Quantcast The Red and Black
College Media Network

The Red and Black

Search the Archives

 

Vegetarian pleas for animals

Abstract:
There was a relative uproar around campus this past school year when a student was accused of killing a number of puppies and leaving them in a dumpster. There was a similar stir when the Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was found to be leading a dogfighting ring....

pat

posted 6/19/08 @ 10:45 AM EST

You are a lovely young woman and I applaud you and your sentiments.

I must say, however, that I'm not sure that not eating meat makes us more moral. We are, after all, omnivorous creatures.

We are also SUPPOSED to possess a conscience.

I think issues of morality arise when we accept the brutal treatment of 'food' animals as 'just the way things are'. This attitude is destroying our environment (factory farms, transport, the destruction of rain forests and farmland etc.), human health (steroids, antibiotics and eating the flesh of sick and genetically altered animals), in addition to making the lives of intelligent, feeling creatures, hell beyond imaginging.

There are alternatives: Meats and other produce from local, pastured animals, who live good lives. Does it cost more? Usually. Simple solution. EAT LESS OF IT.

Not only would the animals and environment benefit, but so would most of us. It's win-win.
Post a reply to this comment

Kim

posted 7/11/08 @ 4:14 PM EST

Originally posted by

pat

 You are a lovely young woman and I applaud you and your sentiments.

I must say, however, that I'm not sure that not eating meat makes us more moral. We are, after all, omnivorous creatures.

We are also SUPPOSED to possess a conscience.

I think issues of morality arise when we accept the brutal treatment of 'food' animals as 'just the way things are'. This attitude is destroying our environment (factory farms, transport, the destruction of rain forests and farmland etc.), human health (steroids, antibiotics and eating the flesh of sick and genetically altered animals), in addition to making the lives of intelligent, feeling creatures, hell beyond imaginging.

There are alternatives: Meats and other produce from local, pastured animals, who live good lives. Does it cost more? Usually. Simple solution. EAT LESS OF IT.

Not only would the animals and environment benefit, but so would most of us. It's win-win.


While I agree partly I think you share sentiments with the writer more than you realize. It does not matter if the animals are humanely treated the point is they end up dead on someone's plate. The moral argument starts and really ends there. You said humans are omnivorous cretures and that expensive meat should be consumed less. Alright fine for wealthy Americans who can afford $10 well taken care of meat but not so much for Africans or Asians or other underdevoleped countries struggling to get meat or any toher food into their mouths. So what when they finally rise from the ashes what will be waiting for them a $15 well handled well coddled steak. American will be in shock and they will be right back to where they started- starving. The American as weak as it may be right now can not afford to make such feel good decisions at the moment because what we do affects other countries and countries that are poorer than our nation.
Post a reply to this comment

Marsha

posted 6/19/08 @ 11:57 AM EST

I agree with everything you have said here. I believe that if earth survives another 500 years, we will be looked upon as savages for killing animals for food. It is inhumane, and it is wrong. Thank you for writing this article. Although there will be many neanderthals who find your article ridiculous, it is, in fact, they who are the ridiculous ones.
Post a reply to this comment

Jay

posted 7/02/08 @ 8:21 PM EST

So, if you disagree with this militant stance, you're a Neanderthal?

Nice. Very nice.

You need to do a little research before you shoot off your mouth.

Originally posted by

Marsha

 I agree with everything you have said here. I believe that if earth survives another 500 years, we will be looked upon as savages for killing animals for food. It is inhumane, and it is wrong. Thank you for writing this article. Although there will be many neanderthals who find your article ridiculous, it is, in fact, they who are the ridiculous ones.
Post a reply to this comment

anthropologist

posted 7/13/08 @ 11:56 PM EST

Originally posted by

Marsha

 I agree with everything you have said here. I believe that if earth survives another 500 years, we will be looked upon as savages for killing animals for food. It is inhumane, and it is wrong. Thank you for writing this article. Although there will be many neanderthals who find your article ridiculous, it is, in fact, they who are the ridiculous ones.


I think that if you look at the biological record, you'll find it impossible for Neanderthals to find this article ridiculous, as they sort of seem to have died out somewhere around 30,000 years ago. Much more likely that Anatomically Modern Humans will find the article ridiculous.
Post a reply to this comment

Kevin

posted 6/19/08 @ 12:24 PM EST

If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be so delicious.
Post a reply to this comment

nicholas

posted 6/19/08 @ 2:22 PM EST

Originally posted by

Kevin

 If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be so delicious.


pleasure can't be the only criterion for making ethical choices. human flesh might be delicious, but that would not justify eating it because there are other considerations involved.
Post a reply to this comment

Dr. Hannibal Lecter

posted 6/19/08 @ 4:34 PM EST

Originally posted by

Kevin

 If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be so delicious.


If we weren't supposed to eat people, they wouldn't be so delicious.

Your argument is fail, sir.
Post a reply to this comment

Patrick

posted 6/20/08 @ 9:30 AM EST

Originally posted by

Kevin

 If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be so delicious.


If we weren't supposed to eat animals we wouldn't have been given canines and incisors in our mouth. Thank you God, Jewish God, trees, Allah, David Koresh, Buddha, Confuscious, Zeus or whoever you believe in for providing us with these wonderful sharp teeth with which to eat flesh. I like mine rare.
Post a reply to this comment

jc

posted 6/24/08 @ 9:45 AM EST

Originally posted by

Kevin

 If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be so delicious.


Actually, I've read that human meat tastes great too! Does that mean we should be eating it too? It's time to evolve and leave behind our caveman mentality and go with the science that says plants are best for our health and longevity!
Post a reply to this comment

JOHN

posted 6/19/08 @ 1:21 PM EST

"There isn't much of a distinction to be made between eating meat and killing puppies."

O RLY?

You kinda lost me there, pumpkin.

The self-righteous and pious nature of your argument is very off-putting. People like you are not good PR for your cause.
Post a reply to this comment

amanda

posted 6/19/08 @ 3:34 PM EST

john, saying "pumpkin" in your comment is condescending and sexist (don't think you would have said that to a guy).
i agree that this could have been written better, but she's got good points and good intentions. if you did some research about meat production you might see the lack of differences between killing livestock and killing puppies.
Post a reply to this comment

john

posted 6/24/08 @ 1:12 PM EST

Somebody said: john, saying "pumpkin" in your comment is condescending and sexist (don't think you would have said that to a guy).
i agree that this could have been written better, but she's got good points and good intentions. if you did some research about meat production you might see the lack of differences between killing livestock and killing puppies.


You're right. Had it been written by a dude I would have used "scamp" or "sport" or possibly "little fella." And you bet it was condescending. Good catch on that one. You must zoom right through your class readings. You also don't even know the meaning of the word "sexist." You think that by me saying 'pumpkin' I'm speaking to the entire female population. Unless you feel this woman speaks for an entire population, it isn't sexist.

And you are wrong, she doesn't have good intentions. She is pompously chastising people using riduculous allegories as a premise.
Post a reply to this comment

hmm

posted 6/24/08 @ 5:36 PM EST

Originally posted by

JOHN

 "There isn't much of a distinction to be made between eating meat and killing puppies."

O RLY?

You kinda lost me there, pumpkin.

The self-righteous and pious nature of your argument is very off-putting. People like you are not good PR for your cause.


Fair enough, John. But you can turn that right back around. The patronizing nature of your rebuttal is equally off-putting. People like you who use condescension to make a point are bad PR for your cause, too.
Post a reply to this comment

john

posted 6/24/08 @ 5:44 PM EST

Originally posted by

JOHN

 "There isn't much of a distinction to be made between eating meat and killing puppies."

O RLY?

You kinda lost me there, pumpkin.

The self-righteous and pious nature of your argument is very off-putting. People like you are not good PR for your cause.


See, that's the thing. That's not my cause. I'm not espousing sanctimonious drivel in the student newspaper. I'm just responding to it in a forum.
Post a reply to this comment

hmm

posted 6/25/08 @ 2:07 PM EST

Originally posted by

JOHN

 "There isn't much of a distinction to be made between eating meat and killing puppies."

O RLY?

You kinda lost me there, pumpkin.

The self-righteous and pious nature of your argument is very off-putting. People like you are not good PR for your cause.


Fair enough. But I'm not sure I understand what your point is in responding at all. If you're trying to persuade the writer that she's foolish or wrong to approach the issue in the way she does, then you're doing a damned poor job of it. You pretty much lost your audience when you became patronizing. If, on the other hand, you're not trying to convince her, then you're... I don't know... talking to hear the sound of your own voice? Okay. You have a perfect right to do that, of course, but frankly, isn't it a little masturbatory?

The thing is, I visited this forum as someone who's conflicted about the whole vegetarian issue, and I was hoping to listen to some intelligent debate from others who had either made up their minds or were similarly undecided. Maybe the original article didn't start out so promisingly, but I guess I was naive enough to hope the responses would pick up where it left off. Silly me.
Post a reply to this comment

Jay

posted 7/02/08 @ 8:24 PM EST

What's the matter, pumpkin? On the rag?

Originally posted by

JOHN

 amanda
posted 6/19/08 @ 3:34 PM EST
john, saying "pumpkin" in your comment is condescending and sexist (don't think you would have said that to a guy).
i agree that this could have been written better, but she's got good points and good intentions. if you did some research about meat production you might see the lack of differences between killing livestock and killing puppies.
Post a reply to this comment

Kate Miller

posted 6/19/08 @ 7:27 PM EST

Interesting article. As a vegetarian and journalist I have great respect for the writer who put her opinion out there on a subject that can often become controversial. I do believe you're right about the fact that the general public doesn't want to face the real cruelty they're supporting by eating meat. Thanks for this addition to the Red and Black :)
Post a reply to this comment

Kevin

posted 6/19/08 @ 9:04 PM EST

I take offense in the fact that the author basically implies all meat-eaters are immoral. For a liberal she surely is unapologetically bigoted.

You can't fit ideology into biology. It doesn't work. We are meant to be omnivores and for someone to tell me that it is immoral to be what you were intended to be, it's a slap in the face. That's as bad as telling off homosexuals and telling them to change because you think their lifestyle is "immoral."

I agree that the egregious acts of battery farms are neither normal nor healthy. They are the subjects you should be targeting, not us meat-eaters.

I applaud the author for being so compassionate about animals, but trying to inject her personal beliefs into the masses by insulting them is a dumb tactic that evangelicals and street preachers do.
Post a reply to this comment

Chris

posted 6/19/08 @ 9:44 PM EST

Originally posted by

Kevin

 I take offense in the fact that the author basically implies all meat-eaters are immoral. For a liberal she surely is unapologetically bigoted.

You can't fit ideology into biology. It doesn't work. We are meant to be omnivores and for someone to tell me that it is immoral to be what you were intended to be, it's a slap in the face. That's as bad as telling off homosexuals and telling them to change because you think their lifestyle is "immoral."

I agree that the egregious acts of battery farms are neither normal nor healthy. They are the subjects you should be targeting, not us meat-eaters.

I applaud the author for being so compassionate about animals, but trying to inject her personal beliefs into the masses by insulting them is a dumb tactic that evangelicals and street preachers do.


She states her case for why meat-eating is immoral, and you can't simply ignore the reasons given to call her bigoted. If meat-eating supports an industry that is terrible on the environment, systematically cruel to animals, and contributes to human starvation by wasting grain, all of which it does, then it makes sense to call it immoral, as it causes an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering.

If you really want to take your argument about biological "meant-to's" to its logical conclusion, you should become a hunter-gatherer, or at the least, a subsistence farmer. I cannot speak for Tulsi, but if you did so, I would have next to no problems with your meat consumption. What meat-eaters in modern, industrialized nations do is not natural for the animals or for themselves, and even given the currently unnatural method of meat production, the amount of meat consumed by the average American is much higher than would be natural as well. Further, we were meant to eat loads of fruit and nuts as well, but most meat-eaters, while they would accept your argument to cover their animal exploitation, do not follow this out, either.

There is no analogy with "telling off homosexuals." First, meat-eating, as explained above, causes an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering, whereas homosexuality does not. But even so, I doubt you would accept biological excuses with many other vices, such as infanticide, rape, or pedophilia. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7116506.stm for a bit of info only on the last, though there are volumes about each.) We should not be taking our moral cues from nature because it has little to offer, and meat eating is one more natural instinct that should be abandoned for this reason.
Post a reply to this comment

ugadawg36

posted 6/19/08 @ 11:40 PM EST

The morality of which you write about is false. The morality of which you speak up is simply created by the pop culture of modern society. Real morality can be seen in nature and through nature. As a Geneticist, you ought to know this! The human body is genetically and historically designed to eat meat as a primary means of survival. My numbers may be slightly off, but humans have survived off of "hunting and gathering" for 80 percent of their existence on Earth. Planting crops as a food only emerged in recent history on the time table of human life. Don't let today's popular culture fool you on this issue or on any topic. This false arguement that it is not morally right to kill animals for food comes from our service-oriented economy. Because people of this nation do not have to do things for themselves (such as collecting their own food) people take way too many things for granted and somehow come up with silly ideas. Therefore, that means I do agree with you on only one point. People are silly to justify eating my meat by saying its only because they don't have to kill the animal themselves.

One more thing, I grew up on a cattle farm as many people in Georgia did. Our cattle and most of the cattle in Georgia end up in hamburgers. However, I can say that the cattle on our farm live in a very nice life in our large pasture with access to fresh flowing water and many other luxuries that they enjoy. I have followed a cow's entire life process and it is in no way cruel. When it comes down to the end, they are killed very quickly and painlessly. I have seen it myself. However, I realize some injustices do exist in the meat industries, but in today's modern society, these injustices are only rare occurances.
Post a reply to this comment

Emily

posted 6/20/08 @ 12:53 AM EST

It is nice to know that farms still exist where the cattle can actually live and behave like cattle, but you might want to do some more research before you suggest that these are the status quo. The VAST majority of meat that ends up on American tables came through a factory farm. Factory farms are themselves injustices rife with cruelty and negligence. Small farmers may still exist for now, and specialty trends such as organic meats may keep them in the game for a little longer, but they are no match for corporate America. THEY have the money, THEY control the lawmakers, and THEY give Americans the 99cent/pound beef that we for some reason think we deserve. It is true that humans are historically omnivores and that we have eaten meat for the greater part of our existence (and some like the Inuit still do). But when our ancestors killed an animal for food, it hadn't spent the last few weeks lying in feces, confined to a crate so small that it couldn't so much as turn around, or had its beak seared off so that it couldn't peck itself or its neighbor to death when the stress of its lifestyle became too much. The animals our ancestors killed had lived animal lives, something factory farms do not provide. And as for the biology, I find it interesting that our digestive system more closely resembles an herbivore than a carnivore, with our extensive small intestine and colon. But anyway, I think the morality that the author speaks of (and I really don't like the word choice to begin with), doesn't have to do with ingesting the flesh of another living being, or even the fact that this being was killed solely for your consumption. The real issue is the person who knows the TRUTH about the American meat industry and continually funds it straight from their pocket, day after day. Granted some people are still in the dark and think that all of the meat comes from farms like the one on which you grew up. But some people learn the truth and choose to pretend they didn't. I don't know if this happens because of sheer laziness or heartlessness or cowardice, but it is not a good sign for our society.
Post a reply to this comment

Jesse

posted 6/21/08 @ 3:55 PM EST

Originally posted by

ugadawg36

 The morality of which you write about is false. The morality of which you speak up is simply created by the pop culture of modern society. Real morality can be seen in nature and through nature. As a Geneticist, you ought to know this! The human body is genetically and historically designed to eat meat as a primary means of survival. My numbers may be slightly off, but humans have survived off of "hunting and gathering" for 80 percent of their existence on Earth. Planting crops as a food only emerged in recent history on the time table of human life. Don't let today's popular culture fool you on this issue or on any topic. This false arguement that it is not morally right to kill animals for food comes from our service-oriented economy. Because people of this nation do not have to do things for themselves (such as collecting their own food) people take way too many things for granted and somehow come up with silly ideas. Therefore, that means I do agree with you on only one point. People are silly to justify eating my meat by saying its only because they don't have to kill the animal themselves.

One more thing, I grew up on a cattle farm as many people in Georgia did. Our cattle and most of the cattle in Georgia end up in hamburgers. However, I can say that the cattle on our farm live in a very nice life in our large pasture with access to fresh flowing water and many other luxuries that they enjoy. I have followed a cow's entire life process and it is in no way cruel. When it comes down to the end, they are killed very quickly and painlessly. I have seen it myself. However, I realize some injustices do exist in the meat industries, but in today's modern society, these injustices are only rare occurances.


You speak of "Modern Pop Culture" as if vegetarism as a new "trend" or "fad". Vegetarism has been around (and documented) since ancient India and ancient Greece since the 6th century BCE. Vegetarism is NOT a new thing! Many great philosphers (such as Plato) and even Albert Einestin ( not to mention the great Benjamin Frankin) were vegtarians.

And to say that these injustices are rare ocurances is pure ignorance, just type factory farming into google. You will be shocked to see what pops ups.
Post a reply to this comment

ANON

posted 6/20/08 @ 8:02 AM EST

What about the plants? I think its wrong to grow food in the ground just for our consumption. Those plants have feelings too damnit! Every one is always arguing for the animals but could care less for the plants! We depend on cotton for clothing and numerous other plants for food which we don't even give a honest chance to live a normal plants life! We poison them with fertilizer as soon as they show signs of life!

I think we should all just protest clothes and walk around completely naked. We should also protest food of any kind because if it were meant for us, we wouldn't have to grow it or kill anything at all to get it. Maybe if we protest long enough we'll adapt to live on oxygen alone because water doesn't belong to us either. Water belongs to Mother Earth.
Post a reply to this comment

eric

posted 6/20/08 @ 11:41 AM EST

[QUOTE id="beeee474-46a6-4d8d-afc6-e450f6af57e4"]What about the plants? I think its wrong to grow food in the ground just for our consumption. Those plants have feelings too damnit! Every one is always arguing for the animals but could care less for the plants!


Are you actually serious? Or just aiming to belittle compassion for suffering animals? The latter is more likely, but in any case...

Perhaps you are unaware, but a plant lacks 1) a brain and 2) a central nervous system. Therefore, they do not experience suffering. But even if they did, you would cause immensely less destruction of plants by eating them directly, rather than supporting the enormously wasteful process of feeding large amounts of plant food to livestock, all just to get a small amount of meat in return. Typically, it requires over 5 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce 1 pound of beef for human consumption. This constitutes a colossal waste of resources in a world where vast numbers of humans suffer from hunger and malnutrition.
Post a reply to this comment

The Dude

posted 6/20/08 @ 3:54 PM EST

Plants are sensitive to their surroundings just like we are. So they can't express themselves emotively like animals can, we can't relate to them because they don't have eyes, mouths, noses, etc, this doesn't mean the plant can't sense it's own being. As a biologist you should be aware of the intricacies of a plant, especially as a geneticist. Plants are sensitive to touch, light, temperature, air quality and a multitude of other factors. Just because we can't relate to them doesn't mean the plant doesn't have its own awareness. The agriculture industry is equally corrupt. The over use of chemicals and pesticides, genetic manipulation of the crops, etc. Supreme court cases have been filed by corporate farms against individual farmers because the farmers crop was pollinated by the companies patented genetically modified crop. Is this not also amoral? There's no need for the hate mongering against meat eaters or vegetarians though. I think it is good to see the facts that go along with both sides of a story in order to make a decision, but I don't think it is our job to tell other people what they should be doing with their lives or judging them negatively because they do not share our same opinions. We have free will for a reason.
Post a reply to this comment

MJC

posted 6/20/08 @ 10:27 PM EST

Originally posted by

The Dude

 Plants are sensitive to their surroundings just like we are. So they can't express themselves emotively like animals can, we can't relate to them because they don't have eyes, mouths, noses, etc, this doesn't mean the plant can't sense it's own being. As a biologist you should be aware of the intricacies of a plant, especially as a geneticist. Plants are sensitive to touch, light, temperature, air quality and a multitude of other factors. Just because we can't relate to them doesn't mean the plant doesn't have its own awareness. The agriculture industry is equally corrupt. The over use of chemicals and pesticides, genetic manipulation of the crops, etc. Supreme court cases have been filed by corporate farms against individual farmers because the farmers crop was pollinated by the companies patented genetically modified crop. Is this not also amoral? There's no need for the hate mongering against meat eaters or vegetarians though. I think it is good to see the facts that go along with both sides of a story in order to make a decision, but I don't think it is our job to tell other people what they should be doing with their lives or judging them negatively because they do not share our same opinions. We have free will for a reason.


Excellent point. Nothing good ever comes from trying to convert another group by chastising the other. Solid article, but this is very similar to an argument by religious zealots. Humans share alot of things in common, but morals are clearly not one of them. You can't argue immorality with something that is not morally clear. Especially when you try to argue morality with biology. I mean what if I argued that homosexuality is wrong b/c there would be no sexual reproduction? It's fine to post your beliefs, just don't push them on other ppl.
Post a reply to this comment

Ryan

posted 6/20/08 @ 4:40 PM EST

"We don't even have to give up the good tastes; there are plenty of meat substitutes that, I'm told, taste very much like their meat counter parts. And, what's more, they're healthier!"

This statement kind of undermines the credibility of the whole "viable alternatives" argument. Maybe I am reading this incorrectly (so correct me if I am) but have you really never tried both to compare them? It sounds really silly.
Post a reply to this comment

Dawggone

posted 6/20/08 @ 4:53 PM EST

Thanks for the lecture on morality. I think I'll mush my dog sled team to the restaraunt to have veal for dinner while wearing my mink coat and reading a magazine about habitat destruction printed on unrecycled paper.
Post a reply to this comment

...

posted 6/20/08 @ 5:19 PM EST

Originally posted by

Dawggone

 Thanks for the lecture on morality. I think I'll mush my dog sled team to the restaraunt to have veal for dinner while wearing my mink coat and reading a magazine about habitat destruction printed on unrecycled paper.


Wow. Klassy.
Post a reply to this comment

Andrew Muchmore

posted 6/21/08 @ 5:01 AM EST

The morality she speaks of is pretty common-sense, it's basic utilitarianism, i.e. the belief that causing suffering is morally wrong and creating happiness is morally right. It's the basis of everyone's basic conception of right and wrong, even if they pretend to base their lives on 2000 year old books of unknown authorship. It's unpleasant to be told that one's actions are immoral, but if causing pain for no good reason isn't immoral, what is?
Post a reply to this comment

MJC

posted 6/21/08 @ 6:06 PM EST

Originally posted by

Andrew Muchmore

 The morality she speaks of is pretty common-sense, it's basic utilitarianism, i.e. the belief that causing suffering is morally wrong and creating happiness is morally right. It's the basis of everyone's basic conception of right and wrong, even if they pretend to base their lives on 2000 year old books of unknown authorship. It's unpleasant to be told that one's actions are immoral, but if causing pain for no good reason isn't immoral, what is?


Well there's the problem with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism requires that we do that action which produces the most amount of good/pleasure/happiness, and happiness, like morals, aren't viewed in the same light by everyone.
And for whom is the good being produced? For everyone, for only yourself, for others? Slavery produced the most amount of good for the "most" amount of people economically. Slavery was very efficient and brought alot of happiness while being immoral at the same time. Is that not utilitarianism?
Post a reply to this comment

milton

posted 6/22/08 @ 7:19 PM EST

The government does not subsidize livestock agriculture outside of dairy cattle
Post a reply to this comment

ken

posted 6/22/08 @ 8:40 PM EST

a gathering of fools will follow and support you story. you are caught up in a world that makes rules outside of morality. I have traveled all over this world and have been to many countrys that consume dog and other things we call un natural. you have the american spirit that says we make the rules...........we do not! wake up and understand GOD controls this world and HE gave us authority to consume what ever we want.... there were times when certain foods and meats were prohibited but those times have passed...can I have a number 3 with no onions please?
Post a reply to this comment

Rebuttal

posted 6/22/08 @ 9:32 PM EST

Really, so eating meat really does not practical good whatsoever? Last time I checked, it does supply nutrients and satisfy hunger. Only in America are we spoiled enough to have so many choices when it comes to food to bypass consuming meat, whether it'd be for moral or religious reasons. In many countries where they don't have meat substitutes, such as a lot of third world or developing countries, animals are killed everyday for consumption. Animals are slaughtered all the time in rural areas to put food on the table. Throughout history, meat has been a primary part of all cultures' diets so while I think the author makes a case for being vegetarian, we all know it is nearly impossible. If I turned vegetarian, I would have to look harder and probably pay more to find foods that would provide the same nutrients. And I've had meat substitute and it is nothing like meat and DEFINITELY does not taste better. As with anything, consuming in excess is not good. I eat meat and I rarely become sick. Being healthy doesn't just mean consuming meat or not, it also involves exercise and living a healthy lifestyle, which may or may not include meat. While I don't have anything against vegetarians, condemning people who eat meat is not the right thing to do. Also, one would have to consider the fact that America is largely a Christian nation. Not to preach or anything, but God DID say when he put humans on earth, all the resources on Earth are at our disposal.
Post a reply to this comment

brian

posted 6/23/08 @ 5:22 AM EST

Tulsi, thank you. You are very wise.
Post a reply to this comment

rae sikora

posted 6/23/08 @ 1:58 PM EST

I am grateful that Tulsi wrote this piece. Those who take issue with it are most likely people who do not want to look beyond their current choices to a healthier, more non-violent and environmentally responsible choice. It is hard for a culture to make changes that are unfamiliar. It is even harder when some people may see it as necessary or economically important (as with slavery).
The "plants have feelings" argument is not a reason to continue eating animal products. By choosing a plant based diet, you actually consume far fewer plants (since it takes lots of plant protein to produce a bit of animal protein). Hopefully people will be open minded enough to at least explore Tulsi's ideas.
Post a reply to this comment

Kevin

posted 6/23/08 @ 4:08 PM EST

Originally posted by

rae sikora

 I am grateful that Tulsi wrote this piece. Those who take issue with it are most likely people who do not want to look beyond their current choices to a healthier, more non-violent and environmentally responsible choice. It is hard for a culture to make changes that are unfamiliar. It is even harder when some people may see it as necessary or economically important (as with slavery).
The "plants have feelings" argument is not a reason to continue eating animal products. By choosing a plant based diet, you actually consume far fewer plants (since it takes lots of plant protein to produce a bit of animal protein). Hopefully people will be open minded enough to at least explore Tulsi's ideas.


Her ideas are radical and not in the least encouraging. To sum it up, eating meat is immoral. There's no leeway whatsoever.

Why not come up with a better alternative than "let's give up meat forever!" How about lobbying for a reform in the meat industry to make it more humane? Why attack the meat-eaters when obviously her problems are the meat producers.
Post a reply to this comment

James

posted 6/23/08 @ 4:21 PM EST

Is there any way I can buy you a one way ticket back to india. Please keep your culture and morals in your own country. Thanks for bi%%^&*. Its because nobody in your family works with food animals, they just runb gas stations. Stick to slushies and petrol.
Post a reply to this comment

Rebuttal

posted 6/24/08 @ 11:41 AM EST

Originally posted by

James

 Is there any way I can buy you a one way ticket back to india. Please keep your culture and morals in your own country. Thanks for bi%%^&*. Its because nobody in your family works with food animals, they just runb gas stations. Stick to slushies and petrol.




Funny but very ignorant at the same time.
Post a reply to this comment

KT

posted 7/14/08 @ 12:04 PM EST

Originally posted by

James

 Is there any way I can buy you a one way ticket back to india. Please keep your culture and morals in your own country. Thanks for bi%%^&*. Its because nobody in your family works with food animals, they just runb gas stations. Stick to slushies and petrol.


Nope, not at all funny. Just ignorant.
Post a reply to this comment

Stu

posted 6/23/08 @ 5:17 PM EST

I think Ms. Patel relies too heavily on the word "sentient" which could indeed be applied to certain plant life as well as animals; consider the Venus Fly Trap. This leaves the issue of pain. Ms. Patel seems to think that a cow, for example, is tortured before it is killed. On the contrary, these animals are and must be killed instantly with no awareness or pain in order for the meat to not be spoiled by adreneline and hormones that would accompany such an "immoral" event.

Furthermore, there are various biological anthropolgy studies that point out the role animal meat played in our evolution, providing us with the concentrated protein required to develop larger brains. It seems such "immorality" was a necessary condition for our existence--but I supposed we should regret this now, according to Ms. Patel.
Post a reply to this comment

Bowen

posted 6/23/08 @ 10:29 PM EST

Okay, first I will say that I respect the fact that you are so passionate about this, but I will say that it is people like you that I detest more than anything else. Vegetarian, overzealous religious activists (preachers around campus), and anyone else that tries to push their views on anyone else they believe are "immoral," or are living the wrong lifestyle. I do agree that "there are numerous animals that are bred brought up in restrictive conditions and slain everyday..." but you also have to consider the flip side of this argument, which I believe no vegetarian EVER thinks about, and that is that if we did not either raise these animals in a restricted environment, be it in a 10 acre pasture or a tiny cage, these animals would be roaming free and would reproduce exponentially. Why do you think we have a deer season or a quail season; that would be because if we didn't, those animals would overpopulated and, while I know quails wouldn't be as bad as deers, you would have more people getting in accidents from hitting deers. Furthermore, deers are fast creatures and some (not all) will try to avoid being hit by a car or at the least react to a beeping horn. Cows don't even give a car horn a second look, and if you have ever hit a deer, you know how much damage they can do to a car. With that in mind how much damage do you think an average sized cow, weighing somewhere between 1100-1400 at maturity (http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/beef/400-012/400-012.html) would do? You say that you "...cannot remember the last time [you] were sick," well neither can I...and I have been an omnivore for 23 years, so what exactly are you basing you argument that vegetarians are more healthy than "...the rest of the population"? That is a VERY subjective statement, and I know this is an opinion column, but if you are actually trying to get people to listen, you should use more objective material instead of echoing what views have been coerced in to believing when you became a vegetarian. Moreover, yes as human beings we are special and privileged, that would be why we are at the top of the food chain; and yes these animals feel pain, but we have been killing animals for food since the beginning of human existence, the difference between then and now is that we have the means to do this without having to go out and slaughter these animals ourselves (which most people in modern day society do not have the time, training, or environment that is necessary for this. I agree that having someone else do out dirty work does not make us saints, but do you consider yourself a saint for eating something that replenishes the oxygen in the air and rids us of CO2? I will also add to another point from a previous post about killing plants; if I were a plant activist, I could argue that it was immoral to kill plants and attempt to push my views on you in the same way you just tried to push your views on me. Your argument contently uses the word "morality" as a reason we should not harm animals, but morality is something that varies from person to person. Have you ever thought about how many trees have had to die in order for you to take notes in class or print your paper? Some people consider that immoral. You also say that the meat energy is energy inefficient, well unless you buy only unpackaged fresh fruits and vegetables, then I suppose you believe that those packagings they come in is energy efficient? I think not.
In conclusion, I will say that if the entire population were to adopt the vegetarian lifestyle, we would be faced with a lot of the same problems we face now, it would possibly be even worse. We would be eating most of the same vegetation that these animals are eating. They could die from malnutrition, we could cause more global warming because of the depletion of the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. On the contrary, some animals could become overpopulated and cause more accidents/deaths in car crashes, farmers would lose more of there crops due to animals eating them. So the next time you feel like ranting about how we should all adopt the vegetarian lifestyle, you should give it a little more thought and consider what could happen in the event that this did happen.
-Bo Qualls
Post a reply to this comment

Alex

posted 6/24/08 @ 3:16 PM EST

Do you wear leather? That comes from animals too. You need to be consistent with your lifestyle/argument, especially when you're judging others.
Post a reply to this comment

Habibdothead

posted 6/24/08 @ 3:55 PM EST

I think it is ironic that some of the most liberal people are also quite intolerant. T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. It is not a one way street.
Post a reply to this comment

...

posted 6/24/08 @ 5:20 PM EST

Originally posted by

Habibdothead

 I think it is ironic that some of the most liberal people are also quite intolerant. T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. It is not a one way street.


I think it is ironic that your "handle" is so intolerant.

But since you brought it up, can you explain to me what being liberal has to do with any of this? I know at least as many conservative vegetarians as I do liberal ones. Maybe you should join a different debate if you just want to beat people over the head with your divisive partisan crap. We're talking about meat vs. no meat here. Try to keep up.
Post a reply to this comment

D.D. Brown

posted 6/24/08 @ 6:43 PM EST

I am quite liberal myself, and extremely tolerant. I think people should be able to choose their own sexual orientation just like they should be able to choose what to eat, without someone browbeating them about it. This girl preaching about the evils of eating meat is no different from some bigot preaching about the immorality of homosexuality. Its about individual liberties and my right to choose for myself.
Post a reply to this comment

Tulsi

posted 6/24/08 @ 11:35 PM EST

Okay... I'd like to clear things up a bit here:

First, for the purposes of this argument, I actually defined an immoral act as one that causes unnecessary suffering. I just noticed that this was edited out of the final piece. Sorry about that.

Second, homosexuality is in no way immoral, as far as I'm concerned.

Third, please don't compare me to a religious zealot. I think I died a little everytime I read that. This is not a religious argument!
Post a reply to this comment

Kim

posted 6/30/08 @ 7:35 PM EST

Your comments are right on but I can't help but see that you think the only thing that separates humans from animals is higher level brain function. That's sad. If you don't want or have to eat animals then don't. However the argument that slaughtering animals is akin to eating them for human sustenance is exactly the same it's not. To be exact one is for food and one is just wastefulness and a sign of potential psychiatric problems. If wastefulness is your argument I'm all ears. If I have to be put on the same level as a dog with a bigger brain well them I'm afraid I just don't understand.
Post a reply to this comment

Heather

posted 7/01/08 @ 3:22 PM EST

Dear Ms. Patel,

As a vegetarian, I applaud your passion and choice to spare the life of a living animal. In order to persuade the ones that still eat of the flesh it is much wiser to educate than to implicate immorality. They know not what they do for they were likely raised that way. A lot of the habits and ways of man begin at home, taught by those with whom they were raised. Forgive them for they know not what they do. Most are disconnected from the nature of enlightenment. We are higher beings unlike the lion that is intended to be such a way or other creatures of the earth that indulge in the flesh. The vultures and scavengers have it right by recycling what is dead already, not by killing for the meat. Man has perverted the ways of nature. We have a choice. I choose to spare life.

For the ones that talk about vegetables... really? Please. Why are you defending the vegetables when you eat them yourself? Ms. Patel is defending the animals that she does not eat. Yes, she should explain why without attacking your choice to do so. You were likely raised that way and have never explored other options or have never taken a gross anatomy class on the human body. When a fruit falls from the vine it is in the process of decomposition. When you eat the fruits, you are like the scavenger recycling what is dead.

Thank goodness we live in America and have the freedom to choose. Education is a privilege we are lucky to be able to obtain. Opinions are of the person. Choice is free. Thank you to our country for providing us a safe environment in which to live.
Post a reply to this comment

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

 

 

Advertisement

Poll

Hmm, what to make of Kentucky vs. Georgia:
Submit Vote

View Results



Advertisement