Attending social events where animal foods are served?

Some people say it is wrong to attend social events where animal foods are served.
The reasoning goes like this: 
"There was also a pertinent point about our sitting around "happily eating where animals lie mutilated and dead all around us" - which I'm sure we all do from time to time at social events (although, in my case, not at all "happily" - but, I do sometimes do it). Whereas we wouldn't happily associate with a known rapist at such social events. Should we continue to participate in these events (although it is very hard not to, with dead animals being all around us in society)?"

My position:
I think we may attend those events to educate others about Abolitionist veganism and human rights. To educate people in a way so that they understand that what they are doing is wrong - that they are participating in causing unnecessary harm to sentient beings.
I think that it is sad when people attend these events without educating others - just sitting silent when others are participating in animal exploitation. I have also failed here. Everyone has alot to learn.

People are commiting injustices everywhere. We should stand up to stop it. One way to do this is to attend events, and through conversations educating others about what they do is harming and killing animals unnecessarily.

We live in a world where people also express lots of racism and sexism; and people fighting for human rights still attend events where participants are racists and sexists. So in that respect I don't think their point is valid.
The Abolitionists against human slavery attended events were many people attended that were slave owners, etc...

More reading: 

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Are people comfortable with consuming animal foods?

People are not *very* comfortable. I have many conversations with nonvegans and they are not very comfortable. Some people may be comfortable. A colleague of mine said yesterday when we talked about veganism, that she rather not think about the issue (consuming animal foods and the suffering and death involved in the production of animal foods).

“D'Agostino, the 20-store supermarket chain in New York, said that its sales of veal have jumped 35 percent since it began carrying "certified humane" veal only.”

http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm

Maybe it increased because people felt more comfortable buying it?
Maybe that is why Whole Foods and other supermarkets invest a lot of money in promoting “humane” marketing schemes?

Vegan reply to counter argument: But…Isn’t eating animal products, meat, milk, eggs, etc., natural?

 If our body was designed for meat consumption, humans wouldn't get these problems: http://vimeo.com/15787322 , http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/
Meat in large quantities is not dangerous for an omnivore.

I don't understand this "human nature"/natural-argument.

It is also discussed here:
Question 5: Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?Answer: Every form of discrimination in the history of humankind has been defended as “traditional.” Sexism is routinely justified on the ground that it is traditional for women to be subservient to men: “A woman’s place is in the home.” Human slavery has been a tradition in most cultures at some times. The fact that some behavior can be described as traditional has nothing to do with whether the behavior is or is not morally acceptable.

In addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the morality of the practice. In the first place, just about every form of discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural superiority of men over women. Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as natural. Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that: labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.
Quote: www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/

----
There is no doubt that we can live a very healhty life on a vegan diet:
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

Thus, eating animal foods is inflicting unnecessary harm and death upon animals, and this we all agree is morally wrong.

---------------------More arguments:

Quote from www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/ :

This “But” is like saying that God wants us to eat animals but we don’t need to bother with God.  Something else that is big and important—nature— wants us to eat animals. If we don’t eat animals,we are acting against nature. We are behaving in

an unnatural way. That’s powerful stuff—even if you’re an atheist. In fact, “But Natural” is like “But God” without God. It seeks to establish necessity, but without God. But why do we think that nature intends, whatever that means, that we eat animals? The usual response is to say that we are physically adapted to eat meat and other animal products.

 

Putting aside that many people are lactose intolerant, and that many physicians are pointing out that animal products are detrimental to human health, the most we can say is that we can eat animal products; there is nothing about our bodies that suggests that our bodies are designed to do so. Humans compare physically much more to herbivores than to carnivores. Carnivores have well-developed claws. We don’t have claws. We also lack the sharp front teeth carnivorous animals need. Although we still have canine teeth, they are not sharp and cannot be used in the way carnivorous animals use their sharp canine teeth. We have flat molar teeth, as seen in herbivores, such as sheep, that we use for grinding. Carnivores have a short intestinal tract so that they can quickly expel decaying meat. Herbivores have a much longer intestinal tract as do humans. Herbivores and humans have weak stomach acid relative to carnivores who have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomachs to digest meat. Herbivorous animals have well-developed salivary glands for pre-digesting fruits and grains and have alkaline saliva that is needed to predigest grains, as do humans. Carnivorous animals do not have similar salivary glands and have acid saliva.

(..) And, as we stated earlier, the evidence is quite clear that we don’t need animal products to be optimally healthy. You would think that if we were intended to eat animal products, those of us who don’t (and haven’t for decades) would suffer deleterious health effects. But we don’t. We do just fine. We have to make sure we get vitamin B-12, which humans do not manufacture, or at least not in reliable quantities. But all humans have to get B-12 from somewhere. Carnivores get it from meat; vegans get it from nutritional yeast, other fortified food, or supplements. But all B-12 comes from microorganisms. (..)

 

So while there is considerable evidence that animal foods are detrimental to human health, we don’t want to get into a battle of studies here to convince you that it’s healthier not to eat animal products. We do, however, want to make clear that the very best a consumer of animal products can say is that her diet is no better than that of someone who eats a balanced diet of non-animal foods.

 

In sum, there is no evidence that nature requires that we eat animal products. Indeed, the extant evidence is to the contrary." End of quote.

 
More Resources:
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.
Quote:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "

Some more links here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html

There is no "humane" way of killing an animal/no "humane" slaughter

My reply to Lauren McGrath-Esler,
Even if you are allergic to many plant foods, there are still many plant foods that you can eat, and you can get all the nutrition that you need from plant foods. I recommend you to study this page: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_allergic.html

You can also contact a vegan nutritionist.
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

You think that you can kill an animal “humanely”. You can’t. You can’t kill a healty animal "humanely", since the animal has a desire and interest to live her/his life and an interest of not being killed by humans. This is why painlessly killing a healthy animal is morally wrong: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html

The slaughterhouses in Australia don’t kill the animals painlessly. There is no such slaughterhouse. Visit them and you will see. But even if there was, killing an healthy animal for the "pleasure"/convenience of animal foods would not be morally justified.
This is why it is morally wrong to kill animals for food:
1. It is wrong to inflict suffering and death on sentient beings (human or nonhuman) without any necessity.
2. Whatever necessity includes, it must, if it is to be meaningful, exclude the imposition of suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.
3. Apart from life boat/desert island scenarios, there is no need to eat animal foods to be healthy.
4. Therefore, eating animal foods outside of extreme situations serves only pleasure, amusement, or convenience.
5. Therefore, it is morally wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals for food.

What do you say?

Morality: Why becoming vegan/stop eating meat and other animal foods - is not 'a matter of opinon'

First read this:  Vegan reply to 'Morality is a matter of opinion'

You are rejecting an objective morality and then you are claiming that I have the burden of proof. I disagree. You can’t prove that morals are subjective. It is your opinion. I think the burden of proof is on the person that is trying to claim that it is acceptable to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon other sentient beings – humans as well as nonhumans. Only by being apathic or endorsing other sentient beings being inflicted unnecessary suffering and death, can you create any real suffering and harm. You can’t have any theoretical certainty about your position at all. You are, I hope, trying to live a life of compassion and love towards your fellow human beings. You only need to extend this love and compassion towards nonhuman animals and stop inflicting unnecessary harm upon them by going vegan. As Philosopher Gary Francione clearly demonstrates in his writings that the case for becoming vegan is very strong; and shows that you are required to go vegan to live according to your moral belief that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon nonhuman animals: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
You probably already try to follow the principle of not inflicting unnecessary harm and death toward nonhuman animals, e.g. you are probably opposed to animal abuse and would hopefully step in if you saw someone trying to abuse and kill a dog. You only need to be consistent in this principle, and stop paying people for engaging in completely unnecessary industrialized animal abuse and exploitation to produce animal foods.

I also recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/#.Udrxm21RfO4

As for your appeal to nature-argument for consuming animal products, I recommend you to read this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/no-its-not-natural/#.Udr6WG1RfO4
I disagree with the statement that we are omnivores (biologically we are not):
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/search?q=herbivores&max-results=20&by-date=true

http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/debunking-paleo-diet-paleolithic-diet.html
Even if we biologically were omnivores, it wouldn’t morally justify the consumption of animal foods, just like that our ability of engaging in engaging in violence and discrimination against other humans justify this behavior.

You wrote: “the rejection of man-made moral codes means the rejection of all love and compassion. But in so many cases, morals and compassion are themselves in conflict.”

It depends on whether you live according to your beliefs or not. Not standing up against violence and discrimination, or engaging in violence and discrimination, makes this world into a world of less love and compassion.

I argue that we humans do share the moral intuition that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon other beings. Almost everyone in this world argue that humans have a moral value, and that this means that we have moral obligations in terms of how we behave against each other, including that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary harm and death against other humans. Many people discriminate based on irrelevant criteria against other people and claim that we don’t have certain moral obligations to other people. However this doesn’t negate that we humans have a shared moral intuition. These instances only describe cultural prejudice that people adopt through cultural indoctrination. People of all cultures are claiming that we have moral obligations against other sentient beings, with the capacity of feeling suffering, including the obligation not to inflict unnecessary suffering upon them. Sometimes because of cultural prejudice, some people are irrationally excluded from some people’s moral concern. I argue that our moral intuition is not to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon anyone that are sentient and can be harmed. Sometimes people use irrational arguments to exclude people from this principle, either by claiming that the harm is necessary, or by using other irrational arguments (appealing to ‘tradition’, supposedly ‘natural order’, e.g. of god), and people become convinced to this arguments by cultural indoctrination. The same is true of speciecism. People use irrational arguments to exclude other species from their moral concern.

The moral intuition of our population, whom recognizes that animals are sentient and able to feel suffering, is clearly that we shouldn’t inflict them any unnecessary suffering. This is e.g. why there was such a public outcry against Michael Vick: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

“In fact, in the case of small local farmers and free range farmers, humans are more compassionate in killing than any other species.”

Many of the farmers you refer to, e.g. the farmers of ‘free range farmers’ of “free-range chickens” exploit the animals throughout all their lives. You can easily Google this.
It is interesting that refer to the notion of compassionate (‘sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it’).
I think you can theorize as much as you like, but I don’t think you on a deeper plan can convince yourself about that murder and inflicting unnecessary suffering and violence is ‘as good’ as fighting against violence, discrimination, unnecessary suffering and death; and that it is an irrelevant struggle just as fighting for making people prefer apples over bananas. I don’t think that you on a deep level can convince yourself of that morals is just a matter of subjective opinion, I think it is only a theoretical construct that people have in their heads. I think you can feel very satisfied on a deep level as a human being when you are helping people, are fighting against violence and discrimination, and that violence and discrimination never can satisfy yourself on a deep level.

You wrote: “And, by the way, the imposition of one person/group’s morality on other people (speaking of Nazis) has created a lot more suffering and violence and apathy in the world (all those that stand and watch) than amorality, which has never been popular enough to create nearly as much harm as you seem to think.”

More accurately you should say that the imposition of discrimination and unnecessary violence based on irrelevant criteria has created a lot of suffering, violence and apathy. The Nazism prevailed because that so many stood indifferent and silent against this discrimination. Your view that ‘morals are subjective’ is giving people a pass from standing up against discrimination and violence, and it may even encourage them to participate in such, since they can comfort themselves with the view that there is no such thing as unjust discrimination, violence and injustice.

----------

Further discussion:

“remember, you are the one trying to convince me to change my behavior, while i have no interest in changing yours. that being the case, where does the burden of proof truly lie?”

Where does the burden of proof lie – on a person being racist or a person trying to convince someone to reject racism?
Where does the burden of proof lie – on a person murdering others or a person trying to convince someone to stop murdering persons?

You are claiming that I should prove my claim of whether there is such thing as an objective moral. It is impossible to prove such a claim, and it is impossible to prove your claim that morals are subjective.

“when i say morality is a matter of opinion because it is unproven, i am not merely giving my opinion, but simply following the definition of the word "opinion'. anything not back by fact is opinion, that's simply the definition of the word. and the conflicting moralities throughout culture and history, i consider evidence of subjectivity.”

It isn’t. Cultural indoctrination is very powerful.

We all know this from our era in which many are influenced by the discrimination and violence of speciecism and sexism. People claim that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, but yet they daily do it through their daily meals. People are living in a way that contradicts their moral intuition.

It is also very possible to severely damage our moral intuition. This is what people are doing when they are excluding human animals and nonhuman animals from their moral concern, and is starting to exploit, harm and kill them. The more you participate of your exploitation, the more you destroy your moral intuition.

If you are part of a culture where you have a tradition of exploiting say other people groups or other species, and you do this on a regular basis, e.g. at every meal, you lose a lot of your love, compassion and inner intuition of what is morally right and wrong.

So you will find cultures in which exploitation of other people groups and species are celebrated, you will find cultures in exploitation based on sexism, heterosexism, ageism and racism are celebrated and are the norm, and you will find cultures with various other forms of discrimination and violence.

But in no way does this prove that morals are subjective.

Speaking of cultural indoctrination, violence and injustices, I also recommend this article:
Why does many people abuse humans, dogs, cats and other animals?:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/why-does-many-people-abuse-humans-dogs.html

Eating eggs hurts and kills more animals compared to eating meat

Some just asked by PM where I got the egg figures from. Here's the article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/want-to-kill-fewer-animals-give-up-eggs-not-meat/ Based on the data she uses, her analysis seems right.

According to some animal advocates, it's Meatless Monday. But there is no morally coherent distinction between meat and other animal foods. And if you consume eggs, you are responsible for more animal deaths than if you eat beef or pork. So if you care about animals, go vegan today. And every day.

Quote from: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

Stop hurting and exploiting animals. Go vegan!

----

As we’ve said above, there is no morally coherent distinction between meat and other animal products. Dairy and eggs also involve suffering and death. In fact, if you stop eating beef and get the same number of calories from eggs, you may actually be responsible for more animal suffering and death given that laying hens are usually killed after one or two laying cycles and all the male chicks born to laying hens are killed immediately. In any event, the meat, dairy , and egg industries are inextricably intertwined. They all necessarily involve suffering; they all necessarily involve death. To stop eating meat but to continue to eat dairy is morally arbitrary and similar to a decision to stop eating meat from spotted cows but to continue to eat meat from brown cows. It makes no sense.

Consumption of any animal products, absent your being stranded on a desert island or adrift on a lifeboat, with no plant foods available, is completely inconsistent with the conventional wisdom we claim to accept. As we discussed above, the good first step is not consuming “happy” animal products or making an arbitrary distinction between meat and other animal products and not eating the former but continuing to eat the latter. The good first step, if you don’t feel able to go vegan immediately, is to do it in stages, starting with breakfast and continuing on.
Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1517-1523). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition. 

Don't eat animal foods if you love and care for animals

No one maintains that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. Indeed, mounting empirical evidence points to animal foods being detrimental for human health. But however you evaluate that evidence, there can be no serious doubt that we can have excellent health with a vegan diet. There is also broad consensus that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. Animal agriculture is responsible for water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, inefficient use of plant protein and water, and all sorts of other environmental harms.

So do you live a lifestyle of love and compassion to all animals?

We all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. We all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

So do you live a lifestyle that doesn't inflict unnecessary suffering upon animals?
I became a vegan this autumn when I realized it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering towards animals this autumn. All animal foods are harming animals, e.g. cows and male calves are killed in the milk industry. So, we should all act upon our love and compassion, and stop hurting animals. I recommend: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

The animal cruelty involved in eating a Big mac from Mc Donalds

My comment to a friend who wrote about eating a 'Big mac':
You can all easily Google ‘cruelty in Mc Donalds’ to find out what cruelty the animals go through to become a ‘Big Mac’. And there is no “humane way” to produce animal products, the animals involve always go through suffering – there are just different degrees to the unnecessary suffering involved.

I think the core of the issue is that people don’t see an animal and what suffering they are causing when they are eating a Big mac or any other animal foods. But it is our moral obligation to the animals to not inflict unnecessary suffering, we all agree with this, so thus we all should study what the animals are going through, so that we stop seeing dead animals and their secretions as ‘food’, but see suffering and death each time we look upon an animal product.
I don’t see anything good when I see an animal product, I don’t miss the taste that I enjoyed for almost 28 years as a non-vegan, I only see dead animals that were inflicted unnecessary suffering and death to satisfy someone’s palate pleasure /convenience of animal foods.

I think it is time that we all act upon our moral intuition, and start to eat as we care of the animals. They are defenseless against us, and we must live up to our moral obligation of stopping exploiting them and inflicting them unnecessary suffering for food. We must start acting like we care, and like they matter more than a frivolous taste experience'/convenience!!