Eating meat & experimenting on animals is wrong. - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 06-30-2005, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrahl

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.

This is basiclly wrong. The great apes eat less meat than we do (traditionaly and modern times) and some species are 100% vegitarian.

One theory why humans are intelligent is that switching to a meat based diet allowed us to support the larger brains. Vegitarianism is a very new concept for humans, and has only been supportable on a mass scale, in any sort of healthy manner in modern times.(past populations have been vegitarians by circumstance and they had health issues because of it).

Mephisto2 · 06-30-2005, 07:12 AM

Humans are, by nature, omnivores.

It is, generally speaking, healthier to eat a mixture of vegetables, fruit and meat. Modern man (ie, [i]Homo Sapiens[i]) has recently, in the past 20,000 years, dramatically increased the amount of meat in our diet. But it is not true to say it did not form a fundamental part of our nutrition since time immorial.

Meat is good for you.
But a meat only diet is not.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 06-30-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Humans are, by nature, omnivores.

It is, generally speaking, healthier to eat a mixture of vegetables, fruit and meat. Modern man (ie, [i]Homo Sapiens[i]) has recently, in the past 20,000 years, dramatically increased the amount of meat in our diet. But it is not true to say it did not form a fundamental part of our nutrition since time immorial.

Meat is good for you.
But a meat only diet is not.

Mr Mephisto

I would say we have NOT dramaticly increased the amount of meat in our diet, and we have evolved for a higher meat diet than (until very recently) was 'suppose to' be healthy. Agriculture is a VERY new invention in evolutionary terms.

Quote:

Q: How did early humans cope with exposure to the elements while subsisting on such a limited diet?
A: A limited diet meant that people of the ice age sometimes lacked enough food to stay warm and the right types of food to stay healthy. We don't know much at all about the metabolism and physiology of ice-age people. Modern human populations of the last ice age, beginning 24,000 years ago, probably had inhabited Europe long enough to possess both the bodies and the cultural equipment to withstand the cold as effectively as arctic peoples today.

Archaeological sites show that some northern groups specialized in hunting reindeer, and all groups depended on fatty meat and a careful selection of nontoxic organs from the animals they dispatched. Lean meat is harmful to humans over the long term, since it leads to protein poisoning. But seasonal hunting of well-fed animals probably captured large amounts of fatty meat that could be stored by drying and freezing. Because of huge herds of game animals, the ice-age diet wasn't always limited — but it was constantly full of meat and fat, supplemented seasonally by berries and a few other plants available during the short summers.

Being I am of European stock, these guys were my ansestors.

astrahl · 06-30-2005, 09:43 AM

I found this link to diets pretty interesting, thought I'd share.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-2a.shtml

RusCrimson · 07-04-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

My reasoning behind it is that no matter what you eat to survive, you are killing a living being.

Maybe you could eat rocks and dirt?

Johnny Pyro · 07-04-2005, 11:28 PM

I'm sorry I'd like to get into this thread but I'm late for a veal and baby back rib dinner at "Smokey Bones Bar and Grill." (Best baby back ribs in New England!)

Gatorade Frost · 07-05-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Vegitarianism is a very new concept for humans, and has only been supportable on a mass scale, in any sort of healthy manner in modern times.(past populations have been vegitarians by circumstance and they had health issues because of it).

What do you consider 'modern'? The Hindus have been prety Vegatarian for as long as they've been around as far as I know.

saltfish · 07-07-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Life feeds on life. This is necessary.

/me wonders how many will get this reference...

wdevauld · 07-11-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

One theory why humans are intelligent is that switching to a meat based diet allowed us to support the larger brains.

This post has nothing to do with the quote, I just love it....

The efficiency argument that is used to support a plant based diet, I believe, is quite narrow minded. It is true that there is a lot more energy involved in rasing a cow/pig/succulent lamb than there is just bombarding a carrot with sun and water. But humans have not always lived in this modern age of SUVs, inflating oil prices and mass deforestation. Our ancestors, even as far back as a few centuries ago, did not think of energy efficiency on a global scale. It was much more efficient to snare a rabbit, pit trap a tiger, or frighten a buffalo off a cliff than it was to spend days collecting plant matter. There is no dispute that animals are a much higher source of energy than plants (Especially the juicy, fatty parts). We just decided that it would be better to front end load a few days of effort to have meat for a month, than to spend days and days collecting roots and things hanging from trees. Before we domesticated animals, they were responsible for collecting and storing energy for us by surviving in their environment, we just took advantage of their hard work. It's only since we've had to start paying for energy that people have taken up the argument of efficiency in the foods we eat.

The animal cruelty argument is flawed as well. I grew up on a ranch, and know that the farmers from who we collected grain killed thousands of mice, voles and richardson ground squirrels each year as they harvested their crops. As the grain was passed through a sift you would see body after body fall to the ground into a large pile. This grain was not only being used to feed our cattle, but sent off to be turned into flour and other refined grain products. Vegetarian food is not cruelty free, so stop using this argument.

raeanna74 · 07-11-2005, 01:34 PM

I explain eating meat to my daughter this way.

We do not kill animals for fun. We don't even step on ants purposefully, pull wings off flies, etc. When we eat meat we have obtained it through a process. If I could eat only venison and chicken and obtained the meat myself I would. I eat as much venison as I can.

I do not want animals to suffer. When I hunt I do not shoot to wound and if I have not first killed the animal I will do so as quickly as possible when I find it. My intent is not for it to suffer. If I had a choice to buy a cosmetic product that was somewhat more expensive than a second product but I know that the second product was tested on animals I would buy the first product.

I believe that animals ARE intelligent but that they do not have a certain capacity for compassion and reason that humans do not. To argue that infants are not capable of that is not correct because they have the ability to think. They have not the ability to form it into words for one and they ability has yet to grow to the capacity that adults have. Infants have potential for higher thinking. Animals do not. (I might occaisionally wonder about the Primates but if you follow evolutionary thought you would put them closest to humans in mental ability anyway.)

As for the mentally retarded. The human design is such that these people would have been capable of such compassion and reasoning ability as other humans. The criteria isn't technically INTELLIGENCE but rather that step beyond blind reason and instinct to an empathy for others that animals do not have.

3. We evolved to eat meat. It is natural.
"It does not follow that because something is natural, it is good." No not everything that is natural is good but following the natural flow of things is easier. We are still struggling to "evolve" beyond racism. To ask humans to evolve beyond specisism, I believe, is somewhat beyond our abilities at this time physically and mentally I believe. If you study the design of animals you'll find that some have digestive systems created to process protein such as found in meat. They had teeth designed to eat meat. If they do not eat meat, as animals, they will die. Humans are only just more able to reason and study food to know how to obtain most of the nutrients that we need. The flaw here is that we still do NOT know all that humans need as far as nutrients. Humans cannot yet duplicate the antiseptic/immune benefits of human breast milk. If we cannot do that then who's to say we can create for ourselves the PERFECT meat free diet. I realize many people are vegetarians and manage quite well. I've also known some vegetarians who had numerous health problems even though they had a physician and nutritionist assisting them with their diet.

I must include that I hold to a spiritual aspect to the whole "eating meat" decision so my decision is not based on just the physical aspects.

aberkok · 07-11-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qualhiveldorf

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?

It's not an "either/or" situation. Given that the economic argument is sound, consider how moving towards vegetarianism would help alleviate the problems of overpopulation. I believe that by reducing the ecological footprint required to support a meat-centric diet, we'd be helping our fellow human beings.

kramus · 07-11-2005, 03:07 PM

Excellent Raeanna - I thought you made clear some basic information that really ought to be part of the foundation for any such conversation as this

wdevauld · 07-11-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

It's not an "either/or" situation. Given that the economic argument is sound, consider how moving towards vegetarianism would help alleviate the problems of overpopulation. I believe that by reducing the ecological footprint required to support a meat-centric diet, we'd be helping our fellow human beings.

That's a stretch. I can't see any link between overpopulation and the need for humans to eat meat. Technology has reached a point that we have removed ourselves from the evolutionary chain, no longer do defects (or even stupidity) eliminate unwanted traits from the gene pool. As a matter of fact, those that you don't want breeding are the ones that most often are.

How would not eating animals reduce our ecological footprint? We are natural predators (my eyes are on the front of my head anyway), and we are used to keep other populations in check. Granted the capitalistic desire for gall blatters, claws, talons, tusks, hides and horns have dwindled animal populations. There is a balance that is needed between those who eat and those who are eaten. Many herbivours reproduce at an alarming rate, and predators are needed to keep the populations down. Would we not be reducing the available footprint by allowing animal populations to climb and hense require more space.

If you want to stop overpopulation, use a condom.

Back on topic, eat meat....

muckluck · 07-11-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltfish

/me wonders how many will get this reference...

Tool's Disguspitated? or did that song get it from somewhere else?

astrahl · 07-12-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdevauld

That's a stretch. I can't see any link between overpopulation and the need for humans to eat meat.

Think of the acreage to produce one pound of meat vs produce edible wheat. And if we NEEDED to eat meat...I'd be dead. I've been a vegetarian for 16 years and I have a vegetarian and vegan friends who have lived their whole lives without animal products.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdevauld

Many herbivours reproduce at an alarming rate, and predators are needed to keep the populations down.

Humans have not been part of the natural food web for thousands of years now. We don't curb population growth that way. [/QUOTE]

Don't pretend that you eat meat because you are concerned about herbivore populations.

wdevauld · 07-12-2005, 03:10 PM

I'm not saying that I eat meat because of the need to keep herbbie population down. I eat meat because I like it.

My problem is in the argument that we should stop eating meat because of the 'footprint' that an animal requires to be rasied. What should we do then? Erradicate all cows from the planet so that we can use their space and eat their food. Might as well get rid of the rabbits, chickens and fish while we are at it, because they take up room too, and so does the food they require. If overpopulation of the human race is a problem, deal with overpopulation as the problem, don't push it off to the fact that my food takes up more space than yours.

astrahl · 07-13-2005, 04:45 AM

I think the footprint point is more along the lines of... farmers are grazing their cattle on public lands, which I hate, and destroying acres and acres of land. Foreign farmers destroy natural landscapes to make pasture land.

Commercial production of fish, rabbit and chickens put together wouldn't equal HALF of the land used for cattle (I would bet).

And I really didn't take the vegetarian argument into the overpopulation thing. I'd argue that meat production was more an issue about natural resources-not necessarily space.

I'm really enjoying talking to rational people about this issue instead of a bunch of ...why don't you just eat dirt and rocks if you're so concerned about life-people.

wdevauld · 07-13-2005, 07:20 AM

I'm not telling you to go and eat rocks, I'm asking you to try some steak

This is a timeless debate, and both sides have their arguments, each of which has it's flaws. For instance the space argument can be widened out into animal cruelty. Fish would be the highest density living protein humans manufacture, because we believe them to be 'lesser animals' with primitive brains and don't mind stacking them into fish farms. Everyone has seen or heard of the horrors inside commercial feed lots for cattle and chickens where animals spend their entire lives touching others of the same species. Space is always a premium especially when you need it close to large urban centers to keep down shipping costs. The ranch that I lived on as a boy had only free range cattle and chickens, which I firmly believe to be the only way an animal should be raised.

I've yet to see any free range rancher 'destroying acres and acres of land'

Perhaps you should direct this to the forestry industry. Farmers (who grow grains and grasses) need to have cleared fields over which to run their tractors. Ranchers (who raise animals) are more than happy having their animals in forested areas. Almost all free range ranchers will put their animals out to pasture, which is often forested, mountainous or bogged land. If the farmer has payed the government the money to lease these lands, why does it bother you?

braisler · 07-13-2005, 10:20 AM

I just realized my husband was logged in. The following comments do not come from braisler.

Steak is gross. I remember my mom having to force me to eat "just one more bite" when I was little. Bleech!

I agree that free range is good - for the environment, for the animals and for the quality of foods. I still have a problem with use of public lands because My tax money is going to subsidize a practice I don't believe in. I know our tax money goes towards hundreds of thousands of things we don't believe in, but it is still okay for me to not like it.

There are also those farmer/ranchers etc who complain about the natural predators in the areas they are raising their "crop" on. Shooting wolves and foxes and other natural predators is so reprehensible.

I truly do not have a problem with the free range idea. I still don't like the idea of animals being used as food, but at least they aren't chained down in a pen or suffering (besides the death sequence - which is a conversation I will avoid).

I really think there are so many negatives when it comes to eating meat - especially now with the hormones they use and the nvCJD that, I believe, is possibly transmissible to humans. Too many cons and not enough pros.

You know, while writing this and thinking more about it...I don't really think I would have any problem with people eating meat if they were to do it in moderation. The problem, though, is that people eat meat with EVERY meal. Breakfast lunch and dinner...why not dessert? I think people, Americans especially, WAY overdo with their meat consumption. If meat were a special thing you treated yourself to once in a while, the overall effects would be better for all involved.

-astrahl

fatmanforprez · 07-13-2005, 10:20 PM

Okay I hate to break this to you but it is quite simple. Cosmically speaking we may be morally bankrupt for eating animals, however to tell the truth I dont give a rats ass. The reason I don't eat humans is because they arent available in the supermarket, and i dont wana do life to learn how they taste. Canabalism is an out dated taboo, but this isnt the issue at hand so lets get back to it. Animals are incapable of exacting retributon (and I dont have to kill them myself), especially not in the sense that I am hurting "feelings". When I get down to it it is a case of humans I have to live with and care about, animals just taste soooo damn good. MY big point being I dont care if its right to the animals, when they can complain I will stop, when i have an perticular animal I care about I will stop, if I was to have a serious relationship with one I would stop. Short of that nothing.

Now to nitpick you mention killing infants and the retarded and to make my point clear thats not the right picture, lets talk about eating healthy capable adult humans, somehting which I would attempt if it didnt cause problems with other humans (which can bring forth retribution, see my barbaric point here).

Now mind you this isn't a troll post I didnt call you stupid I just said I dont have any incentive to care, cause even the effective arguments against omnivorism (I hope thats a word) which includes yours, are neccesarily something which require me to take an incentive in caring, one which I dont plan on taking.

Ustwo · 07-14-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by braisler

You know, while writing this and thinking more about it...I don't really think I would have any problem with people eating meat if they were to do it in moderation. The problem, though, is that people eat meat with EVERY meal. Breakfast lunch and dinner...why not dessert? I think people, Americans especially, WAY overdo with their meat consumption. If meat were a special thing you treated yourself to once in a while, the overall effects would be better for all involved.

-astrahl

One persons perversion is anothers lifestyle.

Most major European nations eat just a tad less meat than Americans, so you can drop that part of the argument.

Americans eat about 218 pounds a year.
French eat about 203 pounds.
Germans eat about 198 pounds.
I couldn't find a number for the Brits but its listed at 24.2% of their diet.

Added is that Europe was hit harder by the BSE scare than the US and their numbers are still on the rise.

You seem to view eating meat as an aberation, I think its perfectly healthy.

wdevauld · 07-15-2005, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by braisler AKA astral

I agree that free range is good - for the environment, for the animals and for the quality of foods. I still have a problem with use of public lands because My tax money is going to subsidize a practice I don't believe in. I know our tax money goes towards hundreds of thousands of things we don't believe in, but it is still okay for me to not like it.

I'm not sure what the practice is down in the US, but in Canada farmers have to lease the crown land from the government, and it definitely isn't cheap. Considering the money that the government is getting for an unused section of forested land is usually next to nothing, I think the farmers are helping to reduce your taxes. For the government to keep the land producing money they could alternatively lease it to an industry and get mineral or stumpage rights.

If you find eating meat to be gross, that's fine with me. If you don't like eating another animal, that's OK too. If you think vegetarianism is healthier, will help you lose weight, or make you sexier then go for it. What gets me riled up is when I'm out for dinner or eating in the company of aquaintences and someone gets on my case about eating animal. It's not good manners.

braisler · 07-15-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdevauld

What gets me riled up is when I'm out for dinner or eating in the company of aquaintences and someone gets on my case about eating animal. It's not good manners.

I couldn't agree more, which I why I NEVER EVER do that. Hell, I goto wings bars with my husband and watch - rather fascinated - as he devours 30-40 wings. I think part of my fascination is how he knows WHERE the meat is on the bone or in the shell. Watching him work on a crab is like watching surgery! LOL

What you put in your body is such a personal decision, nobody has the right to tell you what is best for you.

Sometimes I like to come to forums like this an argue about why, though.

WarriorBuddha · 07-21-2005, 07:14 AM

I tend to follow the arguement that the human body was made to eat meat. We simply can't survive without either meat or some sort of vitamin supplement. There are carnivores, herbivores and omnivores. Humans are omnivores. We aren't the only omnivorous animal in existance. Should the others stop eating meat because their prey suffers a bit? We're at the top of the food chain for a reason. If I had my way I wouldn't eat any meat that I didn't kill or catch myself. But growing up with a mom that hated guns and then moving to Japan where guns are illegal make that kind of difficult. So I take my nutrients where I can get them. And that includes meat.

Sugarmouse · 07-21-2005, 11:20 AM

we dont need to eat meat or animal products tosurvive..it is perfectly possible to be healthy wihout either..i think the way we treat animals is barbaric and i wont be part of it...
i dont know if we were 'meant' to eat meat, dont beleive that is an answerable question..but we certailnly dont need to.and i dotn beleive we should want to

Suave · 07-21-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RusCrimson

Maybe you could eat rocks and dirt?

No, that's the point. Since everything is living, you may as well eat all of it instead of being selective just because one thing is cuter than the other. Sometimes I fail in my reasoning (I don't think I'll be eating rabbit anytime soon), but that's the general idea.

wdevauld · 07-21-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

No, that's the point. Since everything is living, you may as well eat all of it instead of being selective just because one thing is cuter than the other. Sometimes I fail in my reasoning (I don't think I'll be eating rabbit anytime soon), but that's the general idea.

Dennis Leary does a funny skit on this in his 'No Cure For Cancer' standup. He sums the animal rights movement as:

"Don't eat tuna, because they kill the dolphins that get stuck in the nets"

"Well, what about the tuna?"

"Fuck them, they taste good."

As a society we have branded animals as either good to eat or bad to eat based on a crazy set of rational. Tell someone you ate some Horse for dinner last night and they will most likely get upset, because horses are majestic, beautiful animals, whereas cattle are dumb, ugly breeders. Some 'vegetarians' just won't eat red meat, but will still consume chickens, soon to be chickens (eggs), and fish. North Koreans make meals out of dogs, which most people in North American find apaulling.

Where do we draw the line between an animal that is good to eat and one that isn't? Most people have their own half baked ideas, but if it came down to it, I'm not going to starve because I'm surrounded by 'pretty animal meat'

raeanna74 · 07-21-2005, 06:54 PM

No matter what our choice I think at least Americans are a little on the naive side when it comes to meat. Those that live in big cities can go so long without even seeing an animal being raised for human consumption that they forget where meat comes from. Not in a logical sense, but they just don't think about it. They go to the store, pick up a nice big steak, go home and fry it up, and eat it. They never see the blood, gore, and flopping body after it's head has been chopped off or blown away.

This is one thing that I intend to educate my daughter in. I have not hidden from her the fact that her meat comes from living animals. She's seen deer alive, she's seen them dead, and she's seen them quartered and ready for cutting the meat off the bones. She's asked me where her meat comes from (i.e. chicken from chicken, pork from pigs... etc.) Every time we discuss it I emphasis the "gift" that the animal gave us. That we don't take more than we need and we don't waste what we get. That we don't treat the animal cruely just because it's intended for slaughter. It's a valuable creature and we kill it as quickly and painlessly as we can. At her age of 5 she doesn't understand all the things I'm discussing but I've said basically all of that to her. She will appreciate the animals and if she chooses not to eat meat I will respect that. I personally eat it because it's part of my body's design, to eat meat. I will not waste it or mistreat animals intended for slaughter just because they aren't intended for any other purpose. Appreciation of all living things and their "purposes" is important to me.

Seer666 · 07-21-2005, 08:29 PM

Just a little somethign to throw into the mix. Saw something the other day that made me think of this thread and one of the reasons I don't take most "meat is murder" types serious. Got to watch some some guy go off about how evil it is to kill an animal to eat it. While he was standing there in leather shoes and a leather belt. Yeah, it's no ok to eat them, but you can wear them. Fuck him. Some one bring me a steak.

Sugarmouse · 07-22-2005, 02:42 AM

As a society we have branded animals as either good to eat or bad to eat based on a crazy set of rational. Tell someone you ate some Horse for dinner last night and they will most likely get upset, because horses are majestic, beautiful animals, whereas cattle are dumb, ugly breeders. Some 'vegetarians' just won't eat red meat, but will still consume chickens, soon to be chickens (eggs), and fish. North Koreans make meals out of dogs, which most people in North American find apaulling.

Where do we draw the line between an animal that is good to eat and one that isn't? Most people have their own half baked ideas, but if it came down to it, I'm not going to starve because I'm surrounded by 'pretty animal meat'[/QUOTE]

ita with wht you say here-why is it wrong to eat some animals and not others?they are all living, breathing beings the same as one another.

RusCrimson · 08-10-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

No, that's the point. Since everything is living, you may as well eat all of it instead of being selective just because one thing is cuter than the other. Sometimes I fail in my reasoning (I don't think I'll be eating rabbit anytime soon), but that's the general idea.

I love rabbit. My personal fav is hassenpfeffer (spelling?), and it's quite frankly the best meat I've ever had.

Back on point, I think the only rational way to do it is either based on taste or health. One's idea of "good" or "bad" animals to eat is silly. I can eat lamb because its tasty, but I may want to avoid it because its fatty.

FatFreeGoodness · 08-19-2005, 09:12 AM

Seer666: RE the guy wearing leather shoes and a belt preaching against red meat...

Sometime back in the mall I saw a twenty-something guy berating an elderly lady because she was wearing a coat with a fur trimmed collar. I asked him if he only picked on old ladies, or would he go after anyone wearing similar attire. If he was not just a bully, there was a biker bar about half a mile down the road where a high percentage of the clientele were dressed mostly in leather.

He shut up and went on his way. From the lack of mention in the news, I doubt he ever showed at the bar.

astrahl · 08-19-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RusCrimson

I love rabbit. My personal fav is hassenpfeffer (spelling?), and it's quite frankly the best meat I've ever had.

Reminds me of the Yosemite Sam/Bugs Bunny Hossenpheffer (sp?) sketch...one of my faves.

As for the thread - eat what you will...don't be personally offended if somebody looks over at your food and says, EEW! I happen to think that eating meat is wrong - for me.

wdevauld · 08-23-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatFreeGoodness

Sometime back in the mall I saw a twenty-something guy berating an elderly lady because she was wearing a coat with a fur trimmed collar.

Think of all the poor Acrylics and Nylons that had to be brutally murdered in order to make that coat!

Eat Meat, Drink Milk, Be Happy

FatFreeGoodness · 08-24-2005, 06:05 AM

“When we examine racism, we see that the justifications for it came from dividing the world into the 'in-group' and the 'out-group'. We are obligated to extend to those in the in-group (for example, white people) rights and ethical treatment. Those in the out-group are inferior and unimportant and as such, are not worthy of such rights. We are justified in treating them in whatever manner we so choose.”

This is not necessarily true. A race may dominate another because it is “desirable” to do so. For instance, the green people of island A have made slaves of the blue people of island B. The greens do nor believe the blue people to be inferior, they just like having slaves. Whether blues are “worthy” of rights is a question that does not even occur to greens.

To assume otherwise (or argue that this is unethical regardless) requires an assumption that morality is independent of and unaffected by either popular opinion or by the edicts of those in power, and that morality applies to people even if they do not personally subscribe to it.

How you could make any such a claim while at the same time denying any religious argument is a puzzle. By what authority would these ethical rules be imposed?

So regarding the question of eating meat: In a practical sense, eating meat as part of a balanced diet is nutritious and tasty, and so "good" for the individual who has easy, affordable access to it. However, devoting resources to raising meat is less efficient than raising directly-edible plants, so it’s possible to see meat as a luxury.
Now, lets see someone make a non-ethical argument that I (in a prosperous country that can afford meat) should care about those who would benefit from less grain fed to cattle and more sent to poor countries.

Suave · 08-25-2005, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdevauld

I'm not saying that I eat meat because of the need to keep herbbie population down. I eat meat because I like it.

My problem is in the argument that we should stop eating meat because of the 'footprint' that an animal requires to be rasied. What should we do then? Erradicate all cows from the planet so that we can use their space and eat their food. Might as well get rid of the rabbits, chickens and fish while we are at it, because they take up room too, and so does the food they require. If overpopulation of the human race is a problem, deal with overpopulation as the problem, don't push it off to the fact that my food takes up more space than yours.

Cattle, chickens, et cetera, do not naturally exist in the numbers or densities that they currently do, nor over the vast areas they now inhabit. We have artificially inflated their numbers and range by protecting them when they breed, until we decide to slaughter them. If we all stopped eating domesticated meat, their numbers would drop drastically as they were predated upon, struck with disease, and so forth, and our use of vegetation as our sole source of nutrients would reduce each person's biological footprint substantially.

skier · 09-07-2005, 08:53 PM

I was at lunch with a friend today and he ordered the vegetarian platter. Shocking in itself, as I thought he was a full on cowboy meat eater type- so I asked him why he went vegetarian.

He told me, "I went vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants."

This isn't really very deep, but I felt a need to share.

wdevauld · 09-08-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Cattle, chickens, et cetera, do not naturally exist in the numbers or densities that they currently do, nor over the vast areas they now inhabit. We have artificially inflated their numbers and range by protecting them when they breed, until we decide to slaughter them. If we all stopped eating domesticated meat, their numbers would drop drastically as they were predated upon, struck with disease, and so forth, and our use of vegetation as our sole source of nutrients would reduce each person's biological footprint substantially.

I think you meant to say if we stopped raising domesticated animals their numbers would drop back to equilibrium. If we just stopped eating them, their numbers would rise as we have erradicated a great deal of the natural predators that prey upon the animals we have domesticated. But, with that I think you missed the point of my argument.

Over population, and the reduction in usable space is a completely different issue as to the mistreatment of animals and the eating of animals for food. If you are worried about a biological footprint, STOP DRIVING. When you said that each person's footprint would be reduced substancially by having a vegitarian diet, I know you are misguided. The resources that are consumed in the name of manufacturing cars and supplying them with energy surpasess the energy and space required to feed a human population meat by orders of magnitude.

If you are going to continue with the biological footprint argument, what about factoring in the manufacturing costs of all the vitamins and food suppliments that many vegitarians eat in order to replace what they are not getting from a diet that contains meat. Or the shear energy requirement in shipping the food that we eat around the world, country or even the city you live in. The manufacturing costs of the clothes you are wearing while you read this are probably bigger than the energy required in raising the meat I'm going to eat all month.

It is true that it takes more space to raise an animal than it is to get an equivalent amount of energy from grains, vegitables and fruits. But there are a lot of things that one could give up that would decrease their footprint more than cutting animal from their diet.

And I LOVE the taste!!!!!

Martian · 09-12-2005, 02:02 PM

I didn't read the thread because it's four pages and you lot are really smart. You'll make my brain try to think and that's just not going to be good at the moment, it's too scrambled.

The only reason I'm here is because I thought I'd point out that I eat meat because I want my pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

Coppertop · 09-12-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

06-30-2005, 09:43 AM	#124 (permalink)
astrahl Insane Location: You don't want to live here	I found this link to diets pretty interesting, thought I'd share. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-2a.shtml __________________ Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed. Maybe Maybe... ~a-Ha

07-04-2005, 11:28 PM	#126 (permalink)
Johnny Pyro Hey Now! Location: Massachusetts (Redneck, white boy town. I hate it here.)	I'm sorry I'd like to get into this thread but I'm late for a veal and baby back rib dinner at "Smokey Bones Bar and Grill." (Best baby back ribs in New England!) __________________ "From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell Last edited by Johnny Pyro; 07-04-2005 at 11:31 PM..

07-11-2005, 01:34 PM	#130 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	I explain eating meat to my daughter this way. We do not kill animals for fun. We don't even step on ants purposefully, pull wings off flies, etc. When we eat meat we have obtained it through a process. If I could eat only venison and chicken and obtained the meat myself I would. I eat as much venison as I can. I do not want animals to suffer. When I hunt I do not shoot to wound and if I have not first killed the animal I will do so as quickly as possible when I find it. My intent is not for it to suffer. If I had a choice to buy a cosmetic product that was somewhat more expensive than a second product but I know that the second product was tested on animals I would buy the first product. I believe that animals ARE intelligent but that they do not have a certain capacity for compassion and reason that humans do not. To argue that infants are not capable of that is not correct because they have the ability to think. They have not the ability to form it into words for one and they ability has yet to grow to the capacity that adults have. Infants have potential for higher thinking. Animals do not. (I might occaisionally wonder about the Primates but if you follow evolutionary thought you would put them closest to humans in mental ability anyway.) As for the mentally retarded. The human design is such that these people would have been capable of such compassion and reasoning ability as other humans. The criteria isn't technically INTELLIGENCE but rather that step beyond blind reason and instinct to an empathy for others that animals do not have. 3. We evolved to eat meat. It is natural. "It does not follow that because something is natural, it is good." No not everything that is natural is good but following the natural flow of things is easier. We are still struggling to "evolve" beyond racism. To ask humans to evolve beyond specisism, I believe, is somewhat beyond our abilities at this time physically and mentally I believe. If you study the design of animals you'll find that some have digestive systems created to process protein such as found in meat. They had teeth designed to eat meat. If they do not eat meat, as animals, they will die. Humans are only just more able to reason and study food to know how to obtain most of the nutrients that we need. The flaw here is that we still do NOT know all that humans need as far as nutrients. Humans cannot yet duplicate the antiseptic/immune benefits of human breast milk. If we cannot do that then who's to say we can create for ourselves the PERFECT meat free diet. I realize many people are vegetarians and manage quite well. I've also known some vegetarians who had numerous health problems even though they had a physician and nutritionist assisting them with their diet. I must include that I hold to a spiritual aspect to the whole "eating meat" decision so my decision is not based on just the physical aspects. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

07-11-2005, 03:07 PM	#132 (permalink)
kramus loving the curves Location: my Lady's manor	Excellent Raeanna - I thought you made clear some basic information that really ought to be part of the foundation for any such conversation as this __________________ And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ... I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

07-12-2005, 03:10 PM	#136 (permalink)
wdevauld Tilted Location: Calgary, AB	I'm not saying that I eat meat because of the need to keep herbbie population down. I eat meat because I like it. My problem is in the argument that we should stop eating meat because of the 'footprint' that an animal requires to be rasied. What should we do then? Erradicate all cows from the planet so that we can use their space and eat their food. Might as well get rid of the rabbits, chickens and fish while we are at it, because they take up room too, and so does the food they require. If overpopulation of the human race is a problem, deal with overpopulation as the problem, don't push it off to the fact that my food takes up more space than yours. __________________ As soon as you stop living, you start dying....

06-30-2005, 07:12 AM	#122 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Humans are, by nature, omnivores. It is, generally speaking, healthier to eat a mixture of vegetables, fruit and meat. Modern man (ie, [i]Homo Sapiens[i]) has recently, in the past 20,000 years, dramatically increased the amount of meat in our diet. But it is not true to say it did not form a fundamental part of our nutrition since time immorial. Meat is good for you. But a meat only diet is not. Mr Mephisto

07-13-2005, 04:45 AM	#137 (permalink)
astrahl Insane Location: You don't want to live here	I think the footprint point is more along the lines of... farmers are grazing their cattle on public lands, which I hate, and destroying acres and acres of land. Foreign farmers destroy natural landscapes to make pasture land. Commercial production of fish, rabbit and chickens put together wouldn't equal HALF of the land used for cattle (I would bet). And I really didn't take the vegetarian argument into the overpopulation thing. I'd argue that meat production was more an issue about natural resources-not necessarily space. I'm really enjoying talking to rational people about this issue instead of a bunch of ...why don't you just eat dirt and rocks if you're so concerned about life-people. __________________ Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed. Maybe Maybe... ~a-Ha

07-13-2005, 07:20 AM	#138 (permalink)
wdevauld Tilted Location: Calgary, AB	I'm not telling you to go and eat rocks, I'm asking you to try some steak This is a timeless debate, and both sides have their arguments, each of which has it's flaws. For instance the space argument can be widened out into animal cruelty. Fish would be the highest density living protein humans manufacture, because we believe them to be 'lesser animals' with primitive brains and don't mind stacking them into fish farms. Everyone has seen or heard of the horrors inside commercial feed lots for cattle and chickens where animals spend their entire lives touching others of the same species. Space is always a premium especially when you need it close to large urban centers to keep down shipping costs. The ranch that I lived on as a boy had only free range cattle and chickens, which I firmly believe to be the only way an animal should be raised. I've yet to see any free range rancher 'destroying acres and acres of land' Perhaps you should direct this to the forestry industry. Farmers (who grow grains and grasses) need to have cleared fields over which to run their tractors. Ranchers (who raise animals) are more than happy having their animals in forested areas. Almost all free range ranchers will put their animals out to pasture, which is often forested, mountainous or bogged land. If the farmer has payed the government the money to lease these lands, why does it bother you? __________________ As soon as you stop living, you start dying....

07-13-2005, 10:20 AM	#139 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	Astrahl posting as braisler I just realized my husband was logged in. The following comments do not come from braisler. Steak is gross. I remember my mom having to force me to eat "just one more bite" when I was little. Bleech! I agree that free range is good - for the environment, for the animals and for the quality of foods. I still have a problem with use of public lands because My tax money is going to subsidize a practice I don't believe in. I know our tax money goes towards hundreds of thousands of things we don't believe in, but it is still okay for me to not like it. There are also those farmer/ranchers etc who complain about the natural predators in the areas they are raising their "crop" on. Shooting wolves and foxes and other natural predators is so reprehensible. I truly do not have a problem with the free range idea. I still don't like the idea of animals being used as food, but at least they aren't chained down in a pen or suffering (besides the death sequence - which is a conversation I will avoid). I really think there are so many negatives when it comes to eating meat - especially now with the hormones they use and the nvCJD that, I believe, is possibly transmissible to humans. Too many cons and not enough pros. You know, while writing this and thinking more about it...I don't really think I would have any problem with people eating meat if they were to do it in moderation. The problem, though, is that people eat meat with EVERY meal. Breakfast lunch and dinner...why not dessert? I think people, Americans especially, WAY overdo with their meat consumption. If meat were a special thing you treated yourself to once in a while, the overall effects would be better for all involved. -astrahl __________________ --- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein --- Last edited by braisler; 07-13-2005 at 10:23 AM.. Reason: Wrong log in ID

07-13-2005, 10:20 PM	#140 (permalink)
fatmanforprez Tilted	Okay I hate to break this to you but it is quite simple. Cosmically speaking we may be morally bankrupt for eating animals, however to tell the truth I dont give a rats ass. The reason I don't eat humans is because they arent available in the supermarket, and i dont wana do life to learn how they taste. Canabalism is an out dated taboo, but this isnt the issue at hand so lets get back to it. Animals are incapable of exacting retributon (and I dont have to kill them myself), especially not in the sense that I am hurting "feelings". When I get down to it it is a case of humans I have to live with and care about, animals just taste soooo damn good. MY big point being I dont care if its right to the animals, when they can complain I will stop, when i have an perticular animal I care about I will stop, if I was to have a serious relationship with one I would stop. Short of that nothing. Now to nitpick you mention killing infants and the retarded and to make my point clear thats not the right picture, lets talk about eating healthy capable adult humans, somehting which I would attempt if it didnt cause problems with other humans (which can bring forth retribution, see my barbaric point here). Now mind you this isn't a troll post I didnt call you stupid I just said I dont have any incentive to care, cause even the effective arguments against omnivorism (I hope thats a word) which includes yours, are neccesarily something which require me to take an incentive in caring, one which I dont plan on taking.

07-21-2005, 07:14 AM	#144 (permalink)
WarriorBuddha Crazy Location: Japan	I tend to follow the arguement that the human body was made to eat meat. We simply can't survive without either meat or some sort of vitamin supplement. There are carnivores, herbivores and omnivores. Humans are omnivores. We aren't the only omnivorous animal in existance. Should the others stop eating meat because their prey suffers a bit? We're at the top of the food chain for a reason. If I had my way I wouldn't eat any meat that I didn't kill or catch myself. But growing up with a mom that hated guns and then moving to Japan where guns are illegal make that kind of difficult. So I take my nutrients where I can get them. And that includes meat. __________________ Thockmorton knew if he were ever to break wind in the echo chamber, he would never hear the end of it.

07-21-2005, 11:20 AM	#145 (permalink)
Sugarmouse Insane Location: Preston lancs(i know i know)	we dont need to eat meat or animal products tosurvive..it is perfectly possible to be healthy wihout either..i think the way we treat animals is barbaric and i wont be part of it... i dont know if we were 'meant' to eat meat, dont beleive that is an answerable question..but we certailnly dont need to.and i dotn beleive we should want to __________________ Sugarmouse=Festered

07-21-2005, 06:54 PM	#148 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	No matter what our choice I think at least Americans are a little on the naive side when it comes to meat. Those that live in big cities can go so long without even seeing an animal being raised for human consumption that they forget where meat comes from. Not in a logical sense, but they just don't think about it. They go to the store, pick up a nice big steak, go home and fry it up, and eat it. They never see the blood, gore, and flopping body after it's head has been chopped off or blown away. This is one thing that I intend to educate my daughter in. I have not hidden from her the fact that her meat comes from living animals. She's seen deer alive, she's seen them dead, and she's seen them quartered and ready for cutting the meat off the bones. She's asked me where her meat comes from (i.e. chicken from chicken, pork from pigs... etc.) Every time we discuss it I emphasis the "gift" that the animal gave us. That we don't take more than we need and we don't waste what we get. That we don't treat the animal cruely just because it's intended for slaughter. It's a valuable creature and we kill it as quickly and painlessly as we can. At her age of 5 she doesn't understand all the things I'm discussing but I've said basically all of that to her. She will appreciate the animals and if she chooses not to eat meat I will respect that. I personally eat it because it's part of my body's design, to eat meat. I will not waste it or mistreat animals intended for slaughter just because they aren't intended for any other purpose. Appreciation of all living things and their "purposes" is important to me. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

07-21-2005, 08:29 PM	#149 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	Just a little somethign to throw into the mix. Saw something the other day that made me think of this thread and one of the reasons I don't take most "meat is murder" types serious. Got to watch some some guy go off about how evil it is to kill an animal to eat it. While he was standing there in leather shoes and a leather belt. Yeah, it's no ok to eat them, but you can wear them. Fuck him. Some one bring me a steak. __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

07-22-2005, 02:42 AM	#150 (permalink)
Sugarmouse Insane Location: Preston lancs(i know i know)	As a society we have branded animals as either good to eat or bad to eat based on a crazy set of rational. Tell someone you ate some Horse for dinner last night and they will most likely get upset, because horses are majestic, beautiful animals, whereas cattle are dumb, ugly breeders. Some 'vegetarians' just won't eat red meat, but will still consume chickens, soon to be chickens (eggs), and fish. North Koreans make meals out of dogs, which most people in North American find apaulling. Where do we draw the line between an animal that is good to eat and one that isn't? Most people have their own half baked ideas, but if it came down to it, I'm not going to starve because I'm surrounded by 'pretty animal meat'[/QUOTE] ita with wht you say here-why is it wrong to eat some animals and not others?they are all living, breathing beings the same as one another. __________________ Sugarmouse=Festered

08-19-2005, 09:12 AM	#152 (permalink)
FatFreeGoodness Tilted	Seer666: RE the guy wearing leather shoes and a belt preaching against red meat... Sometime back in the mall I saw a twenty-something guy berating an elderly lady because she was wearing a coat with a fur trimmed collar. I asked him if he only picked on old ladies, or would he go after anyone wearing similar attire. If he was not just a bully, there was a biker bar about half a mile down the road where a high percentage of the clientele were dressed mostly in leather. He shut up and went on his way. From the lack of mention in the news, I doubt he ever showed at the bar.

08-24-2005, 06:05 AM	#155 (permalink)
FatFreeGoodness Tilted	“When we examine racism, we see that the justifications for it came from dividing the world into the 'in-group' and the 'out-group'. We are obligated to extend to those in the in-group (for example, white people) rights and ethical treatment. Those in the out-group are inferior and unimportant and as such, are not worthy of such rights. We are justified in treating them in whatever manner we so choose.” This is not necessarily true. A race may dominate another because it is “desirable” to do so. For instance, the green people of island A have made slaves of the blue people of island B. The greens do nor believe the blue people to be inferior, they just like having slaves. Whether blues are “worthy” of rights is a question that does not even occur to greens. To assume otherwise (or argue that this is unethical regardless) requires an assumption that morality is independent of and unaffected by either popular opinion or by the edicts of those in power, and that morality applies to people even if they do not personally subscribe to it. How you could make any such a claim while at the same time denying any religious argument is a puzzle. By what authority would these ethical rules be imposed? So regarding the question of eating meat: In a practical sense, eating meat as part of a balanced diet is nutritious and tasty, and so "good" for the individual who has easy, affordable access to it. However, devoting resources to raising meat is less efficient than raising directly-edible plants, so it’s possible to see meat as a luxury. Now, lets see someone make a non-ethical argument that I (in a prosperous country that can afford meat) should care about those who would benefit from less grain fed to cattle and more sent to poor countries.

09-07-2005, 08:53 PM	#157 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	I was at lunch with a friend today and he ordered the vegetarian platter. Shocking in itself, as I thought he was a full on cowboy meat eater type- so I asked him why he went vegetarian. He told me, "I went vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants." This isn't really very deep, but I felt a need to share. __________________ "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

09-12-2005, 02:02 PM	#159 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I didn't read the thread because it's four pages and you lot are really smart. You'll make my brain try to think and that's just not going to be good at the moment, it's too scrambled. The only reason I'm here is because I thought I'd point out that I eat meat because I want my pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame