Vegetarianism

And no grounds for objecting to the humane sacrifice of animals for sport, either. I dispatch dozens of birds every fall (blue grouse season opens in less than two weeks!) It’s always humane. Most shots make an instant death and my dog retrieves the wounded ones very quickly, and is never allowed to play with them. I never put a wounded bird into the bag, but always break the neck for a quick death. I’ve seen hawks and eagles take game their way and can tell you with confidence that my dog and I are downright kind in comparison.

Post 41

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 11:24pm

Hmm. And is killing for sport itself humane? Or are there not more humane amusements -- ones that do not involve the sacrifice of another animal? I can see hunting to keep the population in check, such as deer hunting, or for food and clothing. But killing simply for "sport"? It seems callous and a little insensitive to me to take the life of a bird in mid flight simply for the fun of it. In fact, I'd have trouble shooting a deer, even if I thought it was advisable to keep the population in check. I suppose it's more humane than for a deer to be killed by a cougar. But I wouldn't want to do it, if I didn't have to.

- Bill

Post 42

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 12:11am

You suffer from the Bambi Syndrome, Bill - deer may look cute and cuddly - but in fact they are vicious critters.....

Post 43

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 1:40am

Bill, I'm glad you're not trying to obscure your own position. That's a healthy beginning. And as for why so many Objectivists want to focus on the nutrition part of the argument, I'm not sure. Perhaps their willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when I'm not. Or maybe the wanted to focus on his strongest argument. My own theory is that when I respond to the ethical claims and insist the rest is just rationalizing, he has to narrow his defense to nutrition and taste (with the latter being completely subjective and difficult to argue). And when he does that, they simply followed.

Dustin, you say "A Vegetarian or Vegan is probably the best candidate to judge the health benefits of eating animal-free, not some average Joe who eats McDonalds and Burger King in the name of his manly, ethically pure meat consumption."

I disagree. First, because if vegetarianism is in fact an ideology, then they can't be assumed to be objective in the matter. Second, because we have science to judge the health benefits, and don't have to rely on the opinions of the ideologically motivated. And third, if vegetarians are the best judge of their diet, why aren't meat eaters the best judge of their own? Remember, the argument you're trying to make is that your diet is actually better than a diet that includes any amount of meat.

Also, your use of the term "manly" is interesting, especially since you started the topic by saying it wasn't "manly" to let someone else do your killing (but it's manly to let someone else do your gardening?!?!?!). I hope you're not trying to suggest that those people who eat meat are unthinking brutes, while you're a sensitive soul who feels the suffering of our poor animal brethren. Actually...I hope you are suggesting it. It rounds out my image of you perfectly.

Michael Dickey's point is very good, and similar to something I wanted to add. If you're at a dinner, restaurant, BBQ, or whatever, and you have a selection of food choices, a health-conscious person would choose the healthiest alternative. The vegetarian would choose the vegetarian dish, even if it's far worse for you, because they have a firm policy of not eating meat. Like any intrinsic value, they can't make rational trade-offs in various contexts. They've decided upon a moral rule that they must obey.

Those people that I've met who try various diets are not afraid to pick the healthiest alternative when their choices are narrowed. Instead, they recognize a principle, and they use that principle to guide their individual choices.

And Bill, on the topic of sport killing, what do you think about fishing? Also, the phrase "for the fun of it" seems inappropriate. I think we have to be careful to focus on the real motive. There may be some people who kill animals just to see the life extinguished from them, but usually the motivation is different. If you saw a lumberjack competition on TV, would you think they will killing trees for the sake of killing trees? In both cases, as far as I know, the motivation is more about the human participating then it is about the life lost. I can see why some might not think the benefits gained there are worth it, but we should at least be clear what the purpose is, and the values gained.

Post 44

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 6:42am

Joe, You think an individual shouldn't decide how they feel based on their diet, they should use science to determine it for them?

Post 45

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 9:14am

Joe, You think an individual shouldn't decide how they feel based on their diet, they should use science to determine it for them?

Dustin, you insinuated that vegetarian diets are better than ones that contain meat. The question is, how do we determine which one is actually better. Joe is advocating science (dietetics). I guess you are advocating some kind of mystical intuition?

A Vegetarian or Vegan is probably the best candidate to judge the health benefits of eating animal-free, not some average Joe

What if the vegetarian knows absolutely nothing about diets and nutrition, and the average Joe does.
If you had cancer would you say that you, who presumably know nothing about medicine, are the best candidate the judge the benefits of chemotherapy vs. radiation therapy, and not some average Joe oncologist?

Post 46

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 2:23pm

Joe,

Excellent points about the values gained by sport hunting. I do happen to eat the birds. Ruffed grouse are the best. Chicken is the closest comparison but it doesn’t do justice to how delicious those grouse really are. However, I would still be doing it even if they were inedible. I cannot in honesty say that I do this because I have to eat.

Bill,

I totally support your personal values and their lack of a place for sport hunting—no problem there. As Joe says, we have to be careful not to belittle the value others find. In medical testing, which you support, it is easy to justify research that has cancer cures as the goal. What about lesser medical goals? What about for the sake of an extended release allergy medicine compound, one that can be taken once a day instead of twice? Or thousands of maimed and dispatched rabbits for the sake of confirming the safety of a new eyeliner containing glitter? I certainly rate the challenge of shooting well, of training dogs properly to locate, point and retrieve birds and the bonding with friends, Dad and perhaps one day my children over the value of one pill instead of two or glittery eyeliner.

Post 47

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 4:10pm

I just can't take people seriously who would claim you shouldn't decide how you feel about your diet, let science determine it for you. I'd like to be the judge of how I feel, not a science book.

Post 48

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 6:24pm

I hear heroin feels great.

Post 49

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:48pm

Jon,

Well, I'm glad you eat the birds, but you say that even if you didn't eat them, you'd still shoot them down, because it provides an occasion for marksmanship, interpersonal bonding and a chance to train your dogs to locate and retrieve the dead prey. I can't identify with that.

As for eyeliner example, I suppose if I had a research facility, I wouldn't use it for that purpose. I'm not sure about the time-release allergy medicine, although I can see no bright line of demarcation between sacrificing animals for some utilitarian purposes but not for others. I guess it all comes down to what you can live with -- what you can tolerate.

Obviously, I consider some values worth the sacrifice, but not others. I used to work in a research facility that experimented on rabbits, but the objective was to find a cure for diseases such as toxoplasmosis, which poses a risk to pregnant women, and the STD, herpes simplex II, both of which I regard as laudable goals.

Why is it that so many small animals and birds taste like chicken? The rabbits that we experimented on -- New Zealand Whites (very pretty with big floppy ears) -- also tasted like chicken. And everyone seems to like the taste. How else could Colonel Sanders have made such a fortune?!

Those New Zealand Whites weren't very smart or very freedom loving though. One time, a few of them got out of their cage. Did they make a run for it? Nah, they just sat there, like they could care less, probably the result of being bred in captivity. I saw one of them while running in the park around dusk, just sitting there by a tree. Evidently, some animal-rights activist had "liberated" it. I don't think it lasted very long out there in the "jungle." Probably died at the hands of some racoon!

Robert,

I'm sure that I do suffer form the Bambi syndrome, although I haven't felt so kindly towards them when they've eaten my jasmine, but I love it when I see them in the neighborhood -- especially the does with their fawns in tow. They are incredibly cute, no question about it! I've never seen them act viciously, except in self-defense. One time, when a neighbor's dog chased one of them, the deer turned and kicked the dog in the head. I think that's probably the last deer that dog will chase.

Joe,

As for fishing, don't most people eat the fish that they catch? Okay, some fishermen throw the catch back in the water, but at least they let the fish live, if they do that. Otherwise, I'm sure they eat what they catch. I have no problem with fishing for food. Nor do I have a problem with someone's enjoying the process of catching the fish that they eat -- of treating it as a sport. But if they did it just for the sake of killing the fish, which they then left to rot on the beach, I'd find that repugnant.

-- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/23, 12:10am)

Post 50

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 1:07am

“…train your dogs to locate and retrieve the dead prey.”

Actually, jumping ahead to the dead prey stage—locating and retrieving those is easy for the dog as she sees them go down.

The impressive part occurs earlier, when the dog locates the bird—habituating on the ground—by scent, from quite a distance. If you walked alone you would pass by most birds. They would take you for a coyote or fox, hunker down, and hope you pass—which you would. A dog works in front of you, going back and forth covering much more ground than you could, sniffing for bird scent. The bird is often not aware that the dog and gun are approaching. The dog slows down as it begins to detect scent and finally freezes, her nose pointed upwind in the direction of the bird. Sometimes the quarry is a mere few feet ahead. More often it is located ten, twenty, even thirty yards ahead (not feet, but yards.) She remains locked up on point as you probe ahead to cause the flush. Very rarely do dog or hunter see the bird before it takes flight.

This is not for everyone. The excitement for me is in watching a finely tuned predator ply her art—the entire act under my command—as like fire tamed in man’s hand like Rand’s cigarette.

Deer kicking your dog in the head is a real threat. In ruffed grouse country we have bumped several moose. Surprising as it sounds, on one occasion we walked right up to a moose that didn’t notice us, nor us him, until we were close enough to see the drop of snot dangling from his nose. A close, startled moose could trample my dog and I in the bat of an eyelash. He jerked when I called her to me. We backed out slowly. Luckily he was a very cool customer.

Post 51

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 4:59am

I just can't take people seriously who would claim you shouldn't decide how you feel about your diet, let science determine it for you.

Dustin, you're not a whim worshipper are you? Please respond to what I said above.

Post 52

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 5:58am

This is not for everyone. The excitement for me is in watching a finely tuned predator ply her art—the entire act under my command—as like fire tamed in man’s hand like Rand’s cigarette.

Or like a ruler lording it over another........

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/23, 5:59am)

Post 53

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 8:11am

What do you mean, Robert?

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 8/23, 12:57pm)

Post 54

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 2:37pm

Jon said: "Dustin, you're not a whim worshipper are you? Please respond to what I said above."

I'm not a whim worshipper, and really I don't even get what you're asking.

I stopped eating fast food just because I didn't like it a few years ago. I like to cook my own meals. My decision to stop eating meat came when I started skateboarding and getting active. Having meat in my stomach while active made me sick. I began cooking my own meals without meat. Tacos, Burritos, Rice(s), Mexican, Italian, Indian, and Chinese dishes. At the sime time I also began to learn about animal testing (For example, a dog had it's chest cut open and had grape juice pumped into it's stomach to see how it would respond to large amounts of juice. This meaningless research went hand in hand with meaningless cruelty and debauchery when factory farming animals. Chickens living in their own hysteria and waste killing one another isn't something I'm going to put in my stomach. I don't want to support Burger King, McDonalds, and other places that run such an industry. I've really begun to feel and look in great shape. I recently had an eye exam and was complimented on the health of my eyes, which is due to commonly getting fruits and vegetables.

I might not change everything in the fast food or factory farm industry, but I can still do my part to myself by abstaining it from it. Besides, what have you done? I find it easy not to support bad taste, poor quality, meaningless murder, bad health, and bad service. This is quite a package. I believe in good health, feeling good, and eating what I enjoy. This is I why I think the definition of Vegetarianism as an "evil ethic" on Objectivism 101 is stereotypical and more like a "post modern" doctrine of prosecution based on dietary choices.

Post 55

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 9:41pm

Bill,
Jon had that bread gone a about 3 days! LOL! Hope you got the "Thank You" I sent. :)

Yes, I did, Teresa. Good to hear that he liked it. That's some fine rye bread! The rest of you out there don't know what we're talking about, 'cause you've never had bread this good.

Years ago, I knew a Russian guy named Gregorio. This was before Peristroika. He had managed to get out of the Soviet Union with his wife who was an actress. But when I knew him, he was no longer with her. Gregorio was 39 going on 55, a burly, swarthy looking dude, who smoked heavily and drank vodka like it was water. He carried a flask around in his hip pocket. I can remember one evening, when we got together for a chat, he drank half the flask, and walked out of my apartment stone cold sober.

Once he and a Russian pal of his took a trip to Reno to visit a cat house. But when Gregorio saw the women, he said, no thanks. They were too skinny! So he sat in the lobby and waited for his friend to finish. I had to laugh. Culture shock! And he'd driven all that way for nothing!

When I asked him what he liked about the states and what he didn't, he said he liked nearly everything, except the bread. Terrible bread, he said in his thick Russian accent. I had to agree, after eating the (real) Russian rye, courtesy of the one and only Cinderella Bakery in San Francisco!

- Bill

Post 56

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 4:54am

Dustin, Post 45. Please read it and respond accordingly.

Post 57

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 7:02am

Jon - Answering your meaningless, loaded questions will get me nowhere. See my last post for info on Vegetarianism from a Vegetarian.

Post 58

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 1:12pm

Dustin,

Would you please refer to Jonathan in some way other than “Jon” so no one confuses him with me? (I never ask loaded or meaningless questions.)

Post 59

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 1:55pm