The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub Best Speech You Will Ever Hear

Here is what I say to people when they say "Meat is murder, and you are a heathen for killing something that was a living animal." Hey dumbie, so what is your definition of "living"? Is not a plant that has cellular structure, and has a life cycle of birth, substance, growth, reproduction, and death, not a living thing as well? Does not a plant eat using the suns energy and convert that energy via photosynthesis into life giving "food" which allows it to continue through it's life cycle. How do you know that the piece of lettuce or radish you are eating right now didn't scream in agony as it was pulled from the ground and had its life cycle ended, mush like the cow that goes to the slaughter house...

“How Do You Vegans Justify Killing Plants When They’re Living Things, Too?”

As I’ve always stated around here, I’m up for spirited debate, and I don’t mind anyone challenging my life philosophies. This is how we all continue to evolve. Occasionally, however, these “challenges” can get pretty ridiculous… almost as if the “challenger” is grasping for ANY kind of clever, unassailable theory that will somehow render an entire way of living as invalid.

In the world of Witty But Asinine Retorts to Veganism, there are a few that, unfortunately, will not go away. Heading this list would have to be the truly pathetic, “But Hitler was a vegetarian, so what does that say about your movement?” (By the way, Hitler was a far fucking cry from being veggie, as his diet included steady rations of Bavarian sausage, liver dumplings, ham, and squab. The vegetarian myth was just another calculated part of his manufactured public image as a “revolutionary ascetic.”)

A close second would probably be the the good ol’ plants-are-living-things-too retort, which usually unfolds something like this: “You talk about having a diet and lifestyle where you avoid killing any living thing. But what about plants? Plants are living things and you kill them.”

I hadn’t actually heard this one in a while… until its bell was sounded in a New York Times article from last week entitled, “Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too.” Predictably, the author seemed to be making a case about the futility of being vegan, since we were doomed to eat plants, and plants want to live as much as any animal does. In other words, if we’re all destined to be murderers anyway, what difference does it make who or what we’re murdering, be it plant or animal?

Of course, in the article’s first paragraph, the author also admits to her own ethical quandaries and resultant dietary inconsistencies (omitting pork and “mammalian” meat, but not birds, fish or dairy). Whatever. I only bring up this point because these kind of lame-ass arguments are usually presented as much for the benefit of the questioner (in rationalizing their choices), as they are for those being asked the question.

Are Plants Living Things?

Okay, to be fair, let me draw a line in the sand on the subject. I think the concept of plants as living things is legitimate and fascinating. Yes, of course they’re living things. In fact, from the perspective of quantum physics, there is nothing in our three-dimensional world of matter that is not “living” on some level, including water, stones and computer screens. Everything is energy, as they say, vibrating at various rates of speed. And for those growing, expanding, self-propagating things – like fruit, veggies, algae and bacteria – there are varying degrees of intelligence involved so they may live, develop and evolve within their respective environs. Having built-in defense mechanisms to this end is obviously part of Mother Nature’s master plan.

This makes sense for all of us because, remember, if it weren’t for all of these plants and trees swapping out carbon dioxide for oxygen, humans and animals wouldn’t even be around. So, yes, Brussels sprouts and all other forms of veggies, fruits, grains and various plant-life are designed to thrive and survive… apparently for both their benefit and ours. (Also, is it any coincidence that the same antioxidants in plant-foods that help them survive in the wild, are also of immeasurable benefit to our survival when we ingest them?)

However, it’s quite a leap to automatically surmise that a plant’s survival mechanism is parallel to that of an animal’s. This is why you will often hear the word “sentient” used to describe the kind of living beings who we vegans wish to safeguard with our food, clothing and lifestyle choices. Simply put, a sentient being – like a chicken, cow or cockroach – is one whose cognitive faculties are such that they can clearly feel pain, discern survival conditions, have specific preferences, express some degree of emotion, etc. For these reasons, sentient beings operate from a more evolved level of consciousness than plant life. And, to me, the ultimate built-in criteria to define this really starts with that all-important question:

Do Plants Feel Pain?

The answer is no, and I’ll give you three good reasons why they do not:

* Scientifically speaking, a plant-based food is not a sentient being, does not have an innate, emotional inclination to avoid bodily harm or death (in the same way that animals do), does not have a nervous system, and, therefore, is not even designed to process the sensation of pain.

* Philosophically speaking, it’s safe to say that Mother Nature, in her infinite wisdom, would never bestow upon a living creature the capacity to feel pain without also giving him or her the ability to engage in a fight or flight response to the imminent threat or actual experience of pain.

* Practically speaking, I’ve yet to see any irate celery stalks or bell peppers jump up from the cutting board and run out of my kitchen lately. Such is clearly not the case with the 50-plus billion farm animals around the world who meet their fate in the slaughterhouse every year.

So, please… to all intelligent folks out there wishing to challenge the merits of veganism, let’s at least put this one to rest, shall we?

My Job

I understand that veganism often appears to be the ultimate “inconvenient truth” to those considering its comparatively rigid parameters. And I understand that it’s human nature to find that loophole – that flawed piece of an otherwise logical puzzle – that enables us to dismiss the whole of something as quackery, so we can throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I get that. So my job, in part, is to illuminate the flaws in some of these whacked-out perceptions so that people can make more informed decisions. What someone chooses to do from there is, as usual, their choice.

Finally…

Now, after all of this plants-are-living-things stuff, if you’re still on a mission to save as many plants as possible from the ravages of the dinner table and feel that eating dead animals is somehow serving that end, remember: we are currently feeding about 80-plus% of many of the crops we grow in the world to farm animals. So by eating animal products, you are actually causing the “death” of even more plants (to say nothing of animals), since we feed a disproportionate amount of plant foods to animals, relative to what they yield to humans in the form of food.

The irony here is that, by trying to use this killing plants argument as a case against veganism, it’s actually making more of a case for it.

Just a little more food for thought…

I am calling bullshit on the science rebuttal. Whomever was quoted as giving the rebuttal refers to "We Vegans". The use of "we" self identifies the speaker as a Vegan and is justifying rebuttal to the position that a plant is not "Sentient" therefor it is not considered "Living" as part of this discussion.

I would argue that with domestication and the continued breeding of livestock to be passive would qualify as the same reasoning for "Sentient". The goes on to further say that "Sentient" as well refers to "Self sustaining survival" as part of "Sentient" and since lettuce and carrots don't try and run away or grow spikes to defend themselves from being killed, they are not living.

Domesticated Livestock fall into that same category then. Cows are bout the stupidest livestock on the freaking planet. They know how to eat, crap, sleep, procreate, and nurture their young. They don't have the common animal instincts anymore for pure survival of there native species because it has been breed out of them. They are kept in fields with simple cattle crossings because most livestock isn't smart enough to figure out how to beat simple gaps in grate in order to just walk out of the pasture.

I dont understanding what are you saying, where/when hes causing pain to humans? If I understand in the beggining of his activism he caused financial damage to producers, other than this nothing was caused or is caused by him, in fact to not consume animal products is better economically is healther to your familiy, because is less resource intensive to produce grains, that the same amount of meat.


Yes, I consider causing financial damage to producers evil. I dont think their kids should starve or go poor because this guy wants to get his self-rightious jollies off.



One thing because humans have been eating animals for thousand of years. The fact that we have been doing something for a long times does not make it morally right, Humans have been racist and sexist for centuries and we now recognize that racism and sexism are morally wrong.

You are technically correct, but neither yourself nor CrazyGuy have MADE A CASE for why it IS immoral. You are just making some assumption that it is.



His argument is only to try to illustrate that we are not naturally eat meaters, like monkey ancestors that were mostly vegetarians. We do not have the natural tools, like mandibules and claws and etcs.. so to sum up is not our natural “nature” to eat milk after been baby e do not need cow milk to survive or to be health. We are brain washed since child to behave according to the majority.
Our faculty of reason,intellect, and our opposable thumbs ARE our natural tools. This guy has utterly failed in his analysis of our natural tools, thats my point. Not having the same digestive tract as a coyote does NOT mean we dont eat meat.



I do not see a logic, it's a moral question, I do not see damage on people eating meat when they have no other option for their survival, we have the choice and the knowlodge to feed healthier and again cheaper, but we for convenience, taste, tradition and etc.. we choose to eat from animals, to cause pain and suffering, do say me that the cow , day by day milk is sucked from their tits is a pleasure to them, we are causing animal pain for our pleasure, and just ignoring this fact.
Morality springs from logic, and his attempt to separate logic and reason from morality is why I find him so utterly repulsive and evil. You ought to read Descartes before you buy this guys crap. And Kant and Hume and etc http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/

Trying to separate morality from reason never goes anywhere good. This guy is arguing that morality is based on emotion. Emotion is not a basis for morality, and trying to use it as such is in fact something a base animal would do. Its a dark side of human nature, not the enlightened side.



You are again failling to the arguments, usually you will not hear that a guy had a heart attack or other desease from being a vegetarian, like he said others factors include like alchool,stress, drugs. But you see a lot of health problems caused by meat and fat->dairy diet. Why he's an extremist I don't get it. Hes teaching people another reasonable view of our habits towards the use of animals.

Usually? You and he are confusing proper production of meat, with the state of our current industry. Some aspects of our current meat industry are inarguably imperfect and less than optimally healthy. However, that says nothing about the concept of eating meat in of itself. Some facts for you:
On my moms side of the family, which comes from a rural area which in fact has raised its own meat for hundreds of years- the average lifespan ( yes average) is about 95 years. My grandparents generation of people in the area and extended family live/lived to be between 87 and 102 years old. And they eat/ate home raised milk products and pork and beef EVERY SINGLE DAY.

They also didnt eat it as a luxury. This guys arguments about the inherent health benefits and economics of meat as blanket statements are utter bullshit, and completely unfounded assertions. I can guarantee that from personal experience.



You are been irrational for those arguments, your health will be not decreased, your human enviroment will be be not depleted, in fact it will be inverse.

I have not been irrational in the slightest, rather the PETA side has yet to concoct one single sound argument. Yet the PETA people will harm other humans and be general nuisances despite not having any sound arguments. The core of PETA belief is based on emotion.



We can feed people well and healther, without resort to billions of animal killing every year
Irrational is what are we doing to the planet, we are consuming too much milk and meat for detrimental of our health and planet resources, the amount of deforastion that is taking place in Brazil to plant soy to feed cattle is imense.

See, this is a different issue. Perhaps what is happening in Brazil is coloring your perception. Maybe what is happening in Brazil is not good. I dont know, I dont live in Brazil or follow it too closely. Perhaps the people who are growing meat in Brazil are in fact locally detrimental. If so, by all means oppose them and what they are doing. But do it on the basis of the harm they are actually doing.... no need to use emotion as faux basis for logic. You will get a lot further with that.





It's not a assumption, is fact that to produce 1kg of meat is more resource intensive that produce 1kg of vegetables(Around 15 times more intensive). And countries like Brazil are deforesting all forest to produce more grains to feed for cattle. While you can believe that this not affect you in USA it does, we are in the same planet, if we take out amazon forest to plant soy to feed cattle it will have a global impact. While you cannot think like that meat is a luxury, again, if the east countries(india,china and etcs) begin to eat like eurpeans and americans we will need 3 another planet earths.

Like I said, lets keep the global warning crap to a different thread. But on the meat topic, it is not inherently necessary to raise grain to eat meat. In fact some farmers naturally graze animals. You are talking about the individual techniques for raising meat, which is DIFFERENT than poor ranching tactics being INHERENT in eating of meat.

This is yet another example of why people who discard logic and argue on the basis of emotion are so frustrating.

Anyone with a simple grounding in logic inherently understands that just because one method or type of cattle ranching may arguably be overall detrimental, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY create a case that ALL MEAT detrimental.

People raised and lived off of animals for thousands of years because when done properly, they in fact add quite a bit of economic efficiency. Pigs for example are one of the best examples of natural recycling.





Again, not eating meat is less expensive and more healthier, you still blinded by what you want to see. Honestly I always had eat meat and dairy products/eggs, I always had a common sense that I knew about vegetables products and fruits being healther than meat/milk, After I grow up, I always had the moral awareness that delicious beef steak was with the pain of an animal that was slaved to that I had that delicous pleasure of taste. After many years of just ignoring the true, and inventing excuses like you are inventing, I realize that was not morally right what I was doing.
It's more health and economical advantagous to me do not eat meat and dairy products, I will be saving money in the future, and morally, I do not help to kill animals for my sake of taste. Because there are plenty of alternatives to meat/milk/eggs products.

Yes, I consider causing financial damage to producers evil. I dont think their kids should starve or go poor because this guy wants to get his self-rightious jollies off

You are technically correct, but neither yourself nor CrazyGuy have MADE A CASE for why it IS immoral. You are just making some assumption that it is.

Our faculty of reason,intellect, and our opposable thumbs ARE our natural tools. This guy has utterly failed in his analysis of our natural tools, thats my point. Not having the same digestive tract as a coyote does NOT mean we dont eat meat.

Morality springs from logic, and his attempt to separate logic and reason from morality is why I find him so utterly repulsive and evil. You ought to read Descartes before you buy this guys crap. And Kant and Hume and etc http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/
Trying to separate morality from reason never goes anywhere good. This guy is arguing that morality is based on emotion. Emotion is not a basis for morality, and trying to use it as such is in fact something a base animal would do. Its a dark side of human nature, not the enlightened side.

Usually? You and he are confusing proper production of meat, with the state of our current industry. Some aspects of our current meat industry are inarguably imperfect and less than optimally healthy. However, that says nothing about the concept of eating meat in of itself. Some facts for you:
On my moms side of the family, which comes from a rural area which in fact has raised its own meat for hundreds of years- the average lifespan ( yes average) is about 95 years. My grandparents generation of people in the area and extended family live/lived to be between 87 and 102 years old. And they eat/ate home raised milk products and pork and beef EVERY SINGLE DAY.
They also didnt eat it as a luxury. This guys arguments about the inherent health benefits and economics of meat as blanket statements are utter bullshit, and completely unfounded assertions. I can guarantee that from personal experience.

I have not been irrational in the slightest, rather the PETA side has yet to concoct one single sound argument. Yet the PETA people will harm other humans and be general nuisances despite not having any sound arguments. The core of PETA belief is based on emotion.

See, this is a different issue. Perhaps what is happening in Brazil is coloring your perception. Maybe what is happening in Brazil is not good. I dont know, I dont live in Brazil or follow it too closely. Perhaps the people who are growing meat in Brazil are in fact locally detrimental. If so, by all means oppose them and what they are doing. But do it on the basis of the harm they are actually doing.... no need to use emotion as faux basis for logic. You will get a lot further with that.

Like I said, lets keep the global warning crap to a different thread. But on the meat topic, it is not inherently necessary to raise grain to eat meat. In fact some farmers naturally graze animals. You are talking about the individual techniques for raising meat, which is DIFFERENT than poor ranching tactics being INHERENT in eating of meat.
This is yet another example of why people who discard logic and argue on the basis of emotion are so frustrating.
Anyone with a simple grounding in logic inherently understands that just because one method or type of cattle ranching may arguably be overall detrimental, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY create a case that ALL MEAT detrimental.
People raised and lived off of animals for thousands of years because when done properly, they in fact add quite a bit of economic efficiency. Pigs for example are one of the best examples of natural recycling.

You have yet to produce a single argument based on rationality or reason, and dare to accuse me of seeing only what I want to see? That sir, takes a lot of chutzpah.

You have not even tried to argue why, logically, using animals is immoral. When that is pointed out, you avoid addressing it and swerve off into some unfounded assumptions about the health of eating animal products. Then in the same breath accuse me of seeing only what I want to see.

I honestly hope you decide to allow yourself to engage is some reflection, and see what is wrong with that.