i was peeling a carrot the other day, im sure i heard it go 'Eep'
Is carrot a euphemism?
yes
i actually meant potato
FILTH
Everyone is a hypocrite
Hypocrite.
i aint not never been no hypocrite
not never at all, no
anyone remember the Doctor Who called "end of the world"?
where trees have evolved into comunicative beings....
also trees have sappy blood, and they got creeky sounds and i think they are big
"I think they are big"
eh??
The Day Of The Triffids?
! WO ! i had forgotton about that
having read this again, i don't know why i miss read that as triads
but whatever, yes
sounds a bit like me :D
i can't say i didn't think of you when i posted that :)
If they were veggies
soley for the reason that they don't want to inflict unecessary pain.
Vegetables don't feel pain. Many fruit and vegetables have evolved to be eaten for seed dispersal etc (cue HILARIOUS response , "animals have evolved for meat, haha"). Needless consumption of meat is responsible for a ludicrus amount of man made CO2 emmisions (let's say 28%) and habbitat damage, so even if veg did feel pain, veggies would still be morally superior.
The end.
LOL@U
Still at school
Yes.
^ still thinks they're superior to everyone because they went to uni.
I wouldn't think I was superior for going to uni
For starters, 40% of the population go to uni, so it hardly seperates the wheat from the chaff.
Shouldn't you be revising some multiple choice question/answers or something?
Nope.
But I don't see what school has to do with vegetarians being hypothetically better, in a sort of absolute morality, not really true, way.
Och, forget this, revision would be MORE entertaining than this.
Bye
Please feel free to come back when you are old enough to have thought up something to defend your hilariously witty opening gambit.
Assuming that such a thing as absolute morality exists
and it doesn't
no but facts do
and seeing as everyone has to live on the same planet, I think it's possible to say that there can be absolute 'right' and 'wrong' actions in people's behaviour that affect it.
Obviously dependent on factors like the economy, location etc, but truths nonetheless.
It'd probably be easiest to formulate it as some sort of Kantian 'duty'-based moral theory, ie. that everyone has a moral duty to act in a way which benefits the environment in which they live.
That is true, yeah
but seeing as those absolute 'right' actions can very easily include ethically sourced meat and hypothetical absolute 'wrong' actions can very easily include unethically sourced vegetables, vegetariansim and morality don't necessarily have anything to do with each other
There's moral and immoral actions within both dietary choices
but if you were going to take the most "virtuous" path in both, vegetarianism will probably work out as being the most beneficial for the environment (on a mass scale especially).
I think it's reasonable to call that the most moral choice.
Still
i agree that it doesn't allow vegetarians to automatically take the moral highground, which I think is at least part of your point.
It is essentially, yes.
And I can't really be arsed to get into the semantics of it.
Philosophy ahoy
semantics are annoying because they can undermine arguments in ways which have nothing to do with the crux of the argument.
BUT
if everyone was vegetarian, the space and production levels for the produce required to feed everyone would be massive, and would extreme farming on a mass scale end up damaging the environment in other ways? Its not a simple switch from one to the other
If everybody was vegetarian
the area of agricultural land required to feed the entire planet would be about 5-20% of what it currently is today.
5-20% of what?
of what the current meat farming land is or of what current agricultural land is, or 20% more than what it currently is.
How have you got this fact, where can i read more?
It is not a fact per se
It essentailly works something like this.
At every stage of the food chain, only about 10% of the energy is is carried over to the next step. This is why there are far more Wilderbeest than big cats.
In agricultural terms this means a field of wheat eaten by man might feed 100 people. The same field of wheat used to feed cattle which are then used to feed people would only feed 5-10 humans.
There should be lot's of information available via google, not just pro veggie properganda, this is taught at GCSE and A level biology.
Fine,
but somebody with a dubious moral code would say that.
Not really
but someone with a grasp of cultural relativity and without a superiority complex might
I don't believe cultural relativity doesn't really apply to environmental matters
as it's a constant between all cultures that we inhabit the same earth.
I'm disuputing the idea
that any one person can accurately call an imagined group of people morally superior to another imagined group, not the importance of environmental issues
It's quite obvious.
Meat eaters are ruining the planet.
Oh please.
Its quite obvious that people are ruining the planet. Coming up with such ridiculous and divisive groups is ridiculous.
RIDICULOUS I TELL YOU!
OK, I'll stop deliberately overstating my point
and instead argue like commandercool.
It is undeniable that meat eaters do far more damage to the planet than vegetarians.
That I wouldn't necessarily argue against
but it is clearly the case too that it isn't the act of eating meat initself that is responsible, but rather the wanton disregard for the environment displayed in the practices of most industries.
Are we good now? The more time you spend responding to me, the less time there is for you to hilariously chastise other people.
But i am pretty sure even though i eat meat
i am not contributing as much badness to the environment as some vegans
Take a vegan owns a car, doesnt have insulation in his house, leaves his TV on overnight, drives 1 mile to the shop and drives everywhere else, flies abroad two or three times a year.
Compared to a carnivore like me who doesnt own a car, bikes everywhere, turns everything off when not in use, and can't afford to fly anywhere, i reckon i could probably take the moral high ground over him.
Its too simple to group people together, but its not just as simple as on divisive thing contributing to the death of planet earth, its a whole raft of things
*one divisive thing
Of course eating meat is not the problem
lions are not the major cause of global warming, and I wouldn't tell African tribes that they were destroying the planet by hunting wild game. Assuming they are not upsetting the balance by taking too much, they are part of nature.
The wester worls isn't part of nature anymore. Our retarded meat production methods are just wrong on so many levels. Free range could maybe be acceptable but only if people cut back how much meant they eat drastically.
I don't think western meat eaters can be absolved of any responsibility of maet industry practice.
The Western World
isn't really helping Mother Earth all that much in terms of agriculture though, is it? Mass farming depletes soil nutrients and has often lead to the destruction of habitats animals need to survive, both within the Western world and further afield. Not to mention the abject poverty that a lack of fair trade within the global fruit and veg market has left many people in developing countries in.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the damage the meat industry causes to the environment. I'm disagreeing with you over the idea that one group of people can be labelled as morally superior to another, particularly when neither of this groups actually exist as such.
Not that I want to generalise anymore but.....
I think veggies are also more likely to buy local, fair trade and seasonal food, than meat eaters.
I am not trying to claim that the veg industry is perfect by any means, but it is not on a par with the meat industry.
Whilst you say "Mass farming depletes soil nutrients and has often lead to the destruction of habitats animals need to survive", I agree, but people only consume a fraction of what is grown. If, say, meat farming was banned, there would be less agricultural land used to grow crops, not more.
You mean because former arable land
would become available, right? Otherwise I'm confused.
I'm labouring a point here so I'll stop it now, but I honestly believe you can't label people or make assumptions regarding their morality, especially in an age of high inflation, relatively low wages and rising food prices. Changes to industry and not sweeping generalisations of their clientbase is what is needed if we are going to get ourselves out the hole we are rapidly digging.
This
http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/3273792#r3274423
And I don't have a high opinion of the human race. It's too easy to say the general public are blameless and that the industry needs to change. Esentially, it is greed on the level of industry AND the public that has lead to this massive demand for cheap meat that is one of the major causes of damage to the planet.
I'd argue against that
Local, Fair Trade and Seasonal Food is not majority vegetarians, and is a sweeping generalisation i whole heartedly object to.
My parents buy local, organic produce from farm shops and local butchers and grocers and the meat we get from their is far superior to anything in a supermarket.
I think its more down to money when you look at the increased cost of purchasing this way.
I have an issue with Free Range Chickens pricing, and HFW push to get people to purchase it, it is significantly more expensive and not realistic for a family to continually purcahse organic, local, free range, fair trade food, especially meat
Firstly organic is a con
Secondly, I agree the price of these products can be prohibitive.
I have a looser definition of local, which is really actually seasonal, ie it can be grown soemwhere reasonabley close at the time of years. No apples from New Zealand for example, or plums from Chile. This tends to mean local (or seasonal) is cheaper, watch the price of courgettes come down in the next couple of months.
I have absolutely no evidence to say more veggies but local et al than meat eaters, it's just an assumption as veggies tend to care more about what they eat.
Veggies tend to care more about what they eat
Thats taking it a step too far.
Another massive sweeping generalisation.
I don't see how they can care more about what they eat, its ridiculous
back to the point
how is being a vegan morally superior to being a carnivore
I'll
absolute your morality
well if we say that its less than 28% then thats cool then, yeh?
we can say its 5% if you like, then weve got room for about 6times as much meat consumption
Yes that's right.
We should be aiming for 28%.
we dont have to AIM for it!
we can just pretend that it is already! its the mans way
How the hell is a vegetarian morally superior to a carniovore?
thats hilarious
The clues you seek have been
skillfully hidden in my post. I've disguised my points as words in a sentence.
:D
killing earth with gas
wow, its that simple isnt it
don't eat meat, save the world.
Is it ime for the medication grandad?
I'd eat you
Sorry,
I just couln't understand what you were saying there ;)
I've always wondered what Vegetarians feed their pets
Surely they can't feed them vegetables too...that's not right for the poor animal.
And, if they do feed them meat. Doesn't that make them enablers?
Oh that note, should vegetarians be keeping pets?
I mean isn't that infringing on the pet's freedom to roam?
^ i love this post
interesting
also, do vegans drink beer, as i'm pretty sure they shouldnt.
no they shouldnt
Boddingtons, Brahma and Staropramen are the only ones we make that are suitable for Vegans
There are a fair few out there
but lots of the mass-produced ones (especially non-cloudy beers and lagers) aren't technically suitable for vegetarians.
I say "technically" because there isn't animal products in beer, it's just used to filter the ingredients.
It all depends on the individual's ideas of vegetarianism I think, it's a tough call.
its all or nothing in my eyes
animals are used in the filtration, so they shouldnt drink that beer.
I've got a nice 'dietary values' sheet for our beers and they are the only three, not Leffe or Hoegaarden or Stella Artois or Tennents
there are loads that are ok
see here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geraint.bevan/Vegetarian_beers.html
Look at it this way
A dog (for example) has a stomach/digestive system which is built to digest and process meat. It's whole body has developed to work around the nutrients that it gets from specific types of food (ie mainly meat).
Whilst it's possible to give a dog or cat a vegetarian diet, it can often do more harm than good.
Humans, on the other hand, are omnivores, meaning we can easily digest most animal and vegetable matter easily. We also have the intelligence to make a rational choice about our diet and the implications that it has on our body and the impact it has on other animals and the environment.
well put.
my dog eats grass to make itself sick
she's a clever dog