Opening Theory and Vegetarianism are both OVERRATED.

Force people? Nope. I'm in favour of people having the right to choose.

You should read that article that TheGrobe provided a link for. 

If you want to live, you can't avoid killing things.

Is anyone on Chess.com a "teleworking vegetarian," or perhaps they have this guy's job with Verizon communications? 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21043693

Great article.  

No, I can't.  Please enlighten me.

I try not to kill plants.  But with indoor insects, I show NO MERCY.

Except for ladybugs.  They usually get a lift, back outside.    

As long as there are people willing buy a product there will be people willing to provide it.

That's definitely true with both drugs and guns.  Insatiable demand.

You forgot sex Z.

I did, and from that representation, it seemed like ridiculously bad science to me. Of course one needs to rigorously examine the originally published scientific article to come to a definitive conclusion, but again, from that representation, the numbers don't seem remotely realistic to me, and the assumptions are too simple and gross and don't really relate to vegetarianism, but an imaginative and unnecessary application of veganism. you can see a summary of various criticisms here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Debate_over_animals_killed_in_crop_harvesting

again, I don't really buy Davis' numbers and assumptions, but besides all that, I don't think it takes rocket science to see the ethical difference between systematically raising animals in torture conditions for the purpose of eventually killing and eating them, and killing animals accidentally and unintentionally while farming. There's also a potential for technology to be steered into the direction of causing less animals deaths while farming and numerous other things like stopping eating beyond ones needs and degrowth in human population on the planet etc. Everything is connected.

I forgot sexy?  Yes, indeed.

Thanks for the correction, @HessianWarrior.  Must add that to my compendium of insatiables.

P.S., I had no idea that people were this touchy about Veggies.  Wow.

Now the choice of using a Sicilian Defense versus a Modern Defense when playing black, that I can understand.  Clearly, that's a life and death issue.  

Thanks for the link phil'.  It's quite interesting. 

I found this particularly thought provoking:

'Matheny argued that vegetarianism "likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."^[135]

^{I guess he's saying that the life of a field mouse is worth living while the life of a domestic cow is not.}

^{That strikes me as particularly arbitrary.  I'd much rather live the life of one of the cattle I keep--granted, I don't run a feed lot; rather, a small beef herd.  My cattle aren't confined to small pens and spend their time grazing in the summer months--than a field mouse.  Some of my cattle are more than fifteen years old, always have plenty to eat, and can find shelter if they so desire.}

^{You won't find a field mouse who lives anywhere near that long, nor one who isn't constantly searching for food.  Judging from human tendencies, I'd find it difficult to believe anyone who told me they would fore-go the security of the cattle for the "freedom" of the mouse.}

I also take issue with the obvious appeal to emotion in this sentence,       "focusing on numbers rather than including in his calculations the harm done to animals raised for food, which can involve pain from branding, dehorning and castration, a life of confinement, transport without food or water to a slaughterhouse, and a frightening death."

Branding isn't all that widespread anymore.  I've never branded a critter.  Eartags probably hurt as much as smacking your thumb with a hammer.  The animal's reaction to it surely wouldn't lead anybody to believe the animal is in great pain, and it's bloodless.  Dehorning and castration are pretty much painless too, nowadays.  Granted, if dehorning isn't done when the animal is very young it is rather painful, I assume, from all the blood and thrashing around that goes on.  That's an indictment of individual farming practice.

It's nice to actually learn the nuts and bolts behind vegetarian philosophy, rather than the emotional driven nonsense I usually hear.  Thanks phil'.

Oh, one thing I forgot.  I think the horror of being chopped in twain by a metal disc would be much worse than the quick death of a bullet in the brain.

We're glad you cleared that up.  Tough choices for some people?  Apparently.

Wow! Great advice, thanks very much.

Thank you as well. I should say, this is my first-ever vegetarian argument with someone, yay! :) Joking aside, I'm really not read up on all the facts. If in fact vegetarian nutrition causes more animal suffering and has no quickly feasible potential for decreasing that to lower levels than omnivorious eating, I would get back to eating meat. But given the current state of affairs in human food consumption, somehow I just can't see how that could be true and the Davis article that has been mentioned seemed far from convincing to me.

dehorning, castration, confinement etc. to me just seem like any other act against freedom, physical integrity etc. Imagine that being done to any people you dearly love by some more advanced extra-terrestrial life form that suddenly comes and utterly dominates the planet earth, and try to explain to yourself what makes it OK to regard any other animal differently in their rights and freedom etc. Castrated animals would have liked to have orgasms just like humans, they would prefer their ears not to be pierced, they would prefer not to die with knifes cutting their throat etc. These things don't require much arguing, really. They just go without saying. The question is again, whether humans have to do things like that or not. For the most part, it seems not, so they should not.

about "the horror of being chopped in twain by a metal disc would be much worse than the quick death of a bullet in the brain," I agree with this, and think that we as a species should work on technology that reduces that to a minimum. However, you should remember most animals that are raised for eating die in and spend their whole lives in horrible conditions.

@skull'

It ain't my life's work.  It's a lifestyle choice.  I like to know where my food comes from, and I do.  Do you?

The moral implications?  The big difference between my philosophy and that of vegans/vegetarians, as far as I can tell, is that I don't have a gradation of the value of life between species.

I don't think a human's life is, inherently, more valuable than the life of a cucumber.  I don't think it's more cruel to kill something with eyes than without.  I recognize the inherent cruelty in the natural world.

About the "you would rather be herded" dig:  are vegetarians/vegans also against humans having pets?  Again, I'd rather spend my life as one of my cattle, doing pretty much what I please inside the fenced 160 acres provided for me than be a city dwellers pet, waiting anxiously all day for my human to come home to take me for my 20 minute walk outside.

@ phil':

"However, you should remember most animals that are raised for eating die in and spend their whole lives in horrible conditions."

This is troubling, and likely, true.  It's one of the reasons I grow my own meat.  I get that it is impractical for all, particularly urban dwellers, to be able to do such a thing. 

In two posts, you've done more to soften my edges toward "ethical vegeterianism" than all the red faced hippie chicks I've ever talked to.

I think this is true for poultry. I don't think it's true for cattle, pigs, sheep....

Unless meat farming practices in South Africa is vastly different from other places.

In the meantime, my digestive system is perfectly suited to ingest and digest meat. I'm not gonna argue with nature....

thanks, and you made me realize I should be better read-up on this stuff.

about having pets, i do have a domestic cat and I need to think about what you said. the first line of defense on my part would be that picking up some kitten from the street that will most likely feed from human wastes and lack enough shelter from cold and die from dehydration, malnutrition or under some car, or some dog staying in poor conditions in some animal shelter and take good care of her and love her is not bad for their well-being. Buying one from petshops and contributing to the international animal market, though, is bad I think. 

about valuing the life of some being over another: maybe I could agree with you on the life of a cucumber being equally valuable with the life of a human being (not sure, though, I need to think more about it), however, this idea seems more relevant to me for this discussion: I think, with everything else being equal, cutting an animal's throat is more cruel than chopping a vegetable because vegetables don't have a nervous system and don't experience feelings, suffering and pain etc. in any way that is comparable to the way animals do. 

Nobody (I think) keeps a pet because they want to save some stay from horrible conditions on the streets. Our motive for keeping pets are selfish, and in most cases its a simbiotic relationship.

There are animals that have been domesticated for millenia, there is no more place for them in nature, and rightly so.

If we have no more use for domestic animals (pets, or slaughter animals) we will have to exterminate them.

skull'=typical, hysterical individual who has lived a life insualted from the natural world.

phil'=atypical, pragmatic individual who pays attention to the world around him/her.