Phage

My Argument for Meat:

1) As has already been noted, the only way to determine if something experiences pain is the response it has; if it struggles or tries to prevent damage then it can be called pain. Humans and animals experience pain by these standards, as well as plants. Obviously we are going to have to kill and cause pain to something or we will starve.

2) Everything alive feels pain, and some of it has to die for us to live. What is it going to be? Choosing randomly would be a method of last resort, and would result in waste (and today we choose... sea cucumber. Everyone grab a bowl!). This brings us to a good method of deciding what we should eat: Is it tasty/efficient/otherwise good to eat? Obviously we should pick stuff that we can grow/raise well, and like to eat rather than something that is difficult to get and nasty when we do. We should note that we are not judging the pain of these groups to be more or less than any other.

3) Different people can have different ideas on balancing the killing with their enjoyment/gain. When you really think about it, eating algea and eating meat do not differ in numbers all that much.

Yakk

What you call 'fruit' isn't what exists in nature, for the most part. Humanity bread most of the fruits we eat from much smaller, less sweet original lines.

Eating fruit is like breeding an animal to have a useless limb, cutting it off, and eating it for meat.

Really, to be certain, we should make a creature that wants and enjoys being eaten, and is intelligent enough to articulate it. (STR)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

shakran

Care for a bit of my liver? It's very tender - I've been force feeding myself for months. I'll just nip off and shoot myself - don't worry, I'll be very humane.

skier

I think you missed my argument. The actions of the cat are related to species survival, although at first glance it may seem the cat is just cruelly playing. Anyways this argument was just me pondering on stuff- it's not really related to the second argument.




Slow down there. I never said animals don't feel pain, and a lot more besides. I've just come to terms that it is natural to eat them. We're at the top of the food chain. Any (meat eating) animal, given the chance, would eat humans if they made it to the top. If they don't, it would be because we taste bad, not because they would have a moral directive not to eat us.

Things die. Sometimes quickly and humanely, and sometimes slowly and painfully. I think that since we have the capacity for empathy, we should end the life of our prey as painlessly as possible. But not to just stop eating them because it reminds us of that dog we had when we were growing up. You know the one- it "ran away" when it was old, blind, and started shitting on the carpet.

__________________
"Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

Yakk

Re-reading, I didn't answer this enough.

First, the reaction of other people to the act is has impact on it's morality.

Second, if that newborn grows into an intelligent being who is affected by the abuse, there is harm.

Third, I could concieve of a situation where a mother kills a newborn infant, and has done nothing morally wrong, as far as I am concerned.

My apologies for being overly flippant in my initial response.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

shakran

In that case, we are in complete agreement!

Justsomeguy

The maddox link is a nice one. The problem you run into with this argument is that no one really cares. If you want to convert someone to not eat meat, then encourage them to take a class on parasites. If nothing else, people may eat less pork and fish and make sure they cook their steaks well!

I saw a poll on CNN.com asking whether people felt that lobsters felt pain when boiled alive. I don't understand why CNN would ask such a dumbass question! Wait, yes I do. Questions like this are stupid because of course it will feel pain. If someone boiled you alive, would you thank them? The real question should be whether you care if it feels pain. I don't care.

Really to even address issues like this, you can't try to define what pain is. You would have to break it down to several biological characteristics such as the animal's nervous structure.

The real problem with your arguments in the original post is not the logic. The problem is that your arguments are unrealistic. Honestly, it's just a naive way of thinking. The reason for this is how do you define wrong? Just one example is that there has been many advances in understanding genetics. How can you say something that benefits all of mankind be views as morally wrong? Also, how about the use of cow insulin being made illegal? Alot of people are allergic to synthetic insulin.

Now, if you're wanting to eliminate aspects of puppy farms where puppies are mistreated, I doubt many people will disagree with you.

John Henry

I'm afraid so, yes. The reason that evolution is amoral is that morality is merely an artefact of evolution.

Morality is something we have evolved because it perpetuates our own genes by helping to perpetuate the genes of our relatives. Although we are able to use our critical faculties to dissect, analyse and discuss morality, it remains a biological trait. The reason that racism is generally immoral is that killing or otherwise disadvantaging other members of our species, except where it would disadvantage us not to do so, is not fit behaviour. That is to say it is not beneficial to the human genome. Killing other species does not have the same detrimental effect.

The extension of human empathy to non-domestic animals is nothing but a neurosis (albeit a rather endearing one)

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

kiaora

I can't see that the point about 'pain' is very strong because they will probably feel a worse, slow pain if they died naturally.

All I can say is that it is Gods earth and Jesus ate meat.

Amnesia620

Reading this, Tecoyah, I agree that I will also starve since I cannot bring myself to kill an animal, either. However...on second thought...I wouldn't starve...but I would miss it while I eat my salad...

__________________
For example, I find that a lot of college girls are barbie doll carbon copies with few differences...Sadly, they're dumb, ditzy, immature, snotty, fake, or they are the gravitational center to orbiting drama. - Amnesia620

John Henry

Ah, you mean like intensive farming?

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

Scheme

I believe in the harm principle, but I also think that experimenting on animals is wrong.

I don't know if everyone knows about the harm principle but it basically means that Any right adult of a civilized community can make a choice without interference by another except when it affects others or if the harm of interfering is lower than the original harm.

This means that eating meat, I don't tend to find bad, infact I love the taste of a nice roast or a big juicy peice of steak, because when I'm eating this I'm not putting anyone in harm (physical, psychological or indirect), sure vegetarians may not like it, but if they interfere i believe that the harm of their interference is worse than the harm of me eating the meat in the first place, because they are pretty much volunteering to be a vegetarian.

Killing animals on the other hand (and scientific testing on them) i think is wrong. I believe that interference in someone killing an animal is ok, this is because people tend to be psychologically and emotionally attached to animals, no matter if it's a random cow in the middle of the paddock, people (like my self) think it's morrally wrong, therefore interfering is allowed because it is affecting other people than just the person commiting the act.

(sorry if this doesnt make sence, I'm typing stuff down as I think it hehe)

__________________

Sitting at home, what am I doing?
Boy waitng by the phone
Alone, jealous and stoned

nofnway

you have no rights but the ones we give you.....animals have no rights but for the ones we give them. Faced with a lion there are no rights but the ones he gives me or that I can assert. Absent an underlying framework (ie. religion) might makes right.

I'm hungry...I'm tired of wheat.....why not an antelope steak. what's stopping me.

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

ronan

oh man, sorry, i'm serioulsy not reading any replies before i post. i just want to say i disagree with you, and that your suggestions for "possible objections" seem like obviously stupid objections.

We need to eat. What would you do if you were hungry?? i personally believe the only reason there are vegetarians, is because people are too picky - you do that, great.

What do you suggest i eat? plants? have they no feelings? do they not feel pain? did we not evolve to eat them? did they live good lives? are they not intelligent? is it okay to conduct experiments on them because it benefits humans??

think.

__________________
i am enlightened

betula

Great read iamnormal, and that's from my University! Cool beans.

We must then reject a great deal of our cultural and societal advances so that we do not bring suffering upon any sentient creature. We cannot build/pave large expanses of land because of the suffering and killing it does to numerous creatures. We cannot use chemicals that may cause damage to creatures. We cannot turn animal habitat into farmable land because this is again hurting the animals. In fact, just about everything we do in life is somehow going to negatively affect some animal somewhere.

liquidlight

It's a bit simplistic, and forgive the religious reference but I've always summed up the gist of this argument with the following:

If God hadn't intended for the crows to eat the grasshoppers, he would have given the grasshoppers shotguns so the crows wouldn't fuck with them.

At it's basic form all I'm saying is that the differentiation between lower animals and humans is that regardless of their capacity for feeling or understanding pain, they lack the cognizance to do anything about it. Humans are afforded certain rights because they can fight for them and they earned them (no going back to babies doesn't change that, a child given 15 years will gain the capacity to represent itself, no matter how old the cow is it will still just stand there), until that cow can tell me that it doesn't WANT me to eat it I'm going to continue to enjoy it's meat. I don't feel there is a moral situation here owing to the fact that through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution all that's really occurred is that these animals have become easier to consume, and yes I understand that they are bred that way, however; they niether recognize their peril, or attempt to avoid it, until they are already dying.

As for the experimentation on animals, most cosmetic experimentation is done on rodents, or on animals that are very well treated because the results are highly valuable to the institution or organization conducting the experiments. You seem to have overlooked one underlying fact with your accusation that these experiments are preformed for nothing more than curiosity and that is that the type of testing that you describe is by nature and situation very precise and usually very expensive. Even grant programs that require relatively little investment from the person performing the work are closely guarded by the committees that present them owing to amount of investment that is related! Though if you do happen to know someone that is willing to give me money just so I can screw around and satisfy my curiousity about some things I'd love to hvae their number, I'm curious as to what the effect would be of having somebody pay all my bills so I can sit on my ass all day for years.

TheShadow

I came into this thread hoping for an open discussion on the matter. However, it appears that it's just somebody [CSfilm] stating his opinions on a matter, not allowing for any sort of debate where he is willing to give value to a reasoned statement from the meateating side. So, with this said, I'm going to say what I was planning on earlier, but I won't expect any sort of interesting dialogue to evolve from it.

First of all, CSFilm, you make hypocritical statements - you essentially say 'animal feel pain, because I know they do', then turn around saying 'plants don't feel pain, I know they don't'. You cannot assume either the former or the later! Sure the animals may react to being hit, but they may not consciously understand that they are in pain.

Also, what's to say that killing animals is wrong? It's simply a construct of reality that you've created for yourself! You have no ability to judge, in the objective manner, what is right and what's wrong. You act as if you are the supreme authority [looking at your title under your name really proves this notion], and that you are right, even when proven wrong! Don't you place any value in the betterment of humans? Curing cancer and other diseases at the cost of some monkeys and white rats is a small price to pay, don't you think? If not, we might as well just stop eating!

__________________
You know that song that goes like...

n0nsensical

No, it's not absolutely necessary to eat meat, but are you really going to argue that not eating meat is healthier? Cows as a species would probably not even exist if they weren't useful; we would have forced their nondomesticated ancestors into extinction long ago. How did these animals get domesticated in the first place? It wasn't because humans wanted them as pets. From the very beginning we've been killing and eating them. They became domesticated because it was BETTER for them to be cared for by humans for some number of years, bred, and killed instead of fending for themselves in the wild and then dying anyway in less time because they starved or got eaten by a wolf or something. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Animals do not value living a long and full life like humans do. They simply want to eat and reproduce as much as possible before dying (which is also a goal of humans of course). There are a hell of a lot more cows and chickens on the planet than there would be without us and they probably live longer than they would wild. From nature's point of view, that is success.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

John Henry

Perhaps next time you decide to respond with such vitriol to a thread, you should consider reading at least the initial post first, rather than just the thread title. If you find you can cope with that, then maybe you should have a go at reading the whole thread. That way, you would see that what CSFlim has actually done here is tried to engage in objective philosophical debate (an activity which is apparently becoming increasingly alien to this forum). Had you managed to read anything more than one sentence before responding, you would have seen that CSflim actually disagrees with the sentiment expressed in the thread title and is merely trying to establish what distinguishes racism from "speciesism".

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

kramus

Plants are more than you realize. Studies of desert shrubs in the American west show that when a bush becomes infested with bugs its system starts producing a greater quantity of toxic and noxious resins and exhalations, which insects tend to avoid, what with their small bodies (and don't forget their defenseless eggs which do not tolerate high quantities of toxic substances either). The interesting thing is that non-infested shrubs within miles of the buggy ones also begin to produce these specialized substances, and the relationship between wind pattern and bush defense system activation was apparently rather well correlated.

An incidental byproduct of having delicate electrical sensors on tobacco plants in a controlled testing environment showed that the plants developed an interesting reaction to the morning visit of the quality assurance man. He would cut a sample from each plant and burn it in an analyzing device for, well, analyzing them I guess. Anyway, the timing of the mans approach (governed by the clock, probably a good due paying union man) resulted in a very high rate of activity in the plants, and this went on until the test was over and he left the room. The rest of the day they were calm.

There is a lot to be said on the other questions as well, but I better read this thread and see if I double posted someone elses response here before I blather any more.

__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ...
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

Sweetpea

* bump for an interesting thread.

Sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

cellophanedeity

I go to school with an economic vegitarian. He intends on going into political economics, or something like that, and his reasoning for his vegitarianism is not because of morals or ethics, but because eating animals is not economically sound.

He suggests that it costs at least twice as much for beef for the same amount of soy. First, you need to feed the cow. You'll likely feed the cow soy. Lots and lots of soy. Perhaps, a cow's weight in soy? Then the cost of the land to grow this cows weight of soy on. Then the workers for the soy. Then the workers for the cow.

It makes sense to me, even if I can't (or haven't bothered, one or the other) verify the truths.

Phage

This is a sound argument; energy conversions result in energy loss so if we want to get the most efficient sunlight-to-food ratio we need to start with something that derives energy directly from sunlight, e.g. a plant. Of course I can quote directly from a Steak 'n Shake commercial that asks "When was the last time you said "Mmm, that tastes 'efficient'?"."

Additionally while plants might be energy efficient it might be a significant pain to have a balanced diet from nothing but plants; humans are omnivores so our bodies are designed to take nutrition from both meat and plants so cutting meat out completely requires a carefully controlled diet to replace their nutritional value. While it is possible for plants to replace meat it is probably more convenient to just eat a chunk of cow every so often rather than worry about your legume intake. It turns into a tradeoff between your time and the cow's time, which is most easily measured in money in our capitalist society. Which diet type is the cheapest?

astrahl

I have been a vegetarian for 16 years. A real vegetarian too, fish and chicken aren't vegetables. I turned because I have a problem, morally, eating animals when other, viable options are available. People continue to eat animals not because they have too, but rather because they like the taste. People ask me, what if you were stranded on a desert island and you HAD to eat meat to survive...well, I would still try living off of bark and sand before I had to eat Spot or Bessy or Mr. Ed. Even then, I dont know.

I am all about the zen of treating animals with the same respect as I treat humans. I don't kill roaches or spiders or ants. I don't think human life is inherently more valuable than animal life.

But, I work in scientific research. I do have a continuing dilemma with animals in research. My husband works on animals...but while I have that animal-side of the argument, I also have this logic going on that tells me that things like Tylenol and aspirin were tested on animals and if I were against such things, I'd have to eschew even the most common of medications based on principle.

Although I would prefer that all experimentation happens on humans, what about medications and treatments for other animals? It is such a tough call. As part of my MS degree, I was going to use bunnies to develop an antibody to a particular virus protein I was studying. When I learned that they kill the bunnies afterwards and that I couldn't adopt them, I refused to complete the research. I still got the degree, but my analysis lacks that antibody proof, etc.

I don't expect anybody to convert or buy into my beliefs, to each his/her own...which is why I get so upset when people attack MY choices for myself. It is like they have to justify why they do what THEY do by attacking my beliefs.

So I think people eat animals not because they HAVE to, but because they like to. I really think that that is a lazy point of view. Raising and killing another life because you wanna - rubs me the wrong way. But, like I said, that is a decision I have made for my life. I can sit at a table with my husband while he demolishes chicken wings or ribs or whatever else...I don't judge. Besides, more and more evidence suggests that the less meat in your diet, the better.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

cellophanedeity

Well, legumes are also cheaper than meat most of the time. Really, it takes much more time to cook steak than beans? Also, you can get pretty much everything in soy now, even balogna and ground "beef."

He's also not against eating eggs and dairy. Chickens can lay eggs for quite a while, and cows can give milk for a while too. They can produce more of these things in a full lifetime than they can provide meat in exchange for a shorter period.

It's sorta like saying that recycling isn't worth the time and effort... maybe.

wdevauld

I think you got it quite right here. I grew up on a small farm, mainly raising cattle, pigs and chickens. It was a lifestyle for us, and we made our living from it. As such, the first two decades of my life I was fed meat two to tree times a day.

I really do enjoy eating many different varieties of meat, and do so regularily. I also know that too much meat in your diet is a problem. Having to push 32oz of steak through your digestive tract is not a fun thing. A portion of meat is 6-8oz and most standard food guides recommend 2-3 servings a day of meat or their substitutes.

Where I start to get infuriated is when others force their opinions upon me. I'm not going to convert, so don't even try. I don't go around preaching 'Thou shalt eat MEAT' so don't get on my case when I'm enjoying a chicken sandwich. When other people attempt to force their views and beliefs upon me, I get real defensive. Both sides of the fight have their own facts/half-truths for every aspect of this argument. When you bring this sort of thing up when someone is eating, you are only looking for a fight. Stop being an asshole and just let it go.

In a forum on the other hand, shoot from the hip and take no prisoners!

__________________
As soon as you stop living, you start dying....

astrahl

My mom grew up like that, in Puerto Rico. Even though I don't eat meat, rarely eat eggs and never drink milk, I often wonder what it would have been like to have the freshest possible milk and eggs.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

Phage

I wasn't talking about the cost of the components of the diet, but about the overall cost. Suppose a restaurant has two evenly priced meals, one with meat and the other without; while they might cost the same the overall nutrition is probably not the same. To give you an example from nature look at cows and tigers. The cow, being an herbivore, spends all day grazing on plants. The tiger on the other hand would make a kill every 8 or so days (6-5 with 2 cubs) and pretty much sleep or whatever the rest of the time.

Why is this? Overall, feeding a population can be done efficiently with plants but for the individual it is more convenient to eat meat sometimes.

astrahl
I hope I don't seem to be attacking your beliefs about animals; while I don't share your views, if you are not trying to press them on others then there is no reason to argue. Every person has the right to choose their own diet and do not really need to divulge their reasons for their choices.

Borgs

I think that this thread assumes that animals have to suffer to be killed for consumption. I can gurantee that you feel no pain from a bullet to the head (or many other forms of euthanization). Certainly animals suffer during the slaughtering process, and I am all for ending thier suffering and killing them in a way that they feel no pain. So then I guess the question would be, "Is killing animals for our consumption humane?" Whether or not we can label it humane, it is how the world works. Before we came along this happened. It will undoubtebly happen after we are gone. Besides, even if we had the means to end the "suffering" of animals through our unnaturaly devilish consumption, I would have to wonder where our values lie as much of our own species is currently suffering.

doodlebird

check out your local farmer's market. they're likely to have farm fresh eggs.

and as for the economic / efficient arguement, here's my point of view. yes, it's more environmentally sustainable to eat only grains and beans and the like. or rather, there is less impact on the grain supply. it takes more energy to "grow" a cow. thus, beef is more expensive, and WORTH EVERY PENNY! i'm ok with paying up $15 / pound for top quality rib eye or porterhouse. because it freakin' tastes good. period.

should we stop making sauces and stocks as well? we're just evaporating away all that perfect good liquid! it's to concentrate the flavors. mmmmm, and for me, beef is the same idea - just flavor concentration. take the yumminess of grain, multiply it by 10, and viola! beef.

__________________
xoxo
doodle

cellophanedeity

The problem is that humans don't seem to work this way. We can't just have one serving of meat a week, then be done with it, no matter how large the portion size is. Though it may be a bit more complicated to just eat protine infused foods throughout the day. (such as soy cereal with breakfast, eggs with lunch and tofu with dinner) I believe (though, I may be wrong here) that it also adds energy throughout the day instead of in one big lump.

Phage

I didn't say that did I? All I am pointing out is that meats are concentrated nutrients and can be much more convenient rather than trying to strategically plan your meals.

astrahl

Not entirely true. Meat is mostly just protein and iron. Any vegetarian meal I eat on a daily basis has the nutrients I need. I don't plan my meals at all. I hate even thinking about planning food combinations.

I think that the very fact of BEING a vegetarian gives you so many more items to try that more than satisfy the RDAs for most people. When people eat meat, it is the main dish, the focus of the meal. Because veggie people don't have that focus, there can be more/different items on the plate that, in all likelihood, more than compliment eachother nutrition-wise.

Take last night's meal, for example. My husband and I went to a new Mediterranean restaurant (as part of our Wed night tradition of trying a new restaurant). He had a chicken swarma or something and his plate came with two piles of meat and a couple of sauces. I had a vegetarian plate and had, moussaka, a lentil and rice dish, hummus, falafel, dolmas and some greens. I had no doubt that my meal was more healthful and more nutrient rich than his.

On the whole, it is my firm belief that vegetarian meals are far more varied and healthy than meat based meals.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

wdevauld

Hmmmm, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Vegetarian meals are, by definition, a subset of what an omnivoir would eat. I too could have moussaka, a lentil and rice dish, hummus, falafel, dolmas and some greens, but with a big fat, loaded with iron steak right in the middle. You can't tell me you have more variety when you have less choices.

I agree that meat is generally the focus of the meal. No one orders garlic mashed potatoes with a side of roast. This is probably because the meat is worth the focus; it is loaded with most of the nutrients I need and tastes really good. I can see your point about a meal plate generally not having a lot of variety in what comes with it, but that is a problem with the cook/chef not with the fact that meat is on the plate.

__________________
As soon as you stop living, you start dying....

astrahl

Thanks Lumberg,

My point is that at any given meal, a vegetarian platter is 99 times out of 100, more healthful than a carnivore's plate.

And out of the thousands of veggie choices, taking away cow, lamb, fish, seafood, pork, rabbit, deer...that's just 7 less choices...

I didn't become a vegetarian for the healthful side of the equation so I can't really argue it properly, I have found after so many years that a vegetarian lifestyle is easy and very tasty.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

Mantus

The problem with North American diets isn't meat, but how much meat and how it's prepared. We eat way too much meat around here. I bet most people will have a 1/3 of every dish they eat during the day consist of some sort of meat product. The human body simply doesn't need that much proteen and meat is very easy to "extend" by using other food that soaks up the flavour. Then there is the issue of how we preapare it, making our dishes terribly unhealthy. Vegetarian dishes are generally more healthy not because they comprise of vegitables but because more though has been put into their preperation.

From a moral perspective I have no issue with killing animals to eat them. Animals die all the time to get eaten. People who compare animals to humans are backing up the wrong tree. There is no natural law which says killing is wrong. There is an agreed upon social contract which says killing humans is wrong. Such an agreement is pretty damn beneficial to our society don't you think? When it comes to animals such as cats and dogs, which we take on as pets and thus grow emotionaly attached too; we have yet another social agreement. We accept these animals into our homes, as part of our lives and obviously that requires emotional attachment thus making it traumatic if we killed them and ate them. Sure you can take in a goat or a cow as a pet, and yes I bet you would grow attached enough to them or even their whole species to not be able to eat them, it's part of our emotional bond after all. I have no issue with people not eating meat though, if it floats your boat, take the ride.

xddga

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

(taken from Disgustapeted by Tool off the Undertow album)

Sorry, but I had to toss it provided the topic.

qualhiveldorf

For those who say that at our current point in technological innovation meat is no longer needed and other methods are better / more effective. What about Eskimos? They have basically no other way of getting nutrition besides meat and fish. To those of you who say "They can just move or import their food", How would you like to move to a new place and not be able to eat your native diet?

To those who suggested economic vegetarianism, it makes perfect sense if the cows are eating soy or other grains which could instead be fed to humans but what about plants that humans cannot eat and other animals can. Is it not effective to turn clover and grass into edible meat?

To those of you who argue that animals deserve better treatment. I fully agree that animals need to be treated more humanely but how about we focus on the horrors that humans are doing to other humans, humans have generally been far more brutal to other humans than to animals. Just consider which is more valuable a human life or an animal's life?

And finally to those who say that meat is bad for you, just consider that all meat comes from plants, plants that even if we could eat, it would require us to eat gigantic amounts to get the equivalent nutrition as that of meat compounded by the fact that we are not phisiologically capable of properly digesting the myriad of plants that other animals can eat.

sixate

There's too much I'd like to say so I'll keep is short and sweet. How much do you wanna bet that the same people who want tell me/meat eaters what we should eat are the same ones that bitch that the government is trying to control them too much? Yet it's OK for a veg-head to tell me what I can or can't eat. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. At least my government lets me shove any kind of food I want down my throat.

astrahl

Well, your first point is a very biased question...it is hard to have an objective opinion about the choice since you ARE one of the two choices...a very species-centric question. Ask a human which is more important, another human or a blue whale. Ask a blue whale which is more important, another blue whale or a human. The point is, that ALL life is important and if you don't have to make that choice, you don't have to. I have chosen to eat in such a way as to avoid that choice and I feel the better for it.

Your second point about the food chain is almost right. Meat CAN be bad for you because the toxins in plants are concentrated in the flesh (think DDT). Meat also is contaminated with fats, hormones and some transmissible diseases. We are capable of digesting plants, why do people eat salad? Humans NEED plant food in order to maintain a healthy digestive tract. Just look at REAL carnivores...our relatives, the apes. They have the dentition that suggests a more meat based diet but a large part of their diet is plants.

You can go on and on about how we are physiologically structured and our lifestyles and what not, but humans, in this country especially, eat meat because they like the taste. The animals, the health of the food and the economics are NON-issues with them. At least OWN it.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha