Are there persuasive reasons why people should not eat meat?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

I agree, Nick. It'll be great to activate a sub-issues functionality on a lot of our stands. At any rate, I like how this is currently phrased.

I like this issue as is... i like that when the "sub-issues" functionality is back in place, we can ask people that say "yes" a list of checkboxes along the line of:

Please should not eat meat for the following reasons:
[x] bad for health
[x] Killing animals for food is not a good idea even though not doing so would disrupt the food chain and represent a gross manipulation of nature by the liberal ignorati.
[x] etc.

Good issue, as revised.

issue prior to revisions:

I like viz's suggestion a lot. So much, in fact …

That works for me, vizinertia.

I'm with esperanto, up to a point.

There are various types of people. Most of us eat meat, at least some of the time. Some don't ever eat meat, for health, religious, philosophical, environmental, or other reasons. For the most part, I don't think those who eat meat are trying to talk others into doing so, and probably there are lots of non-meat eaters who don't care if others indulge. To all such people, there is no "should." Do whatever you want.

But there are some people who don't eat meat who wish to proselytize their view. I think in proposing the issue, this is the group we're focusing upon. Are their reasons for not eating meat valid? 

I'm not in love with the wording, but I think what we're getting at is: "Are there persuasive reasons why people should not eat meat?" We could of course then try to pin down the different reasons, "No, because 1; no, because 2," but we seem to box ourselves into a corner when we do that. So I'd just leave it:

"Are there persuasive reasons why people should not eat meat?" Options are Yes or No. Of course, those who say yes will probably give one of the various reasons, but that can go into the commentary.

I know what you mean about the "should"s!  I have that problem a lot, too.

Hmm.

Maybe, "Which dietary choice is best?"
-  Omnivore
-  Vegetarian
-  Vegan
-  Ovo-lacto whatever
-  Fruitarian (I just encountered this one)

ugh this could get long couldn't it?

I've started to dislike these "should" issues. The affirmative answer sounds too prescriptive, because the implied addendum "if they want to" doesn't always translate.

In this particular case, the prescriptive aspect is not necessarily a problem, we just have to be aware of it. If a public figure's answer is, "People should eat meat," it means in a perfect world they would outlaw vegetarianism. Certainly some people would say that, but it's not exactly the point we're going for here, I don't think.

It works better the other way, "People should NOT eat meat." That tends to always be how "should" issues work.

Alternate suggestion: Is meat an [important/necessary/whatever] part of a healthy diet? (I prefer 'important,' I think 'necessary' is too high a standard.)

I think this has the advantage of not talking about what people should or should not eat. If you don't eat meat or advocate not eating it, then clearly you don't think it's necessary or important. If you do, you do, but you're not taking a position that excludes one's right to be a vegetarian.

Not sure which approach is preferable here.

i'm fine with this issue.

I think there's plenty of moral/ethical/philosophical debate over this issue. It may not have broad appeal for everyone, but I think it's basically relevant, interesting and debatable. THoughts?