What would be your answers to these arguments?

[Rory17]

Hello,
Here are some arguments in defensive of eating meat that I have heard (not the exact words), and I’d like to know how you would answer them…
* “If the animal’s weren’t bred for the purpose of being eaten, they wouldn’t have ever been born. That is the purpose of their life and birth.
* “If farm animal’s weren’t bred for their meat, dairy and eggs, there wouldn’t be any farm animals! All the fields that are currently used for the farm animals would be built on.”
* “When an animal is killed and eaten, the energy from that animal is transferred from the animal to the person who eats them.”
* “It’s my right to eat whatever (whoever) I want. You can’t stop me from eating meat. You have to respect my right to eat whatever (whoever) I want. I can choose to live my life the way I want to, and you can choose to live your life the way you want to. People are allowed to eat whatever (whoever) they want.”
That last one really bothers me. Where’s the animals’ personal choice in this? Legally, you have the right to eat meat, but what’s legal and moral are different things. Years and years ago, slavery was legal and, thus, it was the slave owners’ legal, personal choice to keep slaves. They might have said about it being their right to keep slaves when the anti-slavery, abolitionist people were campaigning against it.
Why should I have to respect their “right” to support animal cruelty and eat meat when they clearly don’t respect the animals’ right to live, and live well, enough to not eat them? What comes first; the right to choose certain “food/s” (it’s not food, it’s violence) or the right of another sentient being to live and not be killed or abused?
When your way of life is deliberately, unnecessarily victimising someone else, your way of life should not be respected and should be condemned. If in a place where murder was legal (so as to take legality out of the picture), most people would still socially or even physically punish someone who killed other humans intentionally, for an unnecessary reason, whether those other humans were children or an adults. Yet, that would be their personal choice, and they would legally be free to do that. It would still be morally wrong. We would (mostly) not respect their way of life (killing other humans), even though it was legal, even if it were to legally become their “right” to do so.
It is true that, legally, people are (unfortunately) allowed to eat meat and animal products, but this doesn’t make it moral. At one time, slavery was legal. At one time, bull-baiting (the practice of setting dogs onto bulls), badger baiting (the practice of setting dogs onto badgers), bear-baiting (the practice of setting dogs onto chained bears), dog-fighting, cockfighting, fox-hunting and other animal cruelty were all legal. In some countries, FGM is legal. In some countries, animal-fighting, skinning animals alive and cooking animals alive is legal. Does that make any of those things justified?
Thanks.

 

[CondorMr]

I'll give it a go...
1) So what? If an animal is not born, does it miss its life, of course not. An animals purpose is to survive and if possible procreate to continue ots genes.
2) again, so what. And what a load of crappola. We have state parks, national parks, wilderness areas etc. that are not built on. 80% of agricultural land is used in animal production, grazing and cropping fodder etc. Without animal ag, it would be full of houses, pull the other one, the infrastructure alone for that would be completely unobtainable on large landmasses e.g. Australia.
3) Ditto with plants. .....but without as many of the negatives. Obviously we have negative issues cropping etc plants , but when 83% of land is used to produce 18% of calories consumed by humans via animal ag, the reduction in negatives seems obvious.
4) I don't always agree with the statement "you have to respect my decision/opinion etc.", especially if its misinformed, obstructionist, oppositional just to be so, stubborn, or just plain dumb. And I think we underestimate how much dumb is in the world. Also, I believe that that statement comes from a lazy, complacent place for a lot of people, who for some reason do not want to look hard at their food choices.....I think I was once there myself.

 

[Lou]

There is a couple of different websites that specialize in this kind of stuff. I'm not even sure I could do a good job on countering these arguments. However some people smarter than me did a good job. So why reinvent the wheel.

Free From Harm has IMHO the best one. it is sort of long but I think reading these counter-arguments and understanding them is really a good idea before you spend time with relatives who like to argue. I hate when I can't think of a response till I'm in the car heading home.

PETA used to have a really good page. but I can't find it. I can't imagine why they took it down.

Here is the Free From Harm page. Its really good and you might not need any other ammo then what is here

Eating Animals: Addressing Our Most Common Justifications

This in-depth article addresses the most common justifications people give for eating animals even when we have an abundance of plant-based alternatives.

freefromharm.org

While trying to find the PETA one I stumbled on this one. I haven't read it yet but from what I have looked at it is pretty similar to the Free From Harm one

Every Argument Against Veganism DEBUNKED

vomadlife.com

I also found this one which is very detailed and comprehensive.

How to Respond to Every Anti-Vegan Argument Ever

Veganism is the future. Let’s help our loved ones realize why going vegan is the answer to many of life’s problems.

medium.com

If you need more, just Google "common arguments against vegetarianism or veganism, and how to answer them".
There are a bunch more stuff.

 

[Danielle]

If you were born in a slaughter house you'd wish you weren't born at all.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Here are some arguments in defensive of eating meat that I have heard (not the exact words), and I’d like to know how you would answer them…

"wouldn’t have ever been born" By this logic you could justify breeding humans for meat. Killing someone and eating them is still wrong regardless of the fact that this was the plan all along.

"there wouldn’t be any farm animals! All the fields that are currently used for the farm animals would be built on.” Less farm animals means more of the Earth's resources can be used for the benefit of humans and wild animals, rather than farm animals that have a miserable life. We could actually use the farm spaces to create more nature and wild spaces for everyone to enjoy.

“When an animal is killed and eaten, the energy from that animal is transferred from the animal to the person who eats them.” Again, by that logic you could justify eating humans. Why not get energy from plants without killing any animals? This is something of a silly argument. If it comes mixed with other arguments, you could just ignore it.

“It’s my right to eat whatever (whoever) I want" This is true. I can make my arguments but of course you have the right to decide as you wish. I only hope you´ll listen to my arguments, however you don´t have to justify yourself to me in the end.

 

[Danielle]

Its like people look up arguments against vegans, I wouldn't even waste my time arguing against that nonsense.

 

[FlandersOD]

the argument are all extremely shitty arguments basically non sequitors and irrelevencies asides the point not every culture even if all the major cultures follow this paradigm their are still at-least some cultures that would put value on non humans at-least on part with that of humans.
So the attempt at cultural or moral relativity doesn't work as much in their favour as they believe it does.
presume that one at the very least shares dominant frame work or at-least that the same hegeominic frame work prediminates across an imagined audience.

one which I don't seam to share based on what I'm reading.

 

[David3]

Hello,
Here are some arguments in defensive of eating meat that I have heard (not the exact words), and I’d like to know how you would answer them…
* “If the animal’s weren’t bred for the purpose of being eaten, they wouldn’t have ever been born. That is the purpose of their life and birth.
* “If farm animal’s weren’t bred for their meat, dairy and eggs, there wouldn’t be any farm animals! All the fields that are currently used for the farm animals would be built on.”
* “When an animal is killed and eaten, the energy from that animal is transferred from the animal to the person who eats them.”
* “It’s my right to eat whatever (whoever) I want. You can’t stop me from eating meat. You have to respect my right to eat whatever (whoever) I want. I can choose to live my life the way I want to, and you can choose to live your life the way you want to. People are allowed to eat whatever (whoever) they want.”
That last one really bothers me. Where’s the animals’ personal choice in this? Legally, you have the right to eat meat, but what’s legal and moral are different things. Years and years ago, slavery was legal and, thus, it was the slave owners’ legal, personal choice to keep slaves. They might have said about it being their right to keep slaves when the anti-slavery, abolitionist people were campaigning against it.
Why should I have to respect their “right” to support animal cruelty and eat meat when they clearly don’t respect the animals’ right to live, and live well, enough to not eat them? What comes first; the right to choose certain “food/s” (it’s not food, it’s violence) or the right of another sentient being to live and not be killed or abused?
When your way of life is deliberately, unnecessarily victimising someone else, your way of life should not be respected and should be condemned. If in a place where murder was legal (so as to take legality out of the picture), most people would still socially or even physically punish someone who killed other humans intentionally, for an unnecessary reason, whether those other humans were children or an adults. Yet, that would be their personal choice, and they would legally be free to do that. It would still be morally wrong. We would (mostly) not respect their way of life (killing other humans), even though it was legal, even if it were to legally become their “right” to do so.
It is true that, legally, people are (unfortunately) allowed to eat meat and animal products, but this doesn’t make it moral. At one time, slavery was legal. At one time, bull-baiting (the practice of setting dogs onto bulls), badger baiting (the practice of setting dogs onto badgers), bear-baiting (the practice of setting dogs onto chained bears), dog-fighting, cockfighting, fox-hunting and other animal cruelty were all legal. In some countries, FGM is legal. In some countries, animal-fighting, skinning animals alive and cooking animals alive is legal. Does that make any of those things justified?
Thanks.

.
If a person is that committed to arguments against vegetarianism, then it's unlikely that they'll be persuaded in a debate.

To really increase the popularity of vegetarianism, it's necessary to increase its appeal through some kind of positive marketing.

I know a guy who borrowed money and opened up a vegan sandwich shop. He serves all the classic sandwiches: roast beef, club sandwich, turkey on rye, etc., but made from high-end vegan meats and cheeses. The shop does well enough to earn him a middle class living, and even omnivore customers like the sandwiches (judging by the Yelp reviews).

Here is the guy's Tesla, with "Vegan Wheels" custom wrap:


.

 

[Tom L.]

I'd say the first two arguments are easy to counter:

* “If the animal’s weren’t bred for the purpose of being eaten, they wouldn’t have ever been born. That is the purpose of their life and birth.
An animal cannot be harmed by not coming into existence in the first place- there is not yet anyone to harm. Also, I would say it's almost unspeakably arrogant to presume that anyone has the right to say what the "purpose" of a sentient being's life is, but of course you KNOW the folks who are arguing with you wouldn't find that line of reasoning compelling. Anyway, they're making a circular, recursive argument: it's not wrong to kill and eat an animal because their purpose to be killed and eaten.

* “If farm animal’s weren’t bred for their meat, dairy and eggs, there wouldn’t be any farm animals! All the fields that are currently used for the farm animals would be built on.”
Hmmm... the first part of this argument is sort of a different way of phrasing the first one. But as for the part about land which is now used for livestock being built on- NOPE. It's well known that raising crops to feed a given number of people uses less land than it takes to raise enough animals to feed the same number of people. Frances Moore Lappe's book, "Diet For A Small Planet", explained this back around 1970(!!!). It's a well-known principle in ecology: from plants to herbivores to carnivores to even bigger carnivores, there's a loss of energy/food value/protein, such that there is a LARGE biomass of plants, then a much smaller biomass of herbivores, then a still much smaller mass of carnivores...

Put another way: if farm animals weren't bred for meat, the fields that are currently used for farm animals would be uncultivated forest, grassland, etc.

OK: this is a bit of an oversimplification. Not all land is suitable for cultivation: it's too steep/uneven, too dry, too wet, too rocky... and letting grazing animals use these areas is a way that food (meat) can be produced for humans on areas which cannot be plowed, harvested, etc the way an Iowa cornfield or wheatfield could be. BUT... wild plants which could produce human food, but not need to be "farmed" in the usual sense, could be grown on these areas instead. Much of the produce would probably be eaten by wildlife, but a work force of humans would be able to salvage much of it. I honestly don't know exactly how workable or efficient this would be because, as far as I know, it hasn't been tried.

But actually, much land suitable for cultivation is already endangered by urban sprawl: that flat, wide expanse of good land is easier to build on than a marsh or mountain slope.

The third argument doesn't make any particular sense: yes, food someone eats provides energy.

The last one is also circular/recursive: it assumes animals do not merit any ethical consideration ("It's not wrong to eat animals because it's not wrong to eat animals") I wonder if it bothers them that dogfighting/cockfighting, eating dogs/cats, etc. are illegal (in many areas)? (Actually, this DOES bother some people).

 

[Veggyolky]

1. The purpose of life is not be to be born only to be slaughtered at an to early age or used to make chemicals applied on human faces. That sound like being born in hell and everyone is dead in hell.

2. LOL. NO. We would grow crops there. "Farms" can exist without animal torture. Some of them are called cornfields others strawberry lands. Also letting forest (the worlds lungs) take the space is an option named "environmentally friendly and sustainable land use"

3. Cool...maybe stay of the hard drugs for a time bud? Seems like you actually entered nirvana there for a sec. Not to be offensive. And also, the energy from the sun and the water and nutrients in the soil also gets transferred to us by eating plants if we are talking on the "chakra" kind of level

4. Okay, so if i want to eat your dog then it should be fine right? Since YOU can eat whoever then I can too right? Also, your grandmother looks kinda juicy, mind of i take a bite? lol. No? Changed your mind about that statement huh? Guessed so mate.....guessed so. YOU have no more right to eat the cow than me eating you. Life is life. No matter what kind.

My autopilot answers since going vegan. Don't have time always but when i find the energy i actually say this with a serious smile and afterwards i just continue what i was doing before getting the stupid as ************ questions like they didn't exist.

GO VEGAN! SAFE THE PLANET AND ANIMALS!