Why Do You Eat Animals?

[Humane Hominid]

I choose to include the flesh of animals and their bodily secretions as part of my diet.

I use them as food and it's a choice I make.

"Chose"? Not likely.

Statistically, it's more likely this is a behavior imposed on you by your parents and culture from birth, that you have continued as a habit into adulthood without ever really thinking critically about

That is the experience of most people. Meat-eaters almost never chose their behavior.

[Steve]

I do it because I do it" is not really a compelling argument.

That was mean't as a statement not an argument. Other then animals can be used to fulfill a required need none of what I said was an argument, it was just a list of personal reasons why I choose to include meat in my diet.

[Steve]

The amount of people that need animal products for survival is less than minimal. If you live in a developed country, you don't need it to survive.
It is a want instead of a need indeed. Selfishness, laziness, tradition.

The same could now be said by tons of things in our modern world. Bottled water. Housing developments. Consumption of fossil fuels. Production of energy. I don't have to live in a house I could live in a very small studio or a cave. We don't have to drive we could take public transit. We don't have to take public transit we could ride a bike or walk. Our modern world is filled with things not required or even remotely attached to survival that cause harm to the ecosystem as a whole, not just animals but plants and people as well. I don't believe that it is wrong to partake in the modern amenities of life but do feel it needs to be done in a more conscious and responsible manner as a whole. We don't need to paint everybody with broad labels of being selfish or lazy.

You don't feel it is wrong? Why?
Animals are sentient beings, plants are not. Therefore eating a plant based diet inherently causes less harm than an omnivore diet.
Without including health reasons and environmental issues, that reason alone should convince any rational person - who's not emotionally attached to what they're eating - to go vegan.

I am well aware that animals are sentient beings. I place a higher priority on myself, humans, ecosystems, species, then a single or single group of animals. Death happens. Killing happens. Is it that difficult for you to understand that I feel differently about this.

Just to clarify the following was a list of personal reasons as to why I eat animal products as an answer to the topic. They were not intended to be justifications, they're just statements.

-Taste - there is fake meat, eggs and dairy, that taste similar. And there are also plenty of vegan recipes that you might find delicious.
Taste is a selfish argument, not anything rational. Taste also changes with time, depending on what you eat.

I'm not interested in eating anything fake. Meat, sugar, cheese, whatever. Fake foods are essentially poison, I'll pass. Your aware that eggs and dairy are animal products, they are included in what we are discussing here. I eat vegan food everyday and it is delicious. I just also eat animal product I like as well too. Again not mean't to of been an argument point just a statement as it relates to me personally. Still I don't see how doing something selfish is viewed as irrational. Most everything we do is selfish in some way. Are we all just irrational?

-Exercise - What? How do animal products matter with exercise?

This is specific for myself and not applicable to many people. I go hunting and when you cover 15 miles in a day over difficult terrain carrying a metal stick attempting to take animals (which I'll eat) you get a lot of exercise.

-Social, convenience - This, again, doesn't regard morality; saying that it's for convenience is a cheap excuse, and it doesn't say anything about what's morally wrong or right. If you are willing to cook at home you can spend less with a vegan diet aswell.

Again not an appeal of morality or intended as an excuse. It's just a statement.

-Nutrition - Every nutrient you need, you can take with a vegan diet.

I'm aware. I still get nutrients from animal products, they are not devoid of nutritional and caloric valve.

-Adventure - What do you mean?

Hunting/Fishing. Not applicable to everybody.

-Variety - It depends where you go to eat. If you go to a steak house, definitely not many options. If you go to a vegan restaurant, you'll find as many options as other restaurants.
But like I said before, there are fake products and plenty of recipes you can choose from.
And this is, again, not a moral justification.

Again not a justification. But you aren't really trying to argue that an exclusionary diet has the same variety potential as one that is not. As a meat eater every single vegan dish imaginable is on the table as a possible selection, plus non vegan foods. And when I say I like my variety I'm talking vegan and non vegan products alike. I like trying things and I like mixing it up.

[Humane Hominid]

I'm not interested in eating anything fake. Meat, sugar, cheese, whatever. Fake foods are essentially poison, I'll pass.

Essentially poison? Um, no.

Think about what meat is, as opposed to what it comes from. It's just a particular combination of amino acids, lipids, trace carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, and water. If the exact same combination, in the exact same matrix, with the exact same taste and texture, can be produced from plants using far less impact-ful techniques, and without killing sentient beings... there's nothing "fake" about it. It's still, chemically speaking, the exact same thing.

Defining meat by what it comes from, rather than what it is, is irrational attachment to tradition and appeal to nature fallacy.

[thebestofenergy]

The same could now be said by tons of things in our modern world. Bottled water. Housing developments. Consumption of fossil fuels. Production of energy. I don't have to live in a house I could live in a very small studio or a cave. We don't have to drive we could take public transit. We don't have to take public transit we could ride a bike or walk. Our modern world is filled with things not required or even remotely attached to survival that cause harm to the ecosystem as a whole, not just animals but plants and people as well. I don't believe that it is wrong to partake in the modern amenities of life but do feel it needs to be done in a more conscious and responsible manner as a whole. We don't need to paint everybody with broad labels of being selfish or lazy.

All of these things don't even come close to harm as much as animal mass production.
The meat and dairy industry are top in waste, environmental damage and suffering.
And yes, if things that do harm - like comsumption of fossil fuels - can be reduced, than it's better to do it.
You don't need meat & dairy to survive/live a good life. Instead, you need a house to do so. And a house is not going to hurt the world as much.

I am well aware that animals are sentient beings. I place a higher priority on myself, humans, ecosystems, species, then a single or single group of animals. Death happens. Killing happens. Is it that difficult for you to understand that I feel differently about this.

Rape happens, so rape it's OK if I do it.
Environmental damage happens, so it's fine to do it.
Kids bet bullied at school, it happens, so it's normal for me to do it.
Is it that difficult for you to understand what's wrong with these statements?
Only hedonists use this arguments. Either embrace hedonism, or be consistent.

That you place a higher priority on humans is obvious, and rightfully so. But I did not compare animals to humans, I did not even bring humans into the argument. You can care for both other animals and humans - and all the other list you gave - at the same time.
You place the ecosystem at a high priority? Then you'll be happy to know that the meat & dairy industry is harming it immensively - top one in global warming.
Single or single group of animals? They're billions upon billions that die every year - and it has serious consequences.

Just to clarify the following was a list of personal reasons as to why I eat animal products as an answer to the topic. They were not intended to be justifications, they're just statements.

They're not justifications... yet you say that they're the reasons as to why you eat animal products... and then you say they're just statements...
You're contradicting yourself.

I'm not interested in eating anything fake. Meat, sugar, cheese, whatever. Fake foods are essentially poison, I'll pass. Your aware that eggs and dairy are animal products, they are included in what we are discussing here. I eat vegan food everyday and it is delicious. I just also eat animal product I like as well too. Again not mean't to of been an argument point just a statement as it relates to me personally. Still I don't see how doing something selfish is viewed as irrational. Most everything we do is selfish in some way. Are we all just irrational?

Fake foods are poison?
Poison? What are you even talking about?
Can you present some source?

It's irrational if someone does it because of selfishness, while there's no need for it and it harms; not selfishness alone.

This is specific for myself and not applicable to many people. I go hunting and when you cover 15 miles in a day over difficult terrain carrying a metal stick attempting to take animals (which I'll eat) you get a lot of exercise.

And you can do all of that exercise without hunting for animals.
How could exercise be a reason why you eat animal products, since you could do it without them?

Again not an appeal of morality or intended as an excuse. It's just a statement.

Why did you not say the color of your dog then? Or the name of your mother? They're just statements as well.
It's a reason why you eat animal products, not just a random statement - therefore justification, since 'reason' and 'justification' are synonym.

But you aren't really trying to argue that an exclusionary diet has the same variety potential as one that is not. As a meat eater every single vegan dish imaginable is on the table as a possible selection, plus non vegan foods. And when I say I like my variety I'm talking vegan and non vegan products alike. I like trying things and I like mixing it up.

So many people avoid veganism because they think it's limiting the options immensively, and they don't realise that their daily diet contains a number of options that is not even close to the number of options that they could possibly have in a vegan diet.

[Steve]

I'm not interested in eating anything fake. Meat, sugar, cheese, whatever. Fake foods are essentially poison, I'll pass.

Essentially poison? Um, no.

Think about what meat is, as opposed to what it comes from. It's just a particular combination of amino acids, lipids, trace carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, and water. If the exact same combination, in the exact same matrix, with the exact same taste and texture, can be produced from plants using far less impact-ful techniques, and without killing sentient beings... there's nothing "fake" about it. It's still, chemically speaking, the exact same thing.

Defining meat by what it comes from, rather than what it is, is irrational attachment to tradition and appeal to nature fallacy.

I don't know what 'fake' meat is or what would be an example of a fake meat product that you speak of. Perhaps you could direct me to one so that I could see an ingredient list for myself. I do know a lot of other fake foods tend to have substances which your body treats as harmful chemicals and over work your liver. Either way I'm not very big on highly manufactured processed foods and would rather eat raw plant products.

[Steve]

All of these things don't even come close to harm as much as animal mass production.
The meat and dairy industry are top in waste, environmental damage and suffering.
And yes, if things that do harm - like comsumption of fossil fuels - can be reduced, than it's better to do it.
You don't need meat & dairy to survive/live a good life. Instead, you need a house to do so. And a house is not going to hurt the world as much.

Like I said things should be done responsibly. And to me that mostly means a reduction in consumption. If a reduction in consumption is acceptable regarding other modern amenities then so too should it be here.

Rape happens, so rape it's OK if I do it.
Environmental damage happens, so it's fine to do it.
Kids bet bullied at school, it happens, so it's normal for me to do it.
Is it that difficult for you to understand what's wrong with these statements?
Only hedonists use this arguments. Either embrace hedonism, or be consistent.

That you place a higher priority on humans is obvious, and rightfully so. But I did not compare animals to humans, I did not even bring humans into the argument. You can care for both other animals and humans - and all the other list you gave - at the same time.
You place the ecosystem at a high priority? Then you'll be happy to know that the meat & dairy industry is harming it immensively - top one in global warming.
Single or single group of animals? They're billions upon billions that die every year - and it has serious consequences.

I try to be consistent in my beliefs and views but I also look at things individually and make my own assessment for each specific situation. Supporting abortion doesn't mean I'm also in favor of infanticide. While they both are killing there are differences and I'll come to positions independent from one another. So you can give as many different examples as you like but I'm still going to view this issue independently. Yes I put humans on a different priority level then other species. And different species on different levels given the circumstances for the time and other factors. When I said single or groups I was meaning the species as a whole has more value then any one individual or smaller group.

They're not justifications... yet you say that they're the reasons as to why you eat animal products... and then you say they're just statements...
You're contradicting yourself.

Your taking issue with this? Fine label them as justifications if that is the way you choose to interrupt this I really don't care. I was not presenting them as justifications but if you feel it is synonymous with reasons take it as you will. I suspect you want to label them as justifications to imply they need to be justified. And statements may not be reasons but are not all reasons statements?

Fake foods are poison?
Poison? What are you even talking about?
Can you present some source?

Things like equal and american singles would be fake variations of sugar and cheese. They contain substances that your body considers harmful chemicals and need to be processed by your liver like alcohol. I'll admit I am not sure what you mean by fake meat though as you probably were not sure what I was meaning by poison.

And you can do all of that exercise without hunting for animals.
How could exercise be a reason why you eat animal products, since you could do it without them?

Again with the you could do something else... this could be said about virtually everything. I can and do do other things as well. I could also sit on my rear those days consuming steaks from cows that have been feed corn and antibodies. It's a benefit that comes from the activity which happens to providing food (sometimes).

Why did you not say the color of your dog then? Or the name of your mother? They're just statements as well.
It's a reason why you eat animal products, not just a random statement - therefore justification, since 'reason' and 'justification' are synonym.

Because I'm not trying to defend, excuse, or justify what I do with this particular reason/statement. I wouldn't use this as an argument point because it's just a personal preference.

So many people avoid veganism because they think it's limiting the options immensively, and they don't realise that their daily diet contains a number of options that is not even close to the number of options that they could possibly have in a vegan diet.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your logic here... probably because there isn't any. Explain how veganism has just one more variety option out there then then somebody who is non vegan. It doesn't make sense because any vegan food you could name is already and option. Do you think that meat eaters don't also eat vegan foods? I eat vegan foods every single day.

[thebestofenergy]

Like I said things should be done responsibly. And to me that mostly means a reduction in consumption. If a reduction in consumption is acceptable regarding other modern amenities then so too should it be here.

Reduction in consumption is great, and if you're already there, I'm glad. Things like flexi-veganism are of great help.
However, that is the lesser of the two evils; not the most ideal option.
If you could live a good life without using fossil fuel, then that would be the best option - not just reducing it to a lower level.

I try to be consistent in my beliefs and views but I also look at things individually and make my own assessment for each specific situation. Supporting abortion doesn't mean I'm also in favor of infanticide. While they both are killing there are differences and I'll come to positions independent from one another.

If you abort before the 26th-ish week, the baby is not even sentient yet, so there's no moral obligation not to do so.
An infant is sentient.
So of course there's difference between them, and I'm in the same position as you are on this matter, but there's a logical reason to it.

So you can give as many different examples as you like but I'm still going to view this issue independently.

View this issue independently then: billions of animals are being harmed and it causes enormous damage to the environment.

Your taking issue with this? Fine label them as justifications if that is the way you choose to interrupt this I really don't care. I was not presenting them as justifications but if you feel it is synonymous with reasons take it as you will. I suspect you want to label them as justifications to imply they need to be justified. And statements may not be reasons but are not all reasons statements?

Are we talking in English or not here?
If yes, words have a defined meaning. I don't feel them as synonymous, they are synonymous.
You said they're not justifications and they're just statements - which doesn't make sense, since you used them as reasons/justifications.

Things like equal and american singles would be fake variations of sugar and cheese. They contain substances that your body considers harmful chemicals and need to be processed by your liver like alcohol. I'll admit I am not sure what you mean by fake meat though as you probably were not sure what I was meaning by poison.

There's a misunderstanding here then. The fake animal products I'm talking about are entirely made from plants, and they're cooked/composed in a way that has a similar shape and taste to animal products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_analogue

Again with the you could do something else... this could be said about virtually everything. I can and do do other things as well. I could also sit on my rear those days consuming steaks from cows that have been feed corn and antibodies. It's a benefit that comes from the activity which happens to providing food (sometimes).

So, like I said, it's not a reason to eat animal products.
Saying that exercise is a reason to eat animal products - because you'd hunt - is like saying that having a walk is a reason to have a dog - because you'd take it for a walk. You can have that walk anyway; it's not exclusive to the situation where you have the dog. You don't need to have the dog in order to have that walk.

Because I'm not trying to defend, excuse, or justify what I do with this particular reason/statement. I wouldn't use this as an argument point because it's just a personal preference.

Yet you're using those reasons on a daily basis to eat animal products.
But if you consider them flawed, what is the argument you use in defense of you eating animal products?

Explain how veganism has just one more variety option out there then then somebody who is non vegan.

It doesn't.
What I was trying to say is that all of those available options in a vegan diet are many, more than what people use in their diet.
So, unless you're eating all vegan options + animal products, it would be incorrect to say that the number of option that you eat has to decrease when you go vegan.
The possibility of the options you could have decreases. But the actual number of options you're going to have doesn't have to decrease (unless, like I said, you're already eating all the possible vegan products + animal products).

[Steve]

If you abort before the 26th-ish week, the baby is not even sentient yet, so there's no moral obligation not to do so.
An infant is sentient.
So of course there's difference between them, and I'm in the same position as you are on this matter, but there's a logical reason to it.

I use the same logic to come to my decision on these issues. Or more specifically, human consciousness or sentience. With differing species and circumstances I may or may not apply the same values. Other people may use different guidelines or ideas to come to their own moral decisions, like human life or animal life.

View this issue independently then: billions of animals are being harmed and it causes enormous damage to the environment.

I do. It is one of among other reasons my consumption of commercial animal products is reduced and getting lesser.

Are we talking in English or not here?
If yes, words have a defined meaning. I don't feel them as synonymous, they are synonymous.
You said they're not justifications and they're just statements - which doesn't make sense, since you used them as reasons/justifications.

Not that this matters much because this is just a word smithing debate but...
I feel you are stuck on the definitions or ideas that you want to use here to further your position while ignoring what I am actually trying to convey. It reminds me of a Jehovah's Witness that comes to my door and when the subject of evolution comes up they ask well why is it just a theory? It's because theory to them has a very specific defined meaning. A proposed idea which is still questionable. Something that is synonymous with hypothesis. So they are stuck on the defined meaning that they want to use. This is petty and it really does not help to try to understand the position of non vegans to vegans which I thought was the point of this thread. Or perhaps that was not the point maybe it's objective was to get meat eaters to list their positions and feelings on the subject so that the vegans could pick them apart and point at how irrational and crazy they are for not being vegan.

There's a misunderstanding here then. The fake animal products I'm talking about are entirely made from plants, and they're cooked/composed in a way that has a similar shape and taste to animal products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_analogue

Do you have an example of a specific product that you think is actually good and what you think it tastes like (if that's even possible)? That link gave tofu as an example for a substitute meat. Now I wouldn't call tofu poison I would say that the tofu I have had is not appealing. I would rather eat vegetables and nuts then tofu.

So, like I said, it's not a reason to eat animal products.
Saying that exercise is a reason to eat animal products - because you'd hunt - is like saying that having a walk is a reason to have a dog - because you'd take it for a walk. You can have that walk anyway; it's not exclusive to the situation where you have the dog. You don't need to have the dog in order to have that walk.

I would actually list exercise as a reason for owning a dog if I had one.

Yet you're using those reasons on a daily basis to eat animal products.
But if you consider them flawed, what is the argument you use in defense of you eating animal products?

First I do not eat meat daily... although I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some sort of animal product finds it's way into my diet in some form daily. We need food, it has a use as such. And i do not value all sentient beings equally. I place varying value on their lives depending on what they are, where they are, circumstances, use, etc. I'm not going to kill termites in the forest but the ones that find there way into a house are getting sprayed, removed, or tented.

[thebestofenergy]

Not that this matters much because this is just a word smithing debate but...
I feel you are stuck on the definitions or ideas that you want to use here to further your position while ignoring what I am actually trying to convey.

We can use the word 'reason' instead of justification if you prefer, fine by me.

Do you have an example of a specific product that you think is actually good and what you think it tastes like (if that's even possible)?

http://www.peta.org/living/food/favorite-products/ This is a long list - you can check the engredients for all of them.
Fake animal products helped me make the transition, but I don't use them anymore. I prefer eating things such as pasta, rice, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits. One 'fake' product I still use though, it's vegan butter, made out of soy - name is Provamel, but it's italian. I actually find it better tasting than dairy butter, and it melts perfectly - and it doesn't have cholesterol.
For milks, instead, there's a large variety: almond milk, coconut, rice, hemp, soy, hazelnut, oat. I sometimes drink those, I particularly like soy milk, but I still have to try all of them out.

I would actually list exercise as a reason for owning a dog if I had one.

The fact that you would have a walk having a dog is a consequence not exclusive to that situation, not a reason to have it.
I'm having a walk because I have a dog, but I could have had a walk (and I had a walk) before having the dog. I don't need to have it, to have a walk.
A reason to have a dog would be, for example, that your children would love to have a dog. Without the dog, the love that your kids have for the dog wouldn't be there.
Or that you want to save a dog from death for overpopulation in a kennel. You need to get that dog to save it.

First I do not eat meat daily... although I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some sort of animal product finds it's way into my diet in some form daily. We need food, it has a use as such. And i do not value all sentient beings equally. I place varying value on their lives depending on what they are, where they are, circumstances, use, etc. I'm not going to kill termites in the forest but the ones that find there way into a house are getting sprayed, removed, or tented.

You don't value all the sentient beings equal, and rightfully so: there's difference between the cognitive capabilities of a pig and a bug.
But all sentient beings are more valuable than non-sentient beings: a pig, a human, a bug or a cat, are all more valuable than a rock, or a plant.
Therefore it causes less harm, and it's more logical, to harm plants instead of animals. There are some animals that are not sentient, like sponges, and some that we are not sure about, like some worms - but that's where we have the doubt, not in things such as pigs - that are fully sentient.