I like the taste of meat, so I'm not a vegetarian. Simple stuff. :)

Being a vegetarian is to taste as seeing the world in shades of grey for sight.

I'm a carnivore and I like to eat things I kill, but the first paragraph in point 3 was a terrible argument.

If it takes the first paragraph in argument 3 for a terrible argument to pop up, I consider that a victory.

The health reason is actually why I haven't made the change yet but may do so this summer. Variation in food is already not my strong point and then I'll limit my choice as well, so it would take me some serious thought to figure that out and diet changes have made me seriously ill in the past so I really need to focus and have nothing important coming up.
Also starting next school year, I should have more control over what I eat because I'm responsible for my own food. My parents are annoyingly bad at getting the right food into the house :-)

I love meat but rationally I don't give a shit about that. The main argument for wanting to become a vegetarian is sustainability.

As such, I wouldn't have any qualms about eating meat on some occasions either. I have no desire to be a saint. Whether I actually do that is something I'll decide then.

First of all, I am not a vegetarian, mostly because of Point 2 (enjoyment-- meat is too tasty), but I do believe that vegetarians' actions are noble and self-sacrificing. I will address points 1 and 3.

"any utilitarian good requires knowledge of the future"

I guess I people shouldn't donate to children with life-threatening illnesses because they might die during surgery anyways.

"utility lost by the animals against the utility gained by consumers"

Animals lose their live; consumers get to stimulate their taste buds.

"Not to mention that these animals (at least cows) wouldn’t even be alive if not for the desire for meat, so you then have to consider how much you weigh existence vs. non existence"

It is better not to live at all than to live under the conditions that most farm animals live nowadays. Also, it's quite sad to be created for the sole purpose of being turned into meat.

"Third, there must also be a justification for why the existence of animals in the industry is any worse than the state of nature (which is the only meaningful alternative) where they would probably live rather short lives"

Two of the three main farm animals, chicken and cows, wouldn't exist in their domesticated form if not for selective breeding. Pigs readily revert to their wild boar form, and I like to imagine that their existence would be more meaningful roaming mountainsides rather than penned in a cage.

Also, an analogy. Slaves likely lived longer lives than their counterparts in Africa, yet would anyone argue that they were better off?

"and be mauled by predators (wild cows wouldn’t last long, there’s a reason they only exist in captivity)"

Wild cows wouldn't last long because they've been domesticated. The ox they descended from would have fended for themselves perfectly fine. As for being mauled by predators, see above.

"Any form of rights is usually derivative of being able to understand and comply with some form of social contract (usually codified into laws), after all if someone does not reciprocate an understanding of the law we usually remove them from society, either through jail or mental institutions."

First of all, animals shouldn't be considered citizens of a country. They should be left alone in the wild and left to run their own societies, many of which are quite intricate. We should consider them part of the wilderness kingdom. Secondly, what laws have the everyday cow you eat broken. Did they kill a man or jaywalk? I don't believe most cows have, and they would be even less likely to interact with humans much less break laws in the wild. Thirdly, we don't eat prisoners or crazy people, at least I don't think.

"For all we know, plants could be sentient or able to feel pain, yet we could simply be unaware. I would need to see some sort of bright line between plants or animals for why the consumption of animals is unethical while plants are okay."

This brings me to my central argument, but I'll get the plant lives matter part out of the way first. Plants may very well be sentient, but since animals are more similar to us (share more DNA), and we know we are sentient, animals are more likely to be sentient as well. Now, here is the most convincing argument for vegetarianism I have heard, and it relates to the environment. Animals are inefficient at converting plant energy (see trophic levels). As such a human who eats plants would get much more energy than a human who eats the same mass of plant converted into meat. Much of the plant food produced today is made for animal feed. Much less land would need to be used if farms only grew food for human consumption, and more habitat could be preserved. Ranching is also one of the leading causes of deforestation in the Amazon.

"Any individual action won’t stop the large majority of people who do eat meat, so you won’t change the system, you just won’t participate in it (and while it is an extreme example, this is similar to letting someone die instead of killing them, when you have full knowledge of what happens) which is not really significantly better. So you may as well eat meat."

So many people vote that I may as well not vote, since my individual vote wouldn't matter in the big picture. So many people die each day that I may as well go out and murder one more. Anyways, vegetarians are setting a trend. There are more of them each day, and it may very well be that meat-eating could be outlawed in the future and be seen as a stain upon the history of humanity.

"Your action just drives meat prices down (same supply less demand), so now more people are likely to buy it along with all the people who originally bought it, and entrench the desire for meat and these practices continue."

That's not true. If demand goes down and prices drop sufficiently, ranchers will be forced out of business thus reducing supply as well. Also, people who eat meat are going to buy it regardless of price. They're more likely to reduce spending in other areas.

"You can better solve by buying free range meat (or from companies who don’t engage in factory farming), and shift the market interest towards these practices and help these animals live better lives, which is a lot better than them not existing at all."

See my arguments to Point 1. Animals shouldn't be raised for food at all, and it's better not to exist than to exist for the sole purpose of being eaten. Also see my point on the inefficiency of meat-eating. Organic farming uses even more land than factory farming and is detrimental to the environment.

Everything you eat is poison. The food industry in general is fucked.
#ThingsILearnedInSchool

#ThingsEnvironmentalScientistsHopelesslyAttemptAndFailToSolveEveryDayOfTheirSadLives

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Thanks Obama.

Ah. A long response. Let's see how well I rebut this.

"First of all, I am not a vegetarian, mostly because of Point 2 (enjoyment-- meat is too tasty), but I do believe that vegetarians' actions are noble and self-sacrificing. I will address points 1 and 3."

Fair enough. Let's see what you got?

"I guess I people shouldn't donate to children with life-threatening illnesses because they might die during surgery anyways."

False equivalency. You fail to provide reasoning for why utilitarianism is the only reason to do this. Right to life and Kantian ethics are also valid reasons to donate to people with life threatening diseases, along with the search for an eventual cure. As such I can still say utilitarianism is bullshit and support this action.

"Animals lose their live; consumers get to stimulate their taste buds."
Also nutrition. Meat is healthy. Also, animals may lose their lives, but a) they wouldn't exist at all without this institution (I'll talk about this more later) and b) you have to do weighing on their lives comparative to human enjoyment. As far as we know animals are not rational actors or sentient (both qualifications that are usually needed to be weigh on the same scale as humans), so you need to tell me why their lives matter more than the enjoyment of consumers.

"It is better not to live at all than to live under the conditions that most farm animals live nowadays. Also, it's quite sad to be created for the sole purpose of being turned into meat."
Hm....the problem is that you will never be able to stop the demand for meat, at least not anytime soon, as such if you care about this it is better to work towards better treatment for these animals, and advocating for transition to different (more humane) techniques is a lot easier than abolishing the institution.

I disagree with the second statement. Often they aren't fully aware they are being bred to be eaten so it makes little difference to them. And more importantly, the actions and things that occur in life are often more important than the purpose. So long as the quality of life is fine I see no reason why existence doesn't outweigh none existence a priori.

"Two of the three main farm animals, chicken and cows, wouldn't exist in their domesticated form if not for selective breeding. Pigs readily revert to their wild boar form, and I like to imagine that their existence would be more meaningful roaming mountainsides rather than penned in a cage."

Yes, but they exist now, and that's what's important. How would they adapt if we stopped the institution, probably not well. As for pigs, perhaps, but that is 1/3 animals.

"Also, an analogy. Slaves likely lived longer lives than their counterparts in Africa, yet would anyone argue that they were better off?"

Quality of life matters, I agree, see above for my response about that. Secondly, I think this is just false, especially with the 33% mortality rate on the journey over and the 20 year life expectancy if you made it to America. Probably life longer as a member of a tribe.

"First of all, animals shouldn't be considered citizens of a country. They should be left alone in the wild and left to run their own societies, many of which are quite intricate. We should consider them part of the wilderness kingdom. Secondly, what laws have the everyday cow you eat broken. Did they kill a man or jaywalk? I don't believe most cows have, and they would be even less likely to interact with humans much less break laws in the wild. Thirdly, we don't eat prisoners or crazy people, at least I don't think."

But (pigs aside) they couldn't exist in the wild. Also, this is just unwarranted why a) the wild is better for them and b) why it isn't okay to use them for our own purposes, is that not how the circle of life works?

As for laws, true, but this simply means they aren't a threat with free, not dealing with the ethical qualms of eating them.

As for prisoners and crazy people. Sure we don't eat them, but we take away a good amount of their rights because of their inability to follow the social contract. Animals have this comprehension even less so.

Overall, not really a response. No justification for why they should be free or how captivity is unjust compared to being eaten in the wild. Let's move on.

"This brings me to my central argument, but I'll get the plant lives matter part out of the way first. Plants may very well be sentient, but since animals are more similar to us (share more DNA), and we know we are sentient, animals are more likely to be sentient as well. Now, here is the most convincing argument for vegetarianism I have heard, and it relates to the environment. Animals are inefficient at converting plant energy (see trophic levels). As such a human who eats plants would get much more energy than a human who eats the same mass of plant converted into meat. Much of the plant food produced today is made for animal feed. Much less land would need to be used if farms only grew food for human consumption, and more habitat could be preserved. Ranching is also one of the leading causes of deforestation in the Amazon."

Yes, maybe more likely, but since it can't be proven ought we ere on the side of caution. If you have qualms with animals then surely the same issues must be true for plants. After all, what is the line for sentience/caring, give me one and perhaps this point drops away.

As for the environment, I can't talk for the Amazon (though that may be an issue). The problem is incentive structures. You can't stop the meat lobby, it's too big, it's too strong. You can only pressure them to change their practices, this is why it is better to focus on changing the practices rather than abolishing the system.

Secondly, just because we need less food does not mean there will be less food. Governments love having lots of agriculture, the US has had a major surplus of corn and the like for several years, and yet it is still heavily subsidized. So even if somehow the entire meat industry was destroyed, you'd still see a lot of the same in the US (though maybe less land would be used). Still, need a significant impact for this to change, and the entire vegetarian movement hasn't been able to change anything, much less individual choice. So you really aren't changing the environment, but if not participating makes ones feel better, it's a valid reason.

"So many people vote that I may as well not vote, since my individual vote wouldn't matter in the big picture. So many people die each day that I may as well go out and murder one more. Anyways, vegetarians are setting a trend. There are more of them each day, and it may very well be that meat-eating could be outlawed in the future and be seen as a stain upon the history of humanity."

Difference is voting is an expected norm, vegetarianism is not. As such the individual action, while more powerful per capita, does not produce enough change to the industry. I think simply advocating for more ethical treatment will do more than destroying the system all together.

Also 3.2% of people in the US are vegetarians, they will likely not rise above 10% in the next 100 years, so the second part falls out.

"That's not true. If demand goes down and prices drop sufficiently, ranchers will be forced out of business thus reducing supply as well. Also, people who eat meat are going to buy it regardless of price. They're more likely to reduce spending in other areas."

Depends on how much you impact them. Do you honestly think that it would be a large enough decrease to eliminate enough demand to drive them out of business? Also, they'll probably just buy more meat, but that's pure speculation.

"See my arguments to Point 1. Animals shouldn't be raised for food at all, and it's better not to exist than to exist for the sole purpose of being eaten. Also see my point on the inefficiency of meat-eating. Organic farming uses even more land than factory farming and is detrimental to the environment."

Responded to and responded to. Not enough justification (a la Circle of Life) and only really asserted. Also, I'm fine with more land being used if it improves the quality of life for the animals. Also I don't think humane treatment requires it being an organic farm.

Anyway, thanks for the response. Hopefully my rebuttal was strong enough.

I am a vegetarian, and may go on to become a vegan.

My mind was changed when i saw Richard Dawkins admit that the only reason he wasn't a vegetarian is that he hadn't thought about it and was merely conforming to social norms. In this he admits that 200 years ago he would have owned slaves - again despite there being people around at the time saying it was unethical, owning slaves was still the norm for wealthy white guys.

So i reached my conclusion for ethical reasons. Mine are simple (this addresses point 1) it believe it is wrong to me siffering. By extension and the use of empathy, i believe it is wrong to cause others suffering. My knowledge is that most animals can suffer to varying degrees, thus along a sliding scale, i'm not sure i would count eating muscles or clams as problematic as eating lobster or shrimp. You have to draw a line somehwere, an thi is where i'm comfortable drawing the line - but it is not a fine line, it is rather thick or fuzzy.

The logic when it comes to plants is rather simple - an apple is part of the reproductive process of the apple tree (the fruit) if you want to assign wants/needs to the apple tree then they want us to eat the fruit and spread it's seeds. This is a symbiotic relationship which humans have developed into much greater depth, to the point where we are dominant and controlling, but it is still symbiotic not a predator-prey relationship.

@2) your faulty logic here is rather poor. You can enjoy vegetarian meals, but you often don't hecause our culture tells us meat is good. There was a time when only the wealthy could afford to eat meat every day, and it was seen as a good thing in terms of health and wealth (and there are places where this is still true today). This social association means you 'can' enjoy vegetarian food, but you will avoid it most of the time. Again, assuming you don't question the prevailing social norms - NB: if this arguement cause you to go ou if our way to eat vegetarian food 1/2 days a week, then that will be a victory from my perspective, as 7 billion people eating no meat for 1/2 days a week is the same impact as gettin 1/2 billion peoppe to become vegetarians full time.

As for health, well you are right that everythin is better in moderation than excess. But again if we look at the prevailing norms obesity is becoming the new greatest health crisis. And this is part of an industrial food production system which is forcing advertising and larger portion sizes down your throat.

In the US people are on average 3 times the weight of the average human. That means three time the number of cells to keep alive, with three times the energy and water. This has allowed the US food industry to grow into one which is three times as large without a corresponding increase in population. The food industry is one which suffers from being a set size with growth correlating directly to population growth, and thus an individual company's gorwrh is limited to taking market share from the competition. Yet collectively the industry has increased consumption three-fold. So it is no wonder then that obesity is becoming a major health problem.

Note: i'm not blaming the food industry for causing this health problem. I am describing the system without judging the actions of the industry. The have succeeded in their goal of maximising profits.

Anither trend in this system is the horrific practices of animal factory farming. And i say horrific from an ethical point of view. (There are now factory farms/vertical farms which grow plants and i have no ethical problem with them) Here the issue is not with killing animals (which might be done in a humane way) but with the suffering that the animals go through over their whole lives. Their health and well-being is ignored, just like the health and well-being of humans suffering in the obesity crisis is.

As an ethical consumer i vote with my money. So every dollar not spent on factory farmed meat is a vote against these unethical practices - which i can again describe without judging. They are driven by a profit motive and taking away their profit is the only way to change their behaviour in my power.

@point 3, others have pointed out how weak this is, so i will try to be brief.

The analogy is with a ten man firing squad. If one of them chooses to miss the client will still die. But you still have a choice to miss on purpose. Single actions can lead by example, the very label 'vegetarian'/'vegan' acts like a flag to lea others to join your group. And thus one person taking an action can influence others to follow suit. Think Rosa Parks on a bus. Your arguement is very defeatist, and fails to acknowledge reality.

Your wconomic arguement of supply bs demand likewise ignore the limited size of the market for food consumption. If i stop eating meat there is one less mouth/customer for the meat industry. This may reduce prices, but demand will not magically increase beyond the fixed number of mouth to feed. (Never mind that my example might encourage others to follow, thus further reducing demand)

Supply vs demand is the most simple approximation of how economic systems work. And as a first approximation it is often misleading. There are at least teo types of good where an increase in price results in an increase in demand. One is 'high status' goods - where somethig is seen as 'elite' or a status signifier - the more it costs the more status you are showing off by buying it. The other works on basic staple food stuff, where lets say your family survves on rice and it is the cheap foodstuff, but you have a little bit more money to buy meat, so you do. Now an increase in rice prices will take away from the amount of meat you can buy and to make up the shortfall you will be forced to buy more rice.

Both examples are relevant - as i mentioned meat as a high status item - This second example though is a direct consequence of a fixed amount of demand based on te number of mouths to feed. Which is relevant in general. (In economics these are called giffen goods and veblen goods, look them up)

The existance of 'organic' / 'free range' labels is a consequence of the aforementioned fixed size of the food industry (with respect of population) and competing to take market share away from other practices. Te labels are effective marketing tools, which i can still reject. But if your arguement was true, then not eating meat and not eating non-free range meat would have the same supply/demand effect on the price of non-free range meat. Lower price equal greater demand?? Of course this also means less farmers can make a living from factory farming (because the price drops) and so less choose to farm for a living. So even if your economics weren't flawed, the drop in price due to lower demand would reduce supply to a new balance. The supply vs demand curve allows for both consumers and suppliers reduce or increase their activity and in a 'normal' market you might expect less demand to drive prices down until prices stablised with supply dropping to meet the new lower levels of demand. BUT while the supply-sude may employ less people in farming, the demand side is not able to freely change the numbers of mouths it feeds. So demand will not respond to decreased prices in the way you describe. (Well it will have some flexibility, but the food industry is already pushing prices down and consumption up, so people are eating as much meat as they possibly can... Thus limiting the room for more meat consumption per mouth... Whereas there is a load of room for more vegetarian/vegan food consumption in the US.)

@""Third, there must also be a justification for why the existence of animals in the industry is any worse than the state of nature (which is the only meaningful alternative) where they would probably live rather short lives"

Actually i believe dairy cows, forced to produce milk as much as possible die after about 4-5 years, while wild cows may survive up to 20-24 years. And have a higher quality of life.

But in general, i don't care if a billion cows that exist to feed us didn't. I assign no negative value to their existance. Though we can get onto environmental destruction and biodiversity if you want (and there 1 billion cows is actually unhealthy)


All the environmental arguements which Leon made are pretty sound, so i will leave them there. I do care about the environment, and i think it is an arrogant antro-centrism that humans think we are entitled to destroy natural habitats, but that it not my main reason for being vegetarian.

In conclusion, there are solid environmental, ethical, and econmic reasons to consume less meat. Vegetarianism as a flag requires completely abstaining, but a lot of positive can come from small steps, so i would encourage everyone who cares about any of these reasons to try it out (and fuck any vegetarian/vegan who doesn't believe in compromise). There are good health arguements if you need a selfish reason aswell.

The food industry is fucked up, and workers in it can also suffer greatly due to factory farmig practces, poor union rules, and a variety of other industry practices (see my Iowa farming post from earlier this week) So you might also have some empathy for humans - Leon said we have more genetic in common with animals, but i used empathy in my basic ethical arguement. And we generally have more empathy for animals we can play with. Dogs and pigs can enjoy the company of their owners, can play and be seen to have fun. They can also be tortured and made to suffer - as such we have laws preventing cruelty to animals. We do not have similar rules for plants because we do not empathise with them. However sentient they may be, our empathy does not spread so far.

I'm not moved by 'save the world' type arguements, because guess what, the world is going to be fine, we're just destroying our ability to live on it... Life will recover and the world doesn't give a shit whether humans go extinct.

This post is like a summation of anti-vegan bingo. All the tired and silly arguments piled up into one post.

Vashta, presumably you are against bestiality yes? One wonders why any meat eater would be against bestiality, though, as it's far less a violation of an animal to have sex with one without consent then to slit its throat, skin it, electrocute it, shoot in the head, dismember it, etc, very often all while alive, kicking, and fully feeling every aspect of the process. And this is just a description of animals being killed, let alone the conditions they are kept prior to being killed, especially in the case of poultry. If you are ethically fine with meat eating then you should be more than ethically fine with bestiality or really any amount of torture.

So-called "free" range meat is a joke. All that you have to do to be "free range" is to occasionally have a door that is opened. There is no regulation for how long this "access to the outdoors" or even if the animals have to be outside. The poultry industry is 99.999% factory farmed. There is no such thing as independently raised poultry. The chickens are genetically modified to be sickly and die because it's not economically viable to raise healthy chickens. They pump them full of food for 40 days, lock them up in a tiny crowded facility where they shit all over eat other, many of them die for disease which is why they got to be pumped full of antibiotics. So-called "organic" meat just meats the animals won't be given any antibiotics when they are sick. Your chicken is assuredly covered in ecoli and fecal matter when you buy it. Oh and I should mention the process is so fast and the workers get so few breaks that at least in the case of poultry workers, the workers are compelled to wear diapers. But hey it's all justified I guess, right? Because meat is "delicious" or something and we can subordinate all ethical questions to matters of "taste". Which is why we routinely torture and mutilate animals for the sake of visual pleasure and art. Oh wait, no we don't. Taste is the only sense where it is socially acceptable to disregard all moral questions.

In terms of eggs. The chickens have their light and darkness manipulated so that they produce eggs all year round. So chickens will live in a tiny crowded space, probably with their beaks deliberately burned off because chickens use their beaks to navigate their surroundings, either in complete darkness all day or with it being light all day so they think its spring. After one year it is cheaper to slaughter the chickens than to keep them around anymore, since they don't produce as many eggs after one year.

It is not financially feasible to produce meat in any other way than factory farming, which is why the industries are almost wholly factory farmed. There is a reason why the price of meat hasn't much gone up when compared to other things people have been using for the last 30-40 years. People are eating more meat than ever.

I don't really give a shit about the health reasons although there are plenty of such reasons for abstaining from meat because of the filthy conditions in which it is produced. Furthermore all strains of influenza are at some point avian based, so we're exposing ourselves to more deadly viruses by eating meat. But if the ethical reasons aren't enough then either you do not want to know how these animals are treated or you think cruelty is amusing.

As for the argument that these animals would not exist unless they were tortured and consumed by humans, yes you are correct. These animals are so genetically altered that they cannot live long lives without suffering debilitating disease or nonstop physical pain. Great job humans. If they did not exist then we wouldn't be breeding these frankenstein species of tortured animals and their production wouldn't be destroying our water supply, overgrazing our land and increasing co2 levels more than even cars do. Such a change would lead to qualitatively better life for everyone.

Oh and I'm sure your "concern" for the continued viability of these animals is genuine, you know, after hearing your justifications for why they should be confined in unsanitary terrifying conditions, mutilated while alive, and killed for nothing but human pleasure.

@steephie "have no desire to be a saint. Whether I actually do that is something I'll decide then." If you do decide to become a saint, please let us know in advance as I'm sure you'll then be everyone's favourite diplomacy opponent.

Nit-picking a little: @"It is not financially feasible to produce meat in any other way than factory farming, which is why the industries are almost wholly factory farmed."

True, other methods would not be profitable. But if the moral arguement held, and state power was sufficient to regulate corporations, these oractices could be banned and more humane treatment of animals could he the standard. Meat would be more expensive, there would be less supply, prices would be higher, it would be seen as a high status item which poorer people would aspire to, and there would likely be less wealthy privileged vegetarians (like me) questioning the morality of eating meat... (And yes, that is something i can question when other people are busy spending their mental effort on other issues, like how to survive.... I did say i was privileged)

@vashta - I'm not sure if I understand you point about rights only being 'given' to those who can understand a social contract. The unborn, Infants, the intoxicated, the insane and even the dead have rights even though they may not understand them or abide by other laws.

"1. Any individual action won’t stop the large majority of people who do eat meat, so you won’t change the system, you just won’t participate in it (and while it is an extreme example, this is similar to letting someone die instead of killing them, when you have full knowledge of what happens) which is not really significantly better. So you may as well eat meat.

But maybe that argument seems like a cop out, so let’s imagine your action is a significant force in the market. Well, the problem is two fold. 1. Your action just drives meat prices down (same supply less demand), so now more people are likely to buy it along with all the people who originally bought it, and entrench the desire for meat and these practices continue. 2."

This is absurd. I find the way animals are treated by the meat industry (as well as the household product, cosmetics, and clothing industries) abhorrent, but I should participate because not participating won't by itself eliminate the practice? Would you use the same logic with other immoral practices? Say most everybody was raping their kids. Obviously you not raping your kids wouldn't prevent others from raping their kids, so you should go ahead and rape your kids right?

I'm trying to reduce my meat intake. Whenever I eat-out I go for vegetarian option and try to go without meat 2-3 times per week. Mostly I fail, but I still try.

My biggest difficulty is eating with and cooking for the family. when my wife cooks I don't want to make it more awkward having todo a veggie option and when I cook I don't want to impose my choices on my wife and children.

As a carnivore, biggest driver to make me feel guilty about eating meat is the extreme energy inefficiency of producing/consuming meat when energy/resources in general are becoming scarcer.

Maniac, kudos to you for the attempt. Yours was the same obstacle that I had to overcome before I became vegetarian. I found, much to my surprise, my family being much more accommodating and supportive than I could have imagined. My wife even went vegetarian too, which has helped enormously. Her family are enthusiastic meat eaters, but they always make a veggie option whenever I come over and they hardly ever give me a hard time about it anymore.

Imposing choices is a quandary, but I suppose everybody who cooks is in some way imposing their choice on somebody, so at least with reference to your wife perhaps, the imposition is reciprocal. As for kids, I think that if they are how most kids are, they love animals and will understand. Also if kids had their way they'd probably be eating candy and popcorn for dinner every night. :)

@putin - cheers

My children are now adults (16, 20, 24) who live with us as does the eldest's partner. Whilst all support my effort to reduce meat that doesn't extend to trying to share the experience and my youngest literally hasn't eaten a vegetable in 10 years, so his meal options are limited.

Well you could always tell them if they don't like what's for dinner they can move out (aside from the 16 yr old) or at least contribute to the grocery bill ;).

"Well you could always tell them if they don't like what's for dinner they can move out (aside from the 16 yr old) or at least contribute to the grocery bill ;)."

I would have said, if they don't like it, they can cook for themselves. Which is a much less extreme version of 'this is what i'm cooking today, enjoy!'

I have had no similar issue, when away with my scout group we share meals and it is usually very simple to take one portion of whatever they are cook out before the meat is added. I will cook veggie when my turn comes and everyone will be happy if it is tasty. (or will suffer because it is on camp and we're doing our best with limited cooking facilities...)

Not eating vegetables for 10 years sounds like you're had terrible options. I grew up with potatoes in my parents house (i know very irish) and hated them, then moved into my granny's house and there were potatoes, but with added butter and salt on the table. (various health reasons meant my parents never choose to put butter on the table... so i didn't know the point) Suddenly potatoes became tasty and actually nice. So... yeah.

My son's eating habits has been a constant issue since he was young, at first you try the route of not allowing them to leave table until they try the food on plate, but he would be physically sick, then we tried sneaking veg into food and he just hated the taste, we de-escalated to take pressure off him as dinner times were in danger of becoming an unpleasant experience for him and , as we always sit around a table with no phones, no TV, meal times are supposed to be good family time. His health is good so hoping he'll make better choices later in life.

I couldn't imagine asking children to leave over a menu choice.

Children do pay 'board' by way of contribution to grocery bill.

@"Children do pay 'board' by way of contribution to grocery bill." - As such they should probably have a say in what goes into that grocery shop... but yeah, i'd hope they would be able to facilitate your diet.

Apparently my comment didn't post

Two words: climate change.

Animal food production is unconscionably destructive, and if you're ignoring that, I'd say you're a classic selfish jerk.

As for vegetarian food being bad, that shows you're a terrible cook. Try, for example Indian or Asian cooking.

As for animals not deserving rights because they somehow aren't rational, you need to learn more about animals. Humans are smarter than some animals, but not all. Many many animals have politics and social contracts.

Indeed reading about fish intelligence has really blown my mind. Their social learning, use of tools, ability to recognize themselves and others, use of deception, even play skills. Astounding. Fish are the most exploited of all so called food animals I hope there is a similar change in people's perceptions of them as there has been of terrestrial farm animals.

It shouldn't matter if animals have rights (although I would argue to a certain extent that they do). It matters if they can suffer, and they clearly can. Reducing suffering should be a universal moral imperative. Children lack certain rights of adults, as do the mentally ill and deficient.

Vashta, you are smarter than this. Logically and morally this whole thing is a mess.

"Not to mention that these animals (at least cows) wouldn’t even be alive if not for the desire for meat, so you then have to consider how much you weigh existence vs. non existence. Third, there must also be a justification for why the existence of animals in the industry is any worse than the state of nature (which is the only meaningful alternative) "

This is literally the same argument used to justify human slavery.

"The problem is animals are completely unable to rationalize in this form and will never be able to understand or respect the social contract. "

Babies can't do this, either, or people with severe mental problems. Can you cook and eat infants with brain damage?

"The final sub point under this is a bit weird, but what about plants. We bread corn just to be killed and eaten, yet it is alive. For all we know, plants could be sentient or able to feel pain, yet we could simply be unaware. I would need to see some sort of bright line between plants or animals for why the consumption of animals is unethical while plants are okay."

There's no evidence that plants feel pain in any way that humans recognize.

"So the first part of this is the very simple, meat is delicious point. Like bacon is amazing and delicious, steak is amazing and delicious along with other meat. "

This is so bad as argument. The obvious rejoinder: Lots of people enjoy rape and murder. That doesn't mean it's OK.

" Any individual action won’t stop the large majority of people who do eat meat, so you won’t change the system, you just won’t participate in it (and while it is an extreme example, this is similar to letting someone die instead of killing them, when you have full knowledge of what happens) which is not really significantly better. So you may as well eat meat. [... etc etc]"

This is incoherent.

The Climate Change argument doesn't hold any water. Climate Change can be tackled, and is largely being tackled, by humanity aiming to live within its means. Targets are set, and by and large we're doing a half decent job of meeting them.

This can be replicated on an individual level, but there is no reason whatsoever to demonize any particular element of carbon production as long as your overall emissions are at a reasonable level. Give yourself an allowance and stick to it, and who gives a damn whether that allowance is taken up by steak dinners, owning pets, having a larger car, or going abroad? Carbon is carbon. You can do your bit and keep the details that help make life worth living.