Is veganism the only ethical dietary choice for atheists?

[TinyDave]

Never as I can't photosynthesise. You?

Then the whole "get energy direct from source" point (and I use the word extremely loosely) is moot.

And just so we know, are you capable of interacting in more than one or two sentences at a time? Because what you are doing now is teetering on the verge of spamming and dishonesty. Apologies if this is all the mental effort you're capable of.

No apologies needed, yes I can write more than a sentence or 2 at a time. I take exception to being called dishonest. 
...

[Vera]

No apologies needed, yes I can write more than a sentence or 2 at a time. I take exception to being called dishonest. 
...

And I take exception to your dismissive, yet empty way of interacting with people here.

And yes, I stand by the dishonesty comment.

I don't care what lack of better things to do made you decide to look for this random nook of the internet and drown us in post, after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance, but this is not how someone who wishes to engage in HONEST conversation acts.

Whatever your sad little reasons for trolling this place, I am done wasting my time with you. Your feeble trolling isn't even interesting.

[TinyDave]

No apologies needed, yes I can write more than a sentence or 2 at a time. I take exception to being called dishonest. 
...

And I take exception to your dismissive, yet empty way of interacting with people here.

And yes, I stand by the dishonesty comment.

I don't care what lack of better things to do made you decide to look for this random nook of the internet and drown us in post, after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance, but this is not how someone who wishes to engage in HONEST conversation acts.

Whatever your sad little reasons for trolling this place, I am done wasting my time with you. Your feeble trolling isn't even interesting.

Thank you for your honesty.

[Minimalist]

[GenesisNemesis]

I have often felt guilty eating meat myself and I totally get where vegans are coming from, so I don't ridicule vegans for their choices. It's something I've been conflicted about for a long time. If I could sustain myself on a vegan diet though, I would. Or if lab grown meat ever becomes viable. I'm also ridiculously underweight, so there's that to take into consideration too.

[TinyDave]

No apologies needed, yes I can write more than a sentence or 2 at a time. I take exception to being called dishonest. 
...

And I take exception to your dismissive, yet empty way of interacting with people here.

And yes, I stand by the dishonesty comment.

I don't care what lack of better things to do made you decide to look for this random nook of the internet and drown us in post, after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance, but this is not how someone who wishes to engage in HONEST conversation acts.

Whatever your sad little reasons for trolling this place, I am done wasting my time with you. Your feeble trolling isn't even interesting.

Actually, thinking about it you do deserve more than a dismissive response.
This is because I want to confront you about your assumptions. 
You assume that I have nothing better to do than troll a forum. You assume that I have nothing better to do other than post shallow after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance.
You have not really tried to engage with me. 
What do you know of the substance that I have to offer?

How dare you say that my posting is trolling, feeble and uninteresting.   
Yes, other members of the forum have said that they think that I may be a troll or a spammer, however in my first interactions here I have been trying to defend a position that I think is indefensible and playing devils advocate to stimulate debate.
Is this forum so dead that it's just a circle jerk of cliché?

Anyway, screw you, you're done wasting your time with me so I hope you can waste your time agreeing with people that won't challenge you.

Best wishes

TinyDave

[TinyDave]

I have often felt guilty eating meat myself and I totally get where vegans are coming from, so I don't ridicule vegans for their choices. It's something I've been conflicted about for a long time. If I could sustain myself on a vegan diet though, I would. Or if lab grown meat ever becomes viable. I'm also ridiculously underweight, so there's that to take into consideration too.

I'm conflicted on this ethically which is why I wanted to bring it up in an atheist forum.

[trdsf]

Yeah, how does the after life figure into this?

It figures into this, as if you are prepared to accept that we only live one life then is it ethical to take the life of another sentient being who also has only one life

That would be cannibalism, not omnivorism or carnivorism.  The only sentient species on the planet is homo sapiens sapiens.  Animals have varying degrees of awareness, but not sentience.

[TinyDave]

Yeah, how does the after life figure into this?

It figures into this, as if you are prepared to accept that we only live one life then is it ethical to take the life of another sentient being who also has only one life

That would be cannibalism, not omnivorism or carnivorism.  The only sentient species on the planet is homo sapiens sapiens.  Animals have varying degrees of awareness, but not sentience.

The definition of sentience is something that I would like to debate.

[Dancefortwo]

No apologies needed, yes I can write more than a sentence or 2 at a time. I take exception to being called dishonest. 
...

And I take exception to your dismissive, yet empty way of interacting with people here.

And yes, I stand by the dishonesty comment.

I don't care what lack of better things to do made you decide to look for this random nook of the internet and drown us in post, after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance, but this is not how someone who wishes to engage in HONEST conversation acts.

Whatever your sad little reasons for trolling this place, I am done wasting my time with you. Your feeble trolling isn't even interesting.

Actually, thinking about it you do deserve more than a dismissive response.
This is because I want to confront you about your assumptions. 
You assume that I have nothing better to do than troll a forum. You assume that I have nothing better to do other than post shallow after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance.
You have not really tried to engage with me. 
What do you know of the substance that I have to offer?

How dare you say that my posting is trolling, feeble and uninteresting.   
Yes, other members of the forum have said that they think that I may be a troll or a spammer, however in my first interactions here I have been trying to defend a position that I think is indefensible and playing devils advocate to stimulate debate.
Is this forum so dead that it's just a circle jerk of cliché?

Anyway, screw you, you're done wasting your time with me so I hope you can waste your time agreeing with people that won't challenge you.

Best wishes

TinyDave

LOL. Except you're not "challenging" anyone here because you aren't using well organized or well substantiated arguments.     You just THINK you are.  You're overestimating your knowledge.  Dunning and Kruger would tap you on the shoulder and say, "Come this way, young fella".  

[trdsf]

It figures into this, as if you are prepared to accept that we only live one life then is it ethical to take the life of another sentient being who also has only one life

That would be cannibalism, not omnivorism or carnivorism.  The only sentient species on the planet is homo sapiens sapiens.  Animals have varying degrees of awareness, but not sentience.

The definition of sentience is something that I would like to debate.

That's an entirely separate discussion from whether omnivorism and/or carnivorism is ethical—and probably a very interesting discussion at that, one I'd be likely to chip in on myself.  But it's way too much to assume from the get-go when asking about the ethics of omnivorism/carnivorism.

I think my answer to the original question is that if your definition of sentience includes animals, then feel free to be a vegan, but that's not enough to question the ethics of those whose definition does not include animals because the sentience of food animals is not demonstrated beyond question.

[Vera]

LOL. Except you're not "challenging" anyone here because you aren't using well organized or well substantiated arguments.     You just THINK you are.  You're overestimating your knowledge.  Dunning and Kruger would tap you on the shoulder and say, "Come this way, young fella".  

Is that creature still yapping at us? It's gone on ignore - life's too short to waste any time on someone this dumb.


It's like one of those tiny "dogs" that keep yapping at the real dogs; the smaller and mouse-like they are, the more incessant their yap... never realising they'll never be in the same category as real dogs. Or in this sad, little trolly case - in the same category as people actually capable of forming thoughts *and* communicating them to others.

Only way to handle them is disengage completely and let them yap themselves out. Or find someone on their level. There's always willing and fitting candidates here

[TinyDave]

Only way to handle them is disengage completely and let them yap themselves out. Or find someone on their level. There's always willing and fitting candidates here

And you can do that by posting in their thread 

[Alan V]

I think my answer to the original question is that if your definition of sentience includes animals, then feel free to be a vegan, but that's not enough to question the ethics of those whose definition does not include animals because the sentience of food animals is not demonstrated beyond question.

I have a friend who won't eat any pork products because he thinks pigs are too intelligent.

My wife is uncomfortable with eating beef, but has no problems with eating chickens and turkeys.

And of course most people would not be comfortable eating dogs, cats, or horses.

So where different people draw the line varies.

[Dom]

The ethical issue is in the treatment of animals destined to become food.

It is truly barbarian and needs to be completely re-designed.

Now, there is a real ethical issue. People are very cruel animals.

I support local agriculture, where small farms with pasture treat animals humanely and on-site slaughter is done humanely.

[Dom]

Just look at eggs. 

The inexpensive ones have a paper thin shell and light yellow yolks. The whole thing is runny and sunny side up eggs or easy over have to be cooked in a frame because they barely hold together, they are so runny and thin.

The more expensive ones, free range and organic, have thick shells and orange yolks. When you crack one into a pan, you don't get shell pieces, and the egg holds together like it should, no frame needed.

Which chicken do you think had a better life? Who ate better, and who was healthier?

There are options to buy humanely, but they cost more. Maybe it's time to look at quality and not quantity, in that case one can just cut down on consumption and afford meat that has been raised in good conditions and had a decent life.

[GenesisNemesis]

I think my answer to the original question is that if your definition of sentience includes animals, then feel free to be a vegan, but that's not enough to question the ethics of those whose definition does not include animals because the sentience of food animals is not demonstrated beyond question.

I have a friend who won't eat any pork products because he thinks pigs are too intelligent.

My wife is uncomfortable with eating beef, but has no problems with eating chickens and turkeys.

And of course most people would not be comfortable eating dogs, cats, or horses.

So where different people draw the line varies.

My mother's uncomfortable with eating lamb, she thinks they're too cute.

[trdsf]

I think my answer to the original question is that if your definition of sentience includes animals, then feel free to be a vegan, but that's not enough to question the ethics of those whose definition does not include animals because the sentience of food animals is not demonstrated beyond question.

I have a friend who won't eat any pork products because he thinks pigs are too intelligent.

My wife is uncomfortable with eating beef, but has no problems with eating chickens and turkeys.

And of course most people would not be comfortable eating dogs, cats, or horses.

So where different people draw the line varies.

And I'm good with that, as long as people don't try to impose their definitions on other people, without being able to demonstrate their positions unequivocally.  Bob knows I have worked within dietary restrictions when cooking for friends before—and for the most part, I quite like the challenge, actually, whether it's for health or religious reasons.  By the same token, my friends don't expect me to adhere to the rules they apply to themselves... which is why I respect their wishes.

[jerry mcmasters]

No apologies needed, yes I can write more than a sentence or 2 at a time. I take exception to being called dishonest. 
...

And I take exception to your dismissive, yet empty way of interacting with people here.

And yes, I stand by the dishonesty comment.

I don't care what lack of better things to do made you decide to look for this random nook of the internet and drown us in post, after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance, but this is not how someone who wishes to engage in HONEST conversation acts.

Whatever your sad little reasons for trolling this place, I am done wasting my time with you. Your feeble trolling isn't even interesting.

Actually, thinking about it you do deserve more than a dismissive response.
This is because I want to confront you about your assumptions. 
You assume that I have nothing better to do than troll a forum. You assume that I have nothing better to do other than post shallow after shallow post, after superficial post, devoid of almost any substance.
You have not really tried to engage with me. 
What do you know of the substance that I have to offer?

How dare you say that my posting is trolling, feeble and uninteresting.   
Yes, other members of the forum have said that they think that I may be a troll or a spammer, however in my first interactions here I have been trying to defend a position that I think is indefensible and playing devils advocate to stimulate debate.
Is this forum so dead that it's just a circle jerk of cliché?

Anyway, screw you, you're done wasting your time with me so I hope you can waste your time agreeing with people that won't challenge you.

Best wishes

TinyDave

Circle jerk?  What an incredibly rude way of putting it.  It is, sir, an echo chamber.  

[TinyDave]

Circle jerk?  What an incredibly rude way of putting it.  It is, sir, an echo chamber.  

I stand corrected, please accept my profound apologies.

[jerry mcmasters]

If you don't believe in a neverland where we all go to live happily ever after is it ethical to consume animal products?

I would say it depends on each individual's opinion, though we can all have preferences about our own behavior and that of others.  How about the flip side?  If you do believe in an afterlife to go to happily ever after, is it ethical to consume animal products?

[Alan V]

Circle jerk?  What an incredibly rude way of putting it.  It is, sir, an echo chamber.   

I stand corrected, please accept my profound apologies.

Actually it's a social group, like many, many others.  There's no need to take exception to it just because we're (mostly) atheists with (mostly) liberal opinions.

[Dancefortwo]

I think my answer to the original question is that if your definition of sentience includes animals, then feel free to be a vegan, but that's not enough to question the ethics of those whose definition does not include animals because the sentience of food animals is not demonstrated beyond question.

I have a friend who won't eat any pork products because he thinks pigs are too intelligent.

My wife is uncomfortable with eating beef, but has no problems with eating chickens and turkeys.

And of course most people would not be comfortable eating dogs, cats, or horses.

So where different people draw the line varies.

Some areas in Asia still eat dogs and cats.  My daughter doesn't eat pork for the same reason as your friend.  I'm with Dom.  I wish we treated animals with greater care.  I try to buy range free chicken and local beef but sometimes it's very expensive or hard to find.

[jimhabegger]

Then why not get energy direct from source? Animals eat plants to get energy then we get the energy second hand from animals

How can you be so sure that plants don't have feelings?  

[jimhabegger]

Just asking a question. I don't want to get flamed as I don't have a point to make.

 You think that not having a point to make protects you from being flamed? Here, let me show you something ...