VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: How far would you go if you only had meat, without eating them? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
08-17-2015 12:38 AM
Tiger Lilly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
No, but my statement also holds true for the hypothetical situation where a tiger shows up and decides I look a tasty snack. If I have to kill that Tiger to avoid being eaten, of course I will. And in the hyper-unlikely event that I manage to wrestle a Tiger to death, THEN I can consider the moral conundrum of eating it. Until then, I won't even consider the option. If that makes me cruel...


I object to this example purely for cat/name reasons :P
08-16-2015 08:45 AM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by veggie man View Post
Many years ago I was on a connecting flight after a lengthy international flight right after I came down with a harsh flu. I didn't eat on the transcontinental leg because it had been too late to order a veggie meal. I thought I was literally going to pass out, so I ate what they served.

You may want to stop reading here.

It was Swissair, and it was a cold cut plate of head cheese, liverwurst , blood sausage and a few other abominations.

It gave me some strength, but it was horrible.

Now I'd just pass out. I'd eat meat to save my life, but I think I'd fast for a few weeks first.

No judgement on anyone else, just my personal take.
Actually, the last time I ate cheese was on a long international flight. I had no money or snacks, and I didn't realise that I could specify a vegan meal. On my previous flight, the vegetarian meal was vegan and, not being a frequent flyer, I assumed it would always be that way. When they brought me a tray of cheesey pasta, I was too hungry not to eat it. I immediately regretted it and would not make that decision again.
08-15-2015 06:25 PM
veggie man
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat View Post
AND how far SHOULD you GO?

Be honest.
Many years ago I was on a connecting flight after a lengthy international flight right after I came down with a harsh flu. I didn't eat on the transcontinental leg because it had been too late to order a veggie meal. I thought I was literally going to pass out, so I ate what they served.

You may want to stop reading here.

It was Swissair, and it was a cold cut plate of head cheese, liverwurst , blood sausage and a few other abominations.

It gave me some strength, but it was horrible.

Now I'd just pass out. I'd eat meat to save my life, but I think I'd fast for a few weeks first.

No judgement on anyone else, just my personal take.
08-15-2015 04:54 PM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat View Post
I did.

08-14-2015 05:48 AM
SilverCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
SilverCat, I'll say this only once: FINISH READING my post before you respond to it.
I did.
08-14-2015 04:50 AM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat View Post
I can't even believe someone would suggest such a thing.
SilverCat, I'll say this only once: FINISH READING my post before you respond to it.
08-14-2015 01:52 AM
SilverCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
.......to kicking it in the face.
Even though I do not understand dogs attacking you unprovoked. Pushing an attacking (if they ever attacked you unprovoked somehow) dog WILL obviously make the dog more furious. Kicking a dog to the face would make the situation worse, or kill the animal which is extremely inhuman to do.

I can't even believe someone would suggest such a thing.
08-13-2015 08:36 PM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva
the attitude of 'I'd rather die than eat meat" seems pretty pompous to me.
I never said that, I said I'd rather die than take an innocent's life. If I'm starving out in the woods and I find an abandoned package of beef jerky I'd be stupid not to take advantage of it. The deadset "veg*n under any circumstances" perspective is ludicrously narrow-minded since eating some beef jerky ostensibly abandoned out in the woods and not explicitly purchased and left for me neither incurs nor enables the cruelty that goes into making that product. These arguments lead to 'freeganism', which I partly consider myself to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan
But, 'non-human,' includes plants. Surely you're not saying, we can't eat plants?
Pardon, I thought I was apparent; I'm clarifying 'animals' as 'non-human animals'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat
I have no idea how you dragged canine parenting thing to a 'dog attacking unprovoked' . They are not even remotely related.
They can be, but I know that was not your intent, so don't worry about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat
If a dog does something to us, good luck clamping down on their snouts.
>_> Doesn't take luck if you're used to doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat
Well if you meant a better way of 'letting the dogs learn the consequences of......' as you suggested, we would love to know. Maybe talk to them?
I clarified what I meant by that, even though I think my meaning was obvious enough: consequences could range from anything between gently pushing it away to kicking it in the face. Obviously the most appropriate method to employ would depend entirely upon the circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat
Sorry, I think you are the only one. Dogs driving cars? *laughs* I think you are totally out of the track. that is not the point and not even remotely related.
You laugh, in spite of not getting the joke. How do you interpret the word, 'respect' as I used it here?
08-13-2015 05:11 PM
SilverCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
The 'firm grip on the dog's snout' thing actually mimics how some dogs and wolves teach their puppies by clamping down on their snouts. It's called a muzzle grip. Now if you want to criticize canine parenting techniques that's fine, but that might require another thread.

I have no idea how you dragged canine parenting thing to a 'dog attacking unprovoked' . They are not even remotely related. If a dog does something to us, good luck clamping down on their snouts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
NOW this thread's on a roll. Lots of interesting points here. Here we go:

*laughs* What, am I beating on dogs with swords or something?
Well if you meant a better way of 'letting the dogs learn the consequences of......' as you suggested, we would love to know. Maybe talk to them?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post

*sigh* ...surely I'm not the only one who thinks this 'respect' thing is just a semantic cop-out. You make it sound like if a dog was driving a car and hit someone they'd just keep driving.
Sorry, I think you are the only one. Dogs driving cars? *laughs* I think you are totally out of the track. that is not the point and not even remotely related.
08-13-2015 03:58 PM
Capstan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Then my following statement stands.

Regardless, I prefer 'non-human' to 'animal'.

Saying 'humans are not animals' is liking saying 'fish are not animals',
and saying 'fish are not animals' is like saying 'fish are not meat',
and saying 'fish are not meat' is like staring into the sun expecting gain to laser vision.
But, 'non-human,' includes plants. Surely you're not saying, we can't eat plants?
08-13-2015 03:06 PM
silva Quote:
Originally Posted by silva
i'm with you on surviving. we are, after all, animals ourselves.
What are you implying about animals?

Dogma:"I get the impression that you're making some sort of negative distinction about animals, since asserting your similarities to animals seems a strange way to rationalize eating them."

i meant that in case of either starving or eating another animal i would expect humans to have the same survival instinct that any other animal would. Herbivours will eat meat if needed, and we are omnivores. the attitude of 'I'd rather die than eat meat" seems pretty pompous to me.
08-13-2015 01:52 PM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post
Only if you assume the word, animal, is always inclusive of human-beings, which, in common usage, it is not.
Then my following statement stands.

Regardless, I prefer 'non-human' to 'animal'.

Saying 'humans are not animals' is liking saying 'fish are not animals',
and saying 'fish are not animals' is like saying 'fish are not meat',
and saying 'fish are not meat' is like staring into the sun expecting gain to laser vision.
08-13-2015 01:21 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

A little off-topic perhaps, but I thought you might get a kick out of it.
Well, I certainly did. Thanks for posting that!
08-13-2015 01:20 PM
Vegan Dave Eskimos are the only people I can think of that just eat a diet of mostly meat.

If I was in the Arctic, I'd find an apple, build a fire, defrost it, and eat it.
08-13-2015 12:35 PM
Capstan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Martyr is as strange choice of words to me. Martyrdom in my mind is always used to describe someone who actively maintains a specific goal and dies in pursuit of it, whether intentionally or not. I personally wouldn't use it to describe my passive response to an edible deer in my proximity.

Dictionary.com defines Martyr as "a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion" or "a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause". Both seem to imply that the presence of a deer (or any given killable/edible animal) directly confronts my principles when that hardly seems the case to me.

Even if we were to discard these semantics, your decision would suggest that you would, hesitant or not, eat other humans or even your own family if it was necessary to survive. To say otherwise introduces bias into the conflict.
Only if you assume the word, animal, is always inclusive of human-beings, which, in common usage, it is not.

Your semantics have inspired me to re-read the "gravedigger" scene from Hamlet. I post an excerpt from it here, for your benefit-

Quote:
HAMLET
I will speak to this fellow.—Whose grave’s this, sirrah?


GRAVEDIGGER
Mine, sir.

(sings)

Oh, a pit of dirt is what we need
For a guest like this one here.


HAMLET
I think it be thine, indeed, for thou liest in ’t.


GRAVEDIGGER You lie out on ’t, sir, and therefore it is not yours. For my part, I do not lie in ’t, and yet it is mine.


HAMLET Thou dost lie in ’t, to be in ’t and say it is thine. 'Tis for the dead, not for the quick. Therefore thou liest.


GRAVEDIGGER 'Tis a quick lie, sir. 'Twill away gain from me to you.


HAMLET What man dost thou dig it for?


GRAVEDIGGER For no man, sir.


HAMLET What woman, then?


GRAVEDIGGER For none, neither.


HAMLET Who is to be buried in ’t?


GRAVEDIGGER One that was a woman, sir, but, rest her soul, she’s dead.


HAMLET How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us. By the Lord, Horatio, these three years I have taken a note of it. The age is grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier he galls his kibe.—How long hast thou been a grave-maker?


GRAVEDIGGER Of all the days i' the year, I came to ’t that day that our last
King Hamlet overcame Fortinbras.


HAMLET
How long is that since?


GRAVEDIGGER Cannot you tell that? Every fool can tell that. It was the very day that young Hamlet was born, he that is mad and sent into England.


HAMLET Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?


GRAVEDIGGER Why, because he was mad. He shall recover his wits there, or, if he do not, it’s no great matter there.


HAMLET Why?


GRAVEDIGGER 'Twill not be seen in him there. There the men are as mad as he.


HAMLET How came he mad?


GRAVEDIGGER Very strangely, they say.


HAMLET How “strangely”?


GRAVEDIGGER Faith, e'en with losing his wits.


HAMLET Upon what ground?


GRAVEDIGGER Why, here in Denmark. I have been sexton here, man and boy, thirty years.


HAMLET How long will a man lie i' the earth ere he rot?


GRAVEDIGGER
Faith, if he be not rotten before he die—as we have many pocky corses nowadays that will scarce hold the laying in— he will last you some eight year or nine year. A tanner will last you nine year.


HAMLET Why he more than another?


GRAVEDIGGER Why, sir, his hide is so tanned with his trade that he will keep out water a great while, and your water is a sore decayer of your whoreson dead body. (indicates a skull) Here’s a skull now. This skull has lain in the earth three-and-twenty years.


HAMLET Whose was it?


GRAVEDIGGER A whoreson mad fellow’s it was. Whose do you think it was?


HAMLET Nay, I know not.


GRAVEDIGGER A pestilence on him for a mad rogue! He poured a flagon of Rhenish on my head once. This same skull, sir, was Yorick’s skull, the king’s jester.


HAMLET This?


GRAVEDIGGER E'en that.


HAMLET Let me see. (takes the skull) Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio....












A little off-topic perhaps, but I thought you might get a kick out of it.
08-13-2015 11:09 AM
Dogma NOW this thread's on a roll. Lots of interesting points here. Here we go:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan
I don't much care for the idea of being a martyr.
Martyr is as strange choice of words to me. Martyrdom in my mind is always used to describe someone who actively maintains a specific goal and dies in pursuit of it, whether intentionally or not. I personally wouldn't use it to describe my passive response to an edible deer in my proximity.

Dictionary.com defines Martyr as "a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion" or "a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause". Both seem to imply that the presence of a deer (or any given killable/edible animal) directly confronts my principles when that hardly seems the case to me.

Even if we were to discard these semantics, your decision would suggest that you would, hesitant or not, eat other humans or even your own family if it was necessary to survive. To say otherwise introduces bias into the conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful Joe
Also, life has taught me that one does not necessarily react as one would expect when put into a situation one has never before experienced.
Despite my obvious stance in contrast to your argument, I've considered that as well. I've actually had an entire argument with a young women who absolutely maintained that in the extraordinarily unlikely event that she was the only woman left on the face of the planet that the NEED to continue the human race was SO important that she would consider it her unquestionable DUTY to have sex with as many men as it took to maintain our species.

This was her argument against my insistence than we should permit the animals we've abused to die out without further interference if that's what it came down to.

My impression is that it's far easier to say than it is to do. However my own experience with food shortages has not made non-vegan food any more tempting which is why I'm confident in the decision I'm making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautful Joe
I don't think I would eat meat. However, that's easy for me to say, since I'm not particularly attached to my own life.
What does THAT mean? O_o

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
The reason one might ask this question is because the answers he receives will tell him a lot about WHY people are vegetarian, and what their views are. Someone has replied that they would rather starve until literal death than eat a deer. That view is absolutely worth examining and discussing.
Thank you, Zack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
Others (like my self) think that eating meat in such a situation would not be immoral at all.
You know, I looked all over, but I cannot find it.... I swear I heard that there was a unique tabletop RPG rule where your character's chosen alignment was suspended and shifted to true neutral or chaotic evil or something when your character's life was in danger. I wish I could find that again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
If all the wolves on Earth decided they'd rather starve than eat their animal prey, then we wouldn't have any more wolves.
...and?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silva
i'm with you on surviving. we are, after all, animals ourselves.
What are you implying about animals?

I get the impression that you're making some sort of negative distinction about animals, since asserting your similarities to animals seems a strange way to rationalize eating them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Lilly
"Unprovoked" is an interesting word to choose.

What if you unknowingly did something to provoke them and they are merely reacting?
An EXCELLENT question I was expecting.

That opens up an auxiliary topic: "Who's to blame in the event of a miscommunication?"

There are many examples I could make, but let's look at one I'm sure many of us can empathize with: honey bee stings.

In general honey bees will avoid humans, however if a honey bee feels threatened it will not hesitate to retaliate with it's stinger. Unfortunately honey bees are cursed with special brand of stupidity where they do not know that their sting will kill them and aren't intelligent enough to determine for themselves when sacrificing themselves is complete and utter waste.

Say you're outside on a chain swing and just swinging back and forth. Say after 10 minutes a honey bee on it's quest for pollen blunders into the path of the swing. BOOM. PANIC. The honey bee in it's infinite wisdom freaks out, stings you, and dies. You might temporarily stop to procure some antiseptic, but the bee has died. For nothing. Who's to blame?

In this example you could argue the swinging was to blame, but to be fair many activities humans might partake in in their backyard could create this sort of conflict by the mere virtue that they are comparably large and situationally fast. It's seems fair to me to say that the bee didn't know any better and in it's haste, instead of retreating, it went out of it's way to abandon it's pollination to retaliate.

Now let's look at an alternate example:


Who's to blame? Obviously the purpose of the prank was in the spirit of Halloween, but the victim was just that- a victim. The surprise of having a disguised stranger suddenly lunging for your face would provoke instinctual responses from anyone. In the cases of those whose experience lends good reason to interpret that as an attack and just cause to defend yourself, the prank seems generally unwise. In cases where the victim was armed, these pranks have even had fatal outcomes.

What I take from this is that miscommunication generally operates in two ways: in one way, information is exchanged and one or both sides are unable to interpret that information accurately. In a second way, information is exchanged, but one or both sides are presenting that information inaccurately.

We should strive to interpret all of the information provided to us to the best of our ability before making a decision, but we should ALSO strive to present ourselves in an honest manner to prevent others from misinterpreting us.

We are equally responsible for understanding our environment as well as presenting ourselves.

So if I find myself lost in those hypothetical woods and an ROUS thinks I'm encroaching on their territory, you'll know I won't be to blame for not knowing and thereby defending myself.

And if I find myself lost in the hypothetical frontyard in a pointed white hat and robes while burning a crucifix in the lawn of a foreign couple, you'll know they'll be entirely justified when they cave my face in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Lilly
I think your answer comes across as cruel, or maybe I'm just reading it in a cruel voice in my head.
That's a decision... I intend them to learn the CONSEQUENCES of... MuwahahaHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I didn't mean it in a cruel way. In fact I specifically phrased it that way in order to address your following point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Lilly
I've been bitten by dogs before too. Dogs who've had horrible things done to them and didn't know they could trust me, so reacted defensively. I'm not going to require that dog to lose their life, just because they're trying to protect it.

Do you understand what I'm saying?
Of course. The consequences I mentioned could merely extend to subduing them. Dogs have bitten me before and when that happened I took a firm hold of their snout and say "NO." Eventually they learned. By no means was I suggesting that the appropriate response to any aggressive animal is immediately killing them.

O_o WHAT!?

No, but my statement also holds true for the hypothetical situation where a tiger shows up and decides I look a tasty snack. If I have to kill that Tiger to avoid being eaten, of course I will. And in the hyper-unlikely event that I manage to wrestle a Tiger to death, THEN I can consider the moral conundrum of eating it. Until then, I won't even consider the option. If that makes me cruel...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat
Usually animals do not attack if they not provoked. Still, it is not a good thing to like "bite the dog back, if the dog bites you".
The 'firm grip on the dog's snout' thing actually mimics how some dogs and wolves teach their puppies by clamping down on their snouts. It's called a muzzle grip. Now if you want to criticize canine parenting techniques that's fine, but that might require another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat
They are animals, they do not respect anyone's life anyway.
*sigh* ...surely I'm not the only one who thinks this 'respect' thing is just a semantic cop-out. You make it sound like if a dog was driving a car and hit someone they'd just keep driving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCat
But that doesn't mean we should take weapons against them.
*laughs* What, am I beating on dogs with swords or something?
08-11-2015 09:15 PM
SilverCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasitha.wijesekera View Post
Dude, they are animals. How would you expect them to "respect" your life? They might be afraid of you or not afraid of you. That's all you can expect.
Couldn't agree more.
08-11-2015 09:13 PM
SilverCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
They're no more animal than I am. Whether they lash out selfishly or out of blind fear, they're attacking me unprovoked. That's a decision I intend them to learn the consequences of.
Usually animals do not attack if they not provoked. Still, it is not a good thing to like "bite the dog back, if the dog bites you".

They are animals, they do not respect anyone's life anyway. But that doesn't mean we should take weapons against them.
08-11-2015 09:07 PM
SilverCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post
About 18-years ago- I had not eaten any meat for several years- I was out of work, basically living out of my car, and was desperate for employment. I took a 'day' job out of a labor hall (work a day/get paid the same day,) at a construction site. I hadn't eaten since the day before, and very little then, and there I was doing heavy labor. At lunchtime, somebody brought around some burgers, and offered me one. I didn't want to eat it, but I knew, if I didn't, I would likely pass out before the day was over, and I really needed the money. So I willingly ate it, but I didn't like it. (It didn't occur to me until much later that I might have removed the meat from the sandwich, and eaten only the bun and the trimmings. When you're really hungry and weak, rational thought isn't so easy to come by.) That was 18-years ago, at a time when I was supposedly "vegan," and I haven't touched meat since. I did what I felt I had to do. I expect, if I were to become hungry again, to the point of collapsing, and meat were the only thing available, I would likely eat it again.
The seems like a really fair place to draw the line.
08-11-2015 08:11 PM
Tiger Lilly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
They're no more animal than I am. Whether they lash out selfishly or out of blind fear, they're attacking me unprovoked. That's a decision I intend them to learn the consequences of.
"Unprovoked" is an interesting word to choose.

What if you unknowingly did something to provoke them and they are merely reacting?

I think your answer comes across as cruel, or maybe I'm just reading it in a cruel voice in my head. (The Internet makes it hard to read people). Besides, if you kill something they don't learn anything, they're dead.

I just think, maybe in this instance, you're painting with a rather broad stroke. When my partner and I rescued our kittens, one of them bit him. HARD. I have no doubt that they had no respect for our lives, but it would have been wrong to react with violence at that point in time.

I've been bitten by dogs before too. Dogs who've had horrible things done to them and didn't know they could trust me, so reacted defensively. I'm not going to require that dog to lose their life, just because they're trying to protect it.

Do you understand what I'm saying?
08-11-2015 04:30 PM
silva
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack View Post
I would actually like to take a moment to disagree with those saying that this is a stupid question. First of all, whether or not this situation is likely to happen or ever would happen is entirely irrelevant.

The reason one might ask this question is because the answers he receives will tell him a lot about WHY people are vegetarian, and what their views are. Someone has replied that they would rather starve until literal death than eat a deer. That view is absolutely worth examining and discussing. Others (like my self) think that eating meat in such a situation would not be immoral at all. If all the wolves on Earth decided they'd rather starve than eat their animal prey, then we wouldn't have any more wolves. I feel that when it comes to survival, most rules of morality can justly go out the window. Unless it's some even more ridiculous hypothetical like "Would you rather die or nuke the U.S.?"
You're absolutely correct. I apologize for my own retort.
I think we're defensive here about hypothetical questions like that because so often they're addressed as, honestly, stupid questions when meat defenders have no better arguement.

i'm with you on surviving. we are, after all, animals ourselves.
08-11-2015 04:17 PM
Zack I would actually like to take a moment to disagree with those saying that this is a stupid question. First of all, whether or not this situation is likely to happen or ever would happen is entirely irrelevant.

The reason one might ask this question is because the answers he receives will tell him a lot about WHY people are vegetarian, and what their views are. Someone has replied that they would rather starve until literal death than eat a deer. That view is absolutely worth examining and discussing. Others (like my self) think that eating meat in such a situation would not be immoral at all. If all the wolves on Earth decided they'd rather starve than eat their animal prey, then we wouldn't have any more wolves. I feel that when it comes to survival, most rules of morality can justly go out the window. Unless it's some even more ridiculous hypothetical like "Would you rather die or nuke the U.S.?"
08-11-2015 03:19 PM
Beautiful Joe As a general rule, I think that hypothetical questions like this one are more divisive than they are instructive. People will generally react with a "Oh, s/he's being naive!" or "S/he is trying to look good/tough/whatever" to responses that don't mirror their own. Also, life has taught me that one does not necessarily react as one would expect when put into a situation one has never before experienced.

That being said, if I had no one else relying on me, I don't think I would eat meat. However, that's easy for me to say, since I'm not particularly attached to my own life. If, however, someone else's continued life depended on me (as is the case with my companion animals), I would do whatever necessary to ensure their survival and wellbeing.
08-11-2015 03:07 PM
Jasminedesi16 In a survival life or death situation than yes I would eat meat.
08-11-2015 02:55 PM
Capstan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
That sucks.

Would you hunt if the same circumstances presented themselves?
No. It's not like I was in a "last man on Earth scenario." Even when I was homeless, and had no car to sleep in, I was able to get little odd jobs here and there- washing windows for a couple of dollars, or pulling someone's weeds for a few bucks- enough to keep me going, but it never occurred to me to become a 'mountain man.' In a doomsday scenario, where civilization is totally wiped out, I expect I could live for a long while on canned goods. I'd try to move to a climate, where crops grow easily, and try my hand at gardening. But if you're asking, would I sacrifice myself, out of respect for animal life, I probably would not. I don't much care for the idea of being a martyr.
08-11-2015 08:52 AM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post
I didn't want to eat it, but I knew, if I didn't, I would likely pass out before the day was over, and I really needed the money. So I willingly ate it, but I didn't like it.
That sucks.

Would you hunt if the same circumstances presented themselves?

Quote:
(It didn't occur to me until much later that I might have removed the meat from the sandwich, and eaten only the bun and the trimmings.
I've been doing that for a long time. My co-workers are already so in the habit of setting aside bread for me that sometimes I'll find it just piled up in my seat during break periods.

It took a good while before it got to that point of course.
08-11-2015 03:52 AM
Capstan About 18-years ago- I had not eaten any meat for several years- I was out of work, basically living out of my car, and was desperate for employment. I took a 'day' job out of a labor hall (work a day/get paid the same day,) at a construction site. I hadn't eaten since the day before, and very little then, and there I was doing heavy labor. At lunchtime, somebody brought around some burgers, and offered me one. I didn't want to eat it, but I knew, if I didn't, I would likely pass out before the day was over, and I really needed the money. So I willingly ate it, but I didn't like it. (It didn't occur to me until much later that I might have removed the meat from the sandwich, and eaten only the bun and the trimmings. When you're really hungry and weak, rational thought isn't so easy to come by.) That was 18-years ago, at a time when I was supposedly "vegan," and I haven't touched meat since. I did what I felt I had to do. I expect, if I were to become hungry again, to the point of collapsing, and meat were the only thing available, I would likely eat it again.
08-11-2015 02:56 AM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasitha.wijesekera View Post
Dude, they are animals. How would you expect them to "respect" your life? They might be afraid of you or not afraid of you. That's all you can expect.
They're no more animal than I am. Whether they lash out selfishly or out of blind fear, they're attacking me unprovoked. That's a decision I intend them to learn the consequences of.
08-10-2015 07:53 AM
rasitha.wijesekera
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
I was implying my answer to this scenario. If they have no respect for my life, then I have no respect for theirs.

Dude, they are animals. How would you expect them to "respect" your life? They might be afraid of you or not afraid of you. That's all you can expect.
08-10-2015 02:18 AM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocrob37 View Post
If you are walking your dog and a Coyote or other animal attacks your dog or you would you kill it if it was the only way to protect yourself and dog? I completely agree with everyone that farm raised animals and killing them is wrong. I think that preditory animals is an entirely different thing.
I was implying my answer to this scenario. If they have no respect for my life, then I have no respect for theirs.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off