post #121 of 248
11/21/06 at 1:48pm
That seems to be a false choice. Is it the rabbit that's for the omni dinner? If not, of course everyone would pick beans and rice no need to make an animal suffer needlessly. Seems more like a PETA tactic meant to evoke emotion rather than actually thinking about things from an ethical or philosophical viewpoint.
If yes, I'd prefer a quicker method of killing but frankly I make the choice to smash the rabbit to smithereens every night. I'd prefer it was a rabbit rather than a bunny as there's more meat on a fully grown rabbit. Although my freezer is full of free range organic meats grown just up the road that were killed a little more humanely. As my husband says cute animals are tasty.
I do think there are lots of people who eat meat who don't think about where it comes from. I have a pet peeve about people who only eat boneless skinless chicken breasts. Where is your connection to the animal you're eating, where are you even acknowledging you're eating an animal by only eating that? But that's another rant. It does seem on this board that there are a lot of mommas and papas who do know exactly where their meat has come from, maybe even met it and who would chose the rabbit every time.
That's funny b/c I know a vegan who told dh if any vegan tells you they're vegan b/c it's healthier, they're lying. You become vegan for the politics and ethics. Mainly b/c you have to take supplements in order to remain healthy so veganism won't cover all of your needs.
The only supplement a vegan needs is B12.
I'm pretty sure what the vegan you knew was trying to say was, being a vegan is about ethics first and foremost, yes. Those who avoid animal products for health reasons, not ethics, are not vegan but strict-vegetarians. See the difference?
That said, I'm a vegan because of ethics, but I also think it's much healthier.
Originally Posted by ”Gale Force”
You're on you daily walk past a school. It is on fire and there are ten children trapped inside. You see no other adults and there is no other assistance in sight. You know from the news story last that there are also ten pregnant rats in the school as part of an science experiment the children are conducting. Each rat is in a cage and is carrying quintuplets. You know from your fire rescue training that you have time to save ten units -- children and rats are each a unit. You can save any combination of ten units. None of the twenty units can help the other units. Anyone or anything to be saved will be saved by you. You can hope for assistance for the remaining ten units, but it is not guaranteed. Which units do you save first? Rats? Children? Some combination of the two?
|#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do you
The one I choose to save first tells us nothing about the ethical
decisions we face. I might decide to save my child before I saved yours,
but this certainly does not mean that I should be able to experiment on
your child, or exploit your child in some other way. We are not in an
emergency situation like a fire anyway. In everyday life, we can choose to
act in ways that protect the rights of both dogs and babies.
Like anyone else in this situation, I would probably save the one to
which I am emotionally more attached. Most likely it would be the child.
Someone might prefer to save his own beloved dog before saving the baby
of a stranger. However, as LK states above, this tells us nothing about
any ethical principles.
I am not sure that either vegans or pro-meatists (pro-omnivores???) have succeeded in proving (at least, to me) that they have a superior nutritional program. I don't buy a lot of the evidence I get from the WAPF people. Their research is old, I'm very suspicious of Price's main premises, and it weirds me out that nearly every other nutritional advocate is opposed to their conclusions. I just find it suspicious.
I don't see why one group's set of research premises is supposed to be so much stronger than another's. I look at accounts of longitudinal studies, like the Framingham Heart Study, the Harvard Nurses Study, or the China Study. Researchers all seem to take away different conclusions about dietary recommendations from these. Is it really that nuts have a protective effect (for example) or that the people who ate nuts also ate a diet that was overall high in fiber and low in fat? Or high in fat but low in fried food? Or high in everything but a lot of exercise?
My analogy only exists on this thread because GiggleBird wanted to point out to us that the logical extension of our eating practices is canabolism. She was trying to understand our viewpoint. She expressed her viewpoint about "sameness" which led to my analogy. The logical conclusion of what I understood to be her view was that she would choose ten pregnant rats over ten children. And based on her response, it turns out that none of us are willing to go to the logical extreme of someone else's characterization of our value system. Say that ten times fast.
I'm sorry. "Say that ten times fast" was me laughing at myself for what I hope to be the most convoluted sentence I've ever written. Look at that sentence. And then try to say it at all, much less ten times fast.