|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted November 12, 2008 04:55 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 04:57, 12 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Why is this discussion still going? 
There is no possible objection (moral or not) to eating meat. There can be to the way said meat is produced. End of discussion
The objection clearly described is that we don't need meat to survive, yet instead because its tasty and because of a common but false misconception that meat is needed, we slay defenseless creatures. Because we want what we want like immature youngsters in the toy store.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 05:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The objection clearly described is that we don't need meat to survive, yet instead because its tasty and because of a common but false misconception that meat is needed, we slay defenseless creatures. Because we want what we want like immature youngsters in the toy store.
We also slay defenseless creatures when we eat plants. Face it, our survival depends on the termination of life, on the destruction of living matter.
At this point, consuming either plant or animal life is required for us to survive. I'm not sure why you seem to think killing plants is somehow morally superior to killing animals. Is it because you judge the life of a cow to be worth more than the life of a cabbage? If that's the case, and it is so easy to rank life forms in terms of their worth, then you should have no trouble ranking them further. Dog, cat, human, cow, lamb, mouse, rat, cabbage, lettuce, rhubarb. Please rank these forms of life in terms of which is more valuable.
Certainly you can consume parts of plants without killing them. You can harvest a pepper without killing the plant. But by the same token you can remove the leg of a hog without killing it. So, according to your rather arbitrary sense of morality, would eating meat that doesn't require actually killing the animal be ok?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 07:55 AM |
|
|
my argument was without logic just to prove the lack of logic of the original
____________
|
|
Lord_Pc
Promising
Famous Hero
Groin-Grabingly Clever
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 08:57 AM |
|
|
Could I just mention that many animals are bred to die in that way, just like many trees are planted to be chopped down.
Animals are bred for one purpose, just like plants are grown to be harvested
____________
Da-da-dada-HEY-dada-da-da
Two goldfish were in their tank. One turns to the other and says, 'You man the guns, I'll drive.'
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 12:24 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 12:27, 12 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
The objection clearly described is that we don't need meat to survive, yet instead because its tasty and because of a common but false misconception that meat is needed, we slay defenseless creatures. Because we want what we want like immature youngsters in the toy store.
Or, just like any other meat eating animal?
You're comparing a natural trait to being immature now?
I already explained we are ominovorous, if you wish to argue against me I suggest you try to debunk the post(s) I made in this thread earlier.
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 06:24 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 18:31, 12 Nov 2008.
|
Corribus
I never said anything about plants except a few pages back where I said "We need plants not animals to survive" I never said plants are whatever. Only necessary, but we humans want what is not necessary, meat. Why? Because there is a common but false misconception that its required to live and it is tasty. And this thread is not about whether or not eating plants is ok. If it was, it would die once everyone realized we cant survive off of supplement pills and powders, and plants are necessary for survival.
Moonlith
I would consider it evolution for people to start realizing we dont need to breed animals into death camps for a tasty meal. Its immature in the sense we want what we want when we want it. Ihe sufferings of the animals do not matter to them.
Everyone:
Meat is not required to live, so what justifies killing animals and eating them? It's natural to do what is necessary hence animals eat each other to survive, because they cant grow crops and if they could their metabolism requires meat. Ours doesn't, it only handles it.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:33, 12 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
There is no possible objection (moral or not) to eating meat.
Indeed, I only said that some people use the health excuse and while that article may exaggerate, it most certainly is NOT unhealthy to lead a vegetarian life. In fact, some other article linked to that even points body builders and athletes who claim that!
Quote:
Could I just mention that many animals are bred to die in that way
And what if we bred some humans to be slaves in "such a way" would that justify it? I mean, that's why they were bred no? To be slaves? 
Quote:
Or, just like any other meat eating animal?
animals don't breed their prey to kill it later...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 06:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I never said anything about plants except a few pages back where I said "We need plants not animals to survive" I never said plants are whatever. Only necessary, but we humans want what is not necessary, meat. Why? Because there is a common but false misconception that its required to live and it is tasty. And this thread is not about whether or not eating plants is ok. If it was, it would die once everyone realized we cant survive off of supplement pills and powders, and plans are necessary for survival.
You can't have it both ways. No, eating meat is not strictly necessary to survive. However, neither is eating plants strictly necessary to survive. Eating one or the other is. So the only reason to focus on meat in particular is because you think there's a moral difference between the two.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 06:36 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 18:36, 12 Nov 2008.
|
I believe you are wrong we need grains and plants to live. We couldnt live on just meat. There is a moral difference between eating plants and not animals. We need plants to live. Diary is not immoral because we give the cows life and extract milk, which if we didnt it would settle and cause great pain in their bodies.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 07:17 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:43, 12 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
I believe you are wrong we need grains and plants to live. We couldnt live on just meat.
Vitamins and minerals not obtainable through eating meat alone can be synthetically produced. Fiber could be obtained through eating the stomach and intestinal contents of animals, or animal dung, as many carnivores do. It wouldn't be a pleasant diet but... that's sort of the point of the thread, isn't it?
Quote:
There is a moral difference between eating plants and not animals.
And I'd like to know what that is.
Quote:
We need plants to live.
Did you know that when you are eating plants, you're also eating animals? Plants grow on dead animals. When you get down to it, all life forms are made of the same basic stuff. I don't see what the difference is between extracting carbon-based molecules from animals versus extracting the same carbon-based molecules from plants.
Is it because you think that plants do not suffer when you kill them or harvest their reproductive organs?
Quote:
Diary is not immoral because we give the cows life and extract milk, which if we didnt it would settle and cause great pain in their bodies.
Consuming cow milk is what little cows are for. Adult cows do not perpetually make milk. Modern dairy cattle are stimulated to continuously produce milk by using hormones originally developed by Monsanto. These hormones are injected into cattle using needles, presumably against their will, a process which may actually cause health problems for the cattle (mastitis, infection, cancer, etc.). Care to address the morality of that?
Furthermore, in commercial dairy farms, the milk that is harvested from cows is sold to humans. The calves, which should be drinking the mothers' milk, are fed synthetically produced milk powder. Shouldn't humans be the ones drinking the synthetically produced milk powder, and the calves be given their mothers' milk? Or is it that humans just want to have what they want? Care to address the morality of that?
Furthermore, dairy cattle are animals selectively bred by humans to produce more milk. The reason they have "milk settling causing them great pain", is because humans forced them to have sex over centuries of time with other specific cows to give them that cause of pain exclusively for human benefit. Clearly we would be against selective breeding of humans with specific attributes, but it's ok to do in the case of cows. Care to address the morality of that?
Furthermore, a necessary part of breeding dairy cattle is that half of born dairy cattle are males. After they impregnate the new generation of calves, they are pretty useless, and many are sold to be butchered for veal or other meat products. In modern times, sperm is harvested from elite bulls and used to artificially inseminate thousands of female dairy cattle to produce more calves. Thus, the "moral dairy industry" deprives cattle of the basic joys of procreation, and then once they're done producing more animal slaves to contribute to human "moral" dairy consumption, they are simply discarded. Even more recently, a trend has developed where "donor" cattle are given hormones (against their will) that cause them to produce multiple embryos; these embryos are then taken out of the cows (against their will) and transferred to surrogates who give birth to the calves developed from the embryos. This is called embryo transfer, and it all happens against the will of the cattle, clearly. Care to address the morality of that?
If dairy is so moral, as you claim, would it be moral to force human beings into pens, inject them with hormones to make them continuously lactate, and then harvest human breast milk for human consumption? After all, you'd be giving the poor milk-engorged human women relief, because certainly all that milk would be giving them "great pain in their bodies". I just find it amusing that you seem to find dairy "moral", justifying that belief by citing how dairy consumption takes away their pain, even though humans were the ones who forcibly gave them that pain in the first place.
(And let's not even get into the egg industry.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Vitamins and minerals not obtainable through eating meat alone can be synthetically produced.
Synthetically produced? That kinda rules out the argument with "we were made to eat meat" or "it's natural to do it" since it's not ok to combine arguments that say "because it's natural it's good" with synthetic ones
(I know it wasn't you who said that, but others)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 07:48 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 19:52, 12 Nov 2008.
|
ok so we're not perfect, we HAVE to do things in order to survive like use cows for dairy and kill plants.. but until you stop mowing your front lawn I wont be a moron and try to explain the difference between plants and animals to anyone, since killing plants we need to eat is just so wrong.
Matter of fact I'm not gonna explain my views on anything including your images of encaging cows and extracting life seed from them. I disagree with them but I'm not gonna argue with a brick wall.
Eating animals is unnecessary "."
____________
What are you up to
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 08:04 PM |
|
|
Not going to argue? Isn't that the purpose of this thread? To successfully argue against eating meat?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Eating animals is unnecessary "."
Well to make it more correct: "naturally" we don't need animals (i.e we can survive without). But the opposite is not necessarily true: that is, we can't "naturally" survive only on meat/animals.
And who said dairy is so different from eating meat? (well technically it is a bit less crude since it's worse to get into a slaughterhouse but anyway).
of course, people didn't have all these artificial hormones back then (what Corribus explained) so it is either "necessary" because of overpopulation or because of greed for money/profit (more milk = more profit).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would consider it evolution for people to start realizing we dont need to breed animals into death camps for a tasty meal.
Grain fields can be viewed as death camps too.
However, it's not a matter of choice. We're omnivores. We're supposed to eat both. The life cycle requires eating. By eating both meat and plants equally, we ensure that we keep as much balance as we can. Focusing solely on the plants would have a shyteload of impact on the planet's ecosystem.
Besides, we can cryogenically freeze ourselves every night but it's just simpler and better to sleep.
Humanity has much, MUCH larger ecologic and moral issues to focus on than something entirely natural and unavoidable. Sure, I'm against cruelty. I'm a bloody treehugger. But we have to draw a line between the natural and the unnatural.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 08:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Grain fields can be viewed as death camps too.
However, it's not a matter of choice. We're omnivores. We're supposed to eat both. The life cycle requires eating. By eating both meat and plants equally, we ensure that we keep as much balance as we can. Focusing solely on the plants would have a shyteload of impact on the planet's ecosystem.
We're mostly talking about BREEDING here. That is already not part of the ecosystem (well not naturally anyway). Breeding and then killing is NOT natural. Heck not even "breeding" plants (well farming whatever). But the main point is that the argument "eating meat is natural" doesn't really have much effect since actually that 'translates' to (as most people are aware) "breeding animals for meat is natural" which is NOT.
Like I said, eating meat is natural. How do we get it, is most times not.
Quote:
Besides, we can cryogenically freeze ourselves every night but it's just simpler and better to sleep.
Yeah but we get older by sleeping
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 08:49 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 20:53, 12 Nov 2008.
|
Ants cultivate fungi and some even use smaller insects as cattle. They're a part of nature.
There's a killer wasp specie which injects paralyzing venom into a beetle, plants its larva into its abdomen and so the larva feeds (for quite a long time) on the inner substances of the beetle which spends the rest of its life in agony. They're a part of nature.
I'm aware breeding cattle isn't natural in the strict sense of the word, but it's the only way a human population this huge can survive. You can't expect 6 billion people to forage wild berries and hunt deers in the woods. Uncontrolled hunting would lead to extinction of countless species, anyway. Remember the dodos. Besides, humans are the only hope domesticated animals now have for survival. Pretty awkward.
The solution, as always, lies in the golden middle. For now, at least. So that's the first thing we should aspire to. Where further evolution may lead us, we don't know.
This situation can't be watched from only one angle. Much like most other situations, while we're at it.
Quote:
Yeah but we get older by sleeping
Getting closer and closer to Death?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:10, 12 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
I'm aware breeding cattle isn't natural in the strict sense of the word, but it's the only way a human population this huge can survive. You can't expect 6 billion people to forage wild berries and hunt deers in the woods. Uncontrolled hunting would lead to extinction of countless species, anyway. Remember the dodos. Besides, humans are the only hope domesticated animals now have for survival. Pretty awkward.
Yes I understand your point but saying "we need to eat meat, since we're omnivores" means one thing, but that usually refers to "we need to breed meat" (since obviously, we are too many and otherwise would extinct all other species), and it's not the same; in fact what the original arguments tried to accomplish -- that it's natural to eat meat since we are that way -- is contradicted by breeding, which isn't natural. (and I'm not talking about cattle breeding for milk, but about breeding some animal to kill it for meat)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 09:16 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 21:20, 12 Nov 2008.
|
I laugh that people continuously bring plants into this discussion by people who still eat them and eat killed animals. If you say eating plants is so wrong, then you must agree eating animals is wrong too. Get some credibility behind your arguments, stop eating plants, then talk to me about plant eating being wrong.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 12, 2008 09:19 PM |
|
|
No actually, you say eating animals is wrong and therefore eating plants is wrong as well. So our only option is to starve?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
