Does it make me evil that I eat meat?
Don't get me wrong...I have a problem with the meatpacking industry and I don't like seeing things die, but does this make me EEEEVIL?? A lot of vegetarians seem to think they're better than me because I like steak.

WHY?

Have you ever heard of the circle of life?
If I sleep with a down pillow, am I evil?
What about eating a cow that died of old age?

Are you just plain bigoted?

Yes, vegetarians: would it be ok to eat a cow that died of old age!?? No cruelty involved there, surely?

I love steak.

However, check this out: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

Apparently we are not made to eat meat.

I love steak.

However, check this out: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

Apparently we are not made to eat meat.

Um, interesting arguments your website has. They inadvertently say that we have aspects of both herbivores and carnivores, but then somehow jump back to "we are not designed to eat meat".

Humans' so-called "canine teeth" are unlike the canine teeth of actual canines, which are really long and really pointed. News flash: other vegetarian animals (like gorillas) possess the same so-called "canine" teeth. Further, if the canine crowd had bothered to actually read the article above, they'd see that overall our teeth resemble those of plant-eaters much more than meat-eaters. For example, we have molar teeth (plant-eaters do, carnivores don't), and our teeth can move side to side to grind (just like the other plant-eaters, and completely unlike the carnivores).

How can you say that the human incisors aren't made for meat-eating when that is what we use them for? Gorillas have canines too, yes, and they don't use them to eat meat, true (probably used for the same thing as their muscles: dominance). That doesn't mean that human canines aren't used for meat- they are. This is irrefutable.

Oh and I love this argument:
The human body was not designed to catch or eat animals. You have no claws. Your teeth do not rend flesh. Your mouth can not seriously wound nor is it made to really get a good bite into an struggling victim like true carnivores can. You are not fit to run fast to catch prey.

Haha- "true carnivore". haha.
We invented sharp tools thousands of years ago. How else do you think we catch animals today? We also have teeth called incisors, made for tearing flesh. If we aren't designed to catch or eat animals, then why have we evolved to do so??
We are incomparable to other carnivores for many reasons, but mostly because we walk on two feet, have opposable thumbs, are much more intelligent, and use weapons to kill animals.

Okay then. Next argument:

Instead of eating raw meat as all flesh-eating animals do, humans boil, bake, or fry it and disguise it with all kinds of sauces and spices so that it bears no resemblance to its raw state.
That's because we're smart enough to kill diseases and bacteria in the meat. And we're high class about our food. I put salad dressing and bacon bits on my salad, and wash it thoroughly... am I no longer a veggie-eater? We're not dogs, okay?

Oh and my favorite argument of all, quoted from Eugene Khutoryansky (don't ask, I don't know):
So eating meat is indeed absolutely natural. However, the fact that it is natural does not imply that it is ethically permissible. If we believed that eating meat was ethically permissible simply because other animals did it as well, then this would imply that there is nothing wrong with rape, cannibalism, or infanticide, all of which routinely occurs throughout the animal kingdom.
Dude, I CAN'T even respond with this argument because...because they've painted me into a corner with "rape" and "infanticide"! GAWD! So there's my answer- I AM that evil.

Thank you for posting that website, Absane. That is exactly what I was talking about.

You might like to check out the thread in the Ethics forum titled "Is eating meat morally wrong?". Your question has been discussed quite extensively there.

thanks, James R. I should have posted it there. Woops! Maybe someone will move it to a juicier location for me?

The reason I posted that website is because I find it just hilarious. Basically they try to justify the their view that eating meat is unethical by using scientific evidence. I thought it was good enough to bookmark and save for just an occassion.

lol.

Oh and the argument that we cannot eat raw meat. That is total bull. Look up the Spartan Health Regime. It's a sysem based on exercise and eating plants, fruits, vegatables, and raw meat. No one has died from it. In fact, those that stick to it say they haven't felt so great in their life.

It's quite interesting.

The reason I posted that website is because I find it just hilarious. Basically they try to justify the their view that eating meat is unethical by using scientific evidence. I thought it was good enough to bookmark and save for just an occassion.

lol.

Yeah, I figured no one here was dumb enough to take that seriously.
It sure riled me up though.

Oh and the argument that we cannot eat raw meat. That is total bull. Look up the Spartan Health Regime. It's a sysem based on exercise and eating plants, fruits, vegatables, and raw meat. No one has died from it. In fact, those that stick to it say they haven't felt so great in their life.

It's quite interesting.
eh, we've evolved to prefer cooked meat for a reason. These days we know how to safely eat raw meat. But back in the day you can see how cooking your hunt over the fire became the preferred method.
Actually, another good argument would be about the health benefits of raw meat over any other kind of diet.
You gotta watch out for websites like that being just as cracked out as the vegetarian one though.

Well I have never ate raw meat. The closest I get is a medium steak. I was told it doesn't taste that bad... but I would not like to try.

eh, we've evolved to prefer cooked meat for a reason.We have not "evolved" to prefer cooked meat. We haven't bred enough generations since the mastery of fire for our DNA to have drifted.

High heat breaks down tissue and makes both the conscious flavors and the pheromones of meat more available, so the flavor (about 90 percent of which is actually smell, not taste) becomes more compelling. Just give your dog a choice of raw or cooked meat. He'll make the same decision for the same reason, and his ancestors have only been eating it for a mere 13,000 years.

Other technologies much newer than fire have been used to create foods that appeal to our primitive senses. How about the 19th-Century mixture of industrially refined sugar and chemically extracted cocoa mass that we call "chocolate"? :)

Does it make me evil that I eat meat?
Don't get me wrong...I have a problem with the meatpacking industry and I don't like seeing things die, but does this make me EEEEVIL?? A lot of vegetarians seem to think they're better than me because I like steak.

WHY?

Have you ever heard of the circle of life?
If I sleep with a down pillow, am I evil?
What about eating a cow that died of old age?

Are you just plain bigoted?

If you'd be growing your own chickens, etc., you could appeal to the "circle of life" thing. Since you are consuming products of commercial agriculture&feedlots, destroying the very circle of life you are appealing to, you've got "justification" problems.

I'm not a vegetarian, I eat meat quite rarely, but still I eat it. I've had a few opportunities to visit a few commercial beef/chicken/swine feedlots. That's why my meat consumption rate fell down 4000%. Not because I'm a superkind guy or something, but because those farms are DISGUSTING monuments of human avarice, shortsightedness, moral depravity, etc., etc., etc. They are disgusting period. the sheer thought that one is eating the products of those farms should be vomit inducing.

If industrial farming vegeterians think they are much more "moral" than the rest, I would suggest them to visit commercial crop fields. Since most of the vegeterians are way too withdrawn from land, I shall say that sterile fields barren of any plants/weeds, etc. but cashcrop are 10000% unnatural and, I might add, scary. Just think how many tonnes of chemicals was sprayed onto those fields. Think what those chemicals have done to the life. Wanna become a barren,cancerous impotent? Get into industrial farming:)

Seems, the only "Moral" choice these days is to grow your food yourself.

We have not "evolved" to prefer cooked meat. We haven't bred enough generations since the mastery of fire for our DNA to have drifted.
If a gene suddenly expresses itself in order for us to be able to digest cows milk (not everyone of course) when our ancestors started drinking it why would it not be possible for the something similar to occur in regards to cooked meat?

If a gene suddenly expresses itself in order for us to be able to digest cows milk (not everyone of course) when our ancestors started drinking it why would it not be possible for the something similar to occur in regards to cooked meat?

What gene is this that helps digest cow's milk?

What gene is this that helps digest cow's milk?
Not sure. The change is mentioned in the preamble for the Wikipedia - Lactose Intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance) page. I've heard or read a few times that humans were not always able to digest milk and the ability occured around the same time we started herding cows...

Sure, you eat meat.
So do I....

But would you go ass to mouth?

Kids these days, they even go ass to mouth.

... I'm so sorry, Jesus. :D

We have not "evolved" to prefer cooked meat. We haven't bred enough generations since the mastery of fire for our DNA to have drifted.
Must evolution always be in the sense of DNA?
Cannot culture evolve?

If a gene suddenly expresses itself in order for us to be able to digest cows milk (not everyone of course) when our ancestors started drinking it why would it not be possible for the something similar to occur in regards to cooked meat?Well sure. Mutation does not happen at a steady rate when you get down to this level. A gene changes and you've got new DNA. Must evolution always be in the sense of DNA? Cannot culture evolve?Well sure to that one too. But you're in the science forum here, so most of us are probably going to presume that you're using your words with scientific precision.

But my point is that we have not "evolved" to prefer cooked meat at all. As I said, even a dog will choose cooked meat because the cooking amplifies the flavor and makes it more appealing. Cooked meat appeals to our natural instincts.

Not sure. The change is mentioned in the preamble for the Wikipedia - Lactose Intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance) page. I've heard or read a few times that humans were not always able to digest milk and the ability occured around the same time we started herding cows...

Lactose, a milk sugar, is also present in breastmilk so we always had the gene; the practice of continuing to drink milk, and hence ingest more lactose (present only in milk) is a relatively recent one. Persistence of the lactase enzyme beyond infancy is hence a relatively recent adaptation.

Cow's milk intolerance is not related to lactose intolerance; being intolerant to cow’s milk is an allergic reaction triggered by the immune system. Lactose intolerance is a problem caused by the digestive system.

...so we always had the gene;
I never claimed otherwise.
Persistence of the lactase enzyme beyond infancy is hence a relatively recent adaptation.
Which is what I was pointing out. A gene mutation allowed the change which I was asking in my original question if that could be considered to be evolving.
Cow's milk intolerance is not related to lactose intolerance;
I didn't say it was. I am aware that an allergy to casein and or lactoglobulin is usually the problem specific to cow's milk.

Does it make me evil that I eat meat?
Don't get me wrong...I have a problem with the meatpacking industry and I don't like seeing things die, but does this make me EEEEVIL?? A lot of vegetarians seem to think they're better than me because I like steak.

WHY?

Have you ever heard of the circle of life?
If I sleep with a down pillow, am I evil?
What about eating a cow that died of old age?

Are you just plain bigoted?
Using which orifice?

If a gene suddenly expresses itself in order for us to be able to digest cows milk (not everyone of course) when our ancestors started drinking it why would it not be possible for the something similar to occur in regards to cooked meat?
Don't forget about light colored skin, which allowed humans to more efficiently produce vitamin D from the weaker sun in northern climates.

Anyway, my original point is not an issue with vegetarians per se, but with their logic and arguments. Be a vegetarian all you want, but act like you're holier because of it while still consistently using animal products...then fuck you, you're why liberals have so little respect in this country. Any more thoughts?

if you were to be put in a room with a serial killer, would you feel that you are better than him?

if you were to be put in a room with a serial killer, would you feel that you are better than him?
hmm...yes. though it depends on which serial killer.

Does it make me evil that I eat meat?

As long as it's not your little sister, I don't see the problem. :confused:

carcasm;

well for those of us who see animals as our equals, this is the same feeling we get when confronted with someone who openly declares their love of flesh.

carcasm;

well for those of us who see animals as our equals, this is the same feeling we get when confronted with someone who openly declares their love of flesh.

It's a shame that other animals don't see other animals as equals. Yet people do? I sense a contradiction. Something's actions are wrong... and it can't be animals. They don't think about good/evil/right/wrong. Humans can... and humans have been known to be wrong about numerous things. We are not the all-knowing beings of the universe.. the deciders of what's right and wrong for others to do. You don't want to eat meat? Fine.. but I will.


Good ol' steak.

carcasm;

well for those of us who see animals as our equals, this is the same feeling we get when confronted with someone who openly declares their love of flesh.

Where is the line drawn?

What is so "wrong" with preferring and defending your own species over others? What if bonobos were taking over our resources and killing people off? According to your logic, we should treat them as we would like to be treated. But what about our own survival? Of course we won't be here much longer at that rate, so is that what you're vouching for?
What's silly is that you're speaking as if I'm a racist, calling animals "our equals". Yes, its certainly cruel and immoral to kill animals just for fun. But to do so out of our own survival instincts?
I will continue to vouch for the dominance of the human race (to an extent). At the same time, we should try to preserve animals and resources as long as they're not hurting us.
Wouldn't it be a sad sight to see any kind of animal favor a different kind of animal over its own kind? Likewise is it sad to see that there are people who hold ants, cows, and dogs to the same esteem as they hold a newborn baby human.
Unless you believe in reincarnation...then :rolleyes:

if bonobos were killing people, then you would treat them the same as you would treat your neighbour if he started killing people.

im not saying that you should throw yourself in front of car to stop it hitting a possum. but we as a species do not need to eat meat. and in fact by eating plants we require 90% less resource consumption than if we were to grow a pig and feed it vegetables until such time as we felt it ready to eat. therefore benefitting not anly the animals that you would kill, but the entire ecosystem.

I just had a thought: can't we compare "animal rights" people to liberals?

"Animal rights" people don't like the fact that humans are at the top of the food chain. Liberals don't like those humans on top (money/power.. whatever). They both work to make things "more equal."

I wonder what the "animal rights" people would do if a tiger ate their child. Kill it?
I wonder what the liberals would do if they inherit a lot of money. Give it all away?

Lol. :p

insert a 'lol' if you are a teenager.

Why?

Well good for the teenagers. That's not how I use "lol."

I have a good imagination. I'm sorry yours is lacking.

I actually didn't read the post... However, it just happens we saw a similar connection between the two. I'm sorry I am capable of doing such.

It's the link... the connection that I found funny. Not the "animal rights people are morons and so are liberals." The connection, buddy. Not the state of being so, but why they are.

But whatever.

Or how about.. lmao? I think it's falling apart.

Absane:

I just had a thought: can't we compare "animal rights" people to liberals?

"Animal rights" people don't like the fact that humans are at the top of the food chain. Liberals don't like those humans on top (money/power.. whatever). They both work to make things "more equal."

Animal rights supporters are against cruelty to animals, regardless of the food chain. Just because you can do something (like kill something and eat it) doesn't mean it is right to do that.

I wonder what the "animal rights" people would do if a tiger ate their child. Kill it?

For what? Revenge?

Of course, this is nothing like the situation of eating meat just because you want to. Cows don't threaten you.

What gives you the right to take away my rights JamesR? If I have the abillity to do something that is a positive influence on my survival, who are you to say that it's not my right. I inherently have the abillity to digest meat, so, it must inherently be my right to eat meat.

Oniw17:

You are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Nature - that what is natural is necessarily morally good. What is natural may not be good.

Similarly, you can rape and murder. Does that mean it is inherently youir right to rape and murder?

The circle of life is an absolute biological fact. Herbivore populations can only be controlled by some form of predation. This has to be done so that they can stay healthy by staying within the limits of their food supply. We also get faster, stronger, smarter herbivores that way, so it's a win all the way around.

Humans who breed animals for food have to breed for health and hardiness. There is no way round it. We also do not tend to breed for uniformity as some might think. At least among small farmers they breed for variety and use hybridization to advantage.

On a pasture where beef cattle are kept, every sort of animal and plant thrives as long as the pasture is large. The ground is not torn up. It is not poisoned. The percentage of land that can be used this way is greater, too, as the requirements are looser.

One of the huge mistakes that humans make is to convert good farming land to housing tracts. The idiots even ban the keeping of grazing animals, and our grass clipping just become mulch at best.

Oniw17:

You are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Nature - that what is natural is necessarily morally good. What is natural may not be good.

Similarly, you can rape and murder. Does that mean it is inherently youir right to rape and murder?

Is evil necessary for good?

Oniw17:

You are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Nature - that what is natural is necessarily morally good. What is natural may not be good.

Similarly, you can rape and murder. Does that mean it is inherently youir right to rape and murder?
Yes, then government takes the right away as soon as you are born into.

Similarly, you can rape and murder. Does that mean it is inherently youir right to rape and murder?

No its not; rape and murder do not apply to our "circle of life" argument. They are human taboos for a reason; they are crimes against our own species.
They are senseless acts of domination reaping no real benefit for the actor.
We call such acts "backwards" for a reason.

Eating meat, on the other hand, has always been an essential part of being human, until only recently in human history.
If you're arguing that being a carnivore is not an inherent right, then please answer- Was it immoral for a hunter-gatherer? Or was it like, ya know, only a no-no thing when we had the free time to sit around and invent the idea of morals?

Rape happens in nature, watch baboons. Rogue males will rape the younger females if they get that chance. And lions will kill babies that aren't theirs when a new male takes over, he'll even eat the babies, it's survival of the fittest.

And african wild dogs will take care of old and disabled dogs.

Survival of the fittest indeed.


In other words. Stop with the platitudes. It is getting so tiresome.

And african wild dogs will take care of old and disabled dogs.

Survival of the fittest indeed.

These are legit questions.. so don't get me wrong.

Don't dogs hunt and live in pacts? The problem I see is that if a dog is injuried.. it's not in the group's best interest to leave the dog behind because that only increases the odds that another dog will be injured later on? I see that as survival of the fittest.

Can a random dog be "recruited" into the pact? If so.. how what is the frequency of this versus a dog becoming injuried?

They're also one of the most endangered carnivores on earth. And I didn't say that things like this didn't happen in nature, but that rape and murder do happen.

They're also one of the most endangered carnivores on earth. And I didn't say that things like this didn't happen in nature, but that rape and murder do happen.

Haha. I watched shark week on the Discovery channel. I found it interesting that male sharks will rape unwilling females. Sometimes, 2 or 3 male sharks will pin her down and invite the more dominate male to come in and fertilize her.

And unborn sharks also eat their unborn siblings so there is more food for it self.

Interesting.

Rape happens in nature, watch baboons. Rogue males will rape the younger females if they get that chance. And lions will kill babies that aren't theirs when a new male takes over, he'll even eat the babies, it's survival of the fittest.

How is this relevant to the discussion about human morals? Please explain.

Of course, this is nothing like the situation of eating meat just because you want to. Cows don't threaten you.

To say people just eat meat cause they "want to" which it appears is your argument (sorry to pick on you again), is oversimplifying.

Think about how difficult it would be to live a healthy life without using animal products at all. You are left to beans. Have fun! I wonder how many animals will lose their habitat just so we can grow the sufficient protein to sustain our population.

How is this relevant to the discussion about human morals? Please explain.
I must not understand your circle of life argument. I thought you were saying that rape and murder are not human nature because they are crimes against our specie, my bad.

These are legit questions.. so don't get me wrong.

Don't dogs hunt and live in pacts? The problem I see is that if a dog is injuried.. it's not in the group's best interest to leave the dog behind because that only increases the odds that another dog will be injured later on? I see that as survival of the fittest.

Can a random dog be "recruited" into the pact? If so.. how what is the frequency of this versus a dog becoming injuried?

The problem is that you have been imprinted with 'survival of the fittest' as being meaningful on the level of daily life. It's an evolutionairy concept. Not a guide towards life. Survival of the fittest merely means that on average the chances are higher that specimens of a species that are better adapted will leave more offspring. That's all. That's all you need to know when you use the term.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the fittest (as in wrong usage such as strong, selfish, top of the pyramid) have a right to survive, or will survive or do survive or have the most offspring.

It's a common fallacy. The example of african wild dogs easily shows how wrong you are about your definition of 'survival of the fittest'. According to your logic the crippled dog should be left behind. And it isn't left behind. Moreover, it stays at home and is fed by the other dogs. Total unselfish behaviour, which is unexplainable if you use the wrong definition.

Now let's look at it from a scientific perspective. What is really going on?

Survival of the fittest merely means that on average the chances are higher that specimens of a species that are relatively better adapted to a certain environment will leave more offspring.

Wild african dogs live in packs and hunt in packs. There is no survival possible for this dog on its own. The pack is a necessity. Moreover, african wild dogs have taken cooperation on such a high level that they are the most efficient hunters in africa. Their success rate in hunting approaches 100%, while most other group hunters are well below 50%. They are also the smallest hunters that hunt big prey. There is only one way to do this. Be totally dependent on each other. Survival of the fittest? Survival of the most social animals. Not of the most selfish, not of the strongest, not of the fastest. The most social. This is in direct contradictory with the notion that floats around in the general population. You should be selfish to survive. Au contraire, often the only way to survive (being reprodructively successful) is to make sacrifices. This is rather common in social groups.

Why is a crippled dog permitted to stay? It's use is limited. It will use up resources. The wild dogs cannot banish him from the group. It will go against everything that makes them succesful.

This is a typical example of what can go wrong when people try to distill values from nature. There is an example to be found that supports basically any moral idea imaginable. And for every moral idea a counterexample can be found.

The moral is obvious: do not try to distill moral values from nature. But people persist in this foolish endeavour. Because they feel the need to justify their moral values.

As for humans. To a biologist it is rather obvious that they are a highly social animal. Complex social structures that are geared towards cooperation were necessary to make them succesful. Humans can survive alone, but not thrive. The other obvious biological character of the human species is that their thoughts are highly pliable. You can make a human believe anything with the proper resources and training.

You may remain skeptic about the biological definition of 'survival of the fittest' but all you need to do is do some research. There are thousands of examples that are counterintuitive in the field of biology. Common sense only gets you so far and can sometimes hinder you in your progress. There is only one way to understand biology. That is to study it. It's the curse of biology. It seems too easy.

Do not think that what you read on this forum on biology goes very deep. It's just popular science mostly.

Survival of the fittest merely means that on average the chances are higher that specimens of a species that are relatively better adapted to a certain environment will leave more offspring.

Excellent post. However you are the biologist and I am the guy that likes to do math... so the only thing I have this with definition is that I try to generalize it. However biology, just like mathematics, has set definitions that should not be tweaked with if we are going to do anything useful. So I suppose I am working on different definitions than most of you are all using.

To sum up my definition, I see SOTF to mean doing whatever is necessary to survive and thrive that best suits both the individual AND the group (if a group is needed for individual rewards like food... just like the dogs). The individual can be dogs/lions/sharks/humans. It's loose and needs tweaking, yes.

Thanks for the post though :)

"A lot of vegetarians seem to think they're better than me because I like steak.
WHY?"
I can only answer for myself, but no, I don't think I'm better then you

"Have you ever heard of the circle of life?"
Yes, but just because it exists, doesn't mean it is morally correct

"If I sleep with a down pillow, am I evil?"
Did anything die or suffer alot of pain to provide it? If so, i would describe it as morally wrong, but not evil

"What about eating a cow that died of old age?"
No, that's not morally wrong, but I would still not do it, because meat is addictive, and so it would make it harder for me to simply enjoy my veggies

Carcasm:

rape and murder do not apply to our "circle of life" argument. They are human taboos for a reason; they are crimes against our own species.
They are senseless acts of domination reaping no real benefit for the actor.
We call such acts "backwards" for a reason.

A few problems with this:

1. You assume humans have a higher moral value purely by virtue of their membership of a particular species. You have given no reason why that should be the case.

2. You assume, again without proof, that killing animals for food or other purposes is not just another "senseless act of domination".

3. You assume that "benefit for the actor" is enough to make an action morally right. If I kill you for you money, then, does that make it right? It benefits me, after all...

Eating meat, on the other hand, has always been an essential part of being human, until only recently in human history.

So, you admit it is not essential now? What then?

If you're arguing that being a carnivore is not an inherent right, then please answer- Was it immoral for a hunter-gatherer?

Let's worry about whether or not it is moral now, shall we?

To say people just eat meat cause they "want to" which it appears is your argument (sorry to pick on you again), is oversimplifying.

Not at all. People don't need to eat meat to live a healthy life. I know many vegetarians and vegans who do just fine without ever eating a single piece of meat.

Think about how difficult it would be to live a healthy life without using animal products at all. You are left to beans. Have fun! I wonder how many animals will lose their habitat just so we can grow the sufficient protein to sustain our population.

It is not overly difficult to live a healthy life without animal products.

There are options other than beans which you obviously have not considered.

Fewer animals would lose their habitats if we all became vegetarian tomorrow.

Please, educate yourself about some basic facts before spouting off in future.

Fewer animals would lose their habitats if we all became vegetarian tomorrow.


I'm not debating it, but how so?

1. You assume humans have a higher moral value purely by virtue of their membership of a particular species. You have given no reason why that should be the case.

And you assume the opposite. And give no reason. Hmm, double standard maybe?

2. You assume, again without proof, that killing animals for food or other purposes is not just another "senseless act of domination".

And you assume that it is, again without proof.

3. You assume that "benefit for the actor" is enough to make an action morally right. If I kill you for you money, then, does that make it right? It benefits me, after all...

Oooh, now we are putting words in other people's moths. How low can you go.


It is not overly difficult to live a healthy life without animal products.

true, it is virtually impossible.

There are options other than beans which you obviously have not considered.

List them and the pros and cons then we might believe you.

Fewer animals would lose their habitats if we all became vegetarian tomorrow.

Really what about all thgat farmland we'll need. Will that magically appear?

Please, educate yourself about some basic facts before spouting off in future.

please just don't spout off at all.

I'm not debating it, but how so?

because when you eat meat, you need to feed the animal you plan to slaughter vegetables every day until you kill it. assuming that a pig eats the same amount as you, and you eat it after a year. that would mean you could feed yourself on vegetables for a whole year with the same resources used to raise a pig which you will eat for maybe a week.

But whether raised by people or not, the pig and cow would still exist.

Oniw17:

When we farm animals for meat, we need to feed those animals. We don't feed them the vegetable food we grow for human consumption, but separate feed grown especially for the animals. Therefore, with animal farming, a farmer might have 3 fields: one field to grow vegetables for humans, one to grow animal feed, and one to house animals. If everybody was vegetarian, all three could be used to grow vegetarian food for humans instead, thus reducing overall land usage.

TW Scott:

Funny how you choose to jump into this conversation. I guess you're pretending our previous extensive converation never happened. Right? How dishonest of you.

And you assume the opposite. And give no reason. Hmm, double standard maybe?

You know my reasons. I already explained them to you, in detail. Your pretence that you've forgotten all that is dishonest.

If Carcasm wants to ask questions, I am happy to answer them. But I've already dealt with you. Go play somewhere else.

Vegetarians are 'superhuman', thats why they look down on others.
That's ok with me, i'm just an animal.
I have the animal right to hunt, kill and eat meat.

Nature is so wonderfully violent isn't it :D

TW Scott:

Funny how you choose to jump into this conversation. I guess you're pretending our previous extensive converation never happened. Right? How dishonest of you.

A converstation is give and take and the exchange of ideas. You are so thuroughly entrenched in your belief that you will not budge even a milimeter. Thus no has a conversation with you, they are simply trying rationalize with a rant.

You know my reasons. I already explained them to you, in detail. Your pretence that you've forgotten all that is dishonest.

I have forgotten nothing. You have offered nothing but your opinions, belief and feeling. Not verifiable hard facts that supports your claims. Of course I do understand it is extremely hard to find said facts.

because when you eat meat, you need to feed the animal you plan to slaughter vegetables every day until you kill it. assuming that a pig eats the same amount as you, and you eat it after a year. that would mean you could feed yourself on vegetables for a whole year with the same resources used to raise a pig which you will eat for maybe a week.

Do you understand how big a hog is? 300 to 400 pounds. Now after processing that is about 200 to 300 pounds of meat if you had typical servings that is 70 to 100 days of high quality protein for one person. All on the parts of food we throw away normally.

I have forgotten nothing. You have offered nothing but your opinions, belief and feeling.

I offered you ethical arguments. Either you didn't understand them, or you choose to ignore them.

I offered you ethical arguments. Either you didn't understand them, or you choose to ignore them.

Oh, I understood what you were saying and my description of them is accurate. Preference and aesthetics does not equate to ethics.

That was not my argument.

Do you understand how big a hog is? 300 to 400 pounds. Now after processing that is about 200 to 300 pounds of meat if you had typical servings that is 70 to 100 days of high quality protein for one person. All on the parts of food we throw away normally.

a 7 or 8 year old hog maybe. then of course you have 2500 days worth of food that could haev been consumed by us.

1. You assume humans have a higher moral value purely by virtue of their membership of a particular species. You have given no reason why that should be the case.

I guess the main problem with our debate is that you are debating ethics, while I am focusing on more of a biological argument, and am proudly declaring my anthropocentic mindset.
Yes, using animal products causes unnecessary suffering and no one has a good ethical argument against that. Know why? Because nature is ugly. Its a nasty bitch. When our survival and success as the human race is at stake, I don't care much about morals.

2. You assume, again without proof, that killing animals for food or other purposes is not just another "senseless act of domination". The benefits of raping and murdering someone illegitimately does not benefit either person, and they are senseless acts because the sacrifice in no way compares to the benefit. Utilizing animal products, on the other hand, is essential for human survival, according to my arguments.
3. You assume that "benefit for the actor" is enough to make an action morally right. If I kill you for you money, then, does that make it right? It benefits me, after all...
All I am talking about is essential benefits. Surely you know I wasn't proposing that any act beneficial for anyone is moral. My argument is that using animal products is essential to the human race as we know it.

So, you admit it is not essential now? What then?
You're right, vegans aren't dying everywhere you turn. I think animal products are a big reason why humans are successful, and I don't think we should give that up. Thats all.

Let's worry about whether or not it is moral now, shall we?

We invented the idea of morals, but something bigger invented the idea of survival. I never said eating meat was nice.

People don't need to eat meat to live a healthy life. I know many vegetarians and vegans who do just fine without ever eating a single piece of meat.
It takes A LOT of effort to be a true vegan. Do the vegans you know actually deny so?

There are options other than beans which you obviously have not considered.
Sure I have. But not mentioning nuts, vegetables, and grains doesn't detract from my point that all you have left is stuff that grows in the ground and takes up space.
Fewer animals would lose their habitats if we all became vegetarian tomorrow.
Really? I'm interested in hearing more.

Please, educate yourself about some basic facts before spouting off in future.
Where are yours?

I eat meat but in a way it seems like 'farming' animals, in a way, seems wrong, in that they are kept in cages and are then executed.

a 7 or 8 year old hog maybe. then of course you have 2500 days worth of food that could haev been consumed by us.

you gotta be kidding me. I can get thet one that big in a year, maybe less, and not resort to hormones. Plus honestly that pig eats foods that we already produce an abundance of and we could not survive on his diet. So for 3.5 days of a carbohydrate heavy diet that would be hard on my suystem I get 1 day of meat to add to my diet and make me healthier. Fair trade.

Carcasm:

I guess the main problem with our debate is that you are debating ethics, while I am focusing on more of a biological argument, and am proudly declaring my anthropocentic mindset.

Yes, using animal products causes unnecessary suffering and no one has a good ethical argument against that. Know why? Because nature is ugly. Its a nasty bitch. When our survival and success as the human race is at stake, I don't care much about morals.

Your survival doesn't depend on you eating meat. Therefore, the ethical argument trumps any "biological need" argument you might raise. You don't need to eat meat. You just choose to eat it, because it is easy and you like it.

Utilizing animal products, on the other hand, is essential for human survival, according to my arguments.

Perhaps we need to separate the discussion, then. This thread is titled "I eat meat", and I thought we were talking about eating meat. The more general question about "utilizing animal products" is much less easily defined.

Eating meat is not essential to human survival. Do you agree? If so, we can move on.

We invented the idea of morals, but something bigger invented the idea of survival. I never said eating meat was nice.

If something is not nice and also unnecessary, then there is a moral imperative to avoid doing it, is there not?

It takes A LOT of effort to be a true vegan. Do the vegans you know actually deny so?

I agree that it takes more effort than eating meat, given the current way our society is structured to revolve around eating meat.

Sometimes it is harder to do what is ethically right than to take the easy option.

Fewer animals would lose their habitats if we all became vegetarian tomorrow.

Really? I'm interested in hearing more.

If you were really interested, you would have read my post on this matter just a little further up the page.

I eat meat but in a way it seems like 'farming' animals, in a way, seems wrong, in that they are kept in cages and are then executed.
Kind of like slavery if you think of people as a type of animal.

It takes A LOT of effort to be a true vegan. Do the vegans you know actually deny so?

it may take a lot of effort for meat eaters who dicide to turn vegan. but thats because almost of our processed foods contain animal products. for me it becomes instinct to pick up a food item, skim along until i find an animal product such as 'e496' and just put it down without thinking about it. for someone without that trained response they will continue to think about how much they want whatever it is and actually weigh this up against their morals.

quitting meat is just like quitting a drug... it takes a long period of effort before you can go without it and not blink.

That's because we're smart enough to kill diseases and bacteria in the meat. And we're high class about our food. I put salad dressing and bacon bits on my salad, and wash it thoroughly... am I no longer a veggie-eater? We're not dogs, okay?

Kill Mad Cow Disease and Bird Flu.

Yes, vegetarians: would it be ok to eat a cow that died of old age!?? No cruelty involved there, surely?

I'm vegetarian but I don't consider eating meat evil. I have a very big problem with industries that use and abuse animals (by the billions).
If a vegearian considers themselves 'better' than a meat eater, then it's probably because the vegetarian is actively trying to put a stop to these industries, where as a meat eater is supporting them.

I'm vegetarian but I don't consider eating meat evil. I have a very big problem with industries that use and abuse animals (by the billions).

If everyone was a vegetarian/vegan what would happen to all the farm animals? Is it better for pigs, cows, and chickens to be extinct than eaten? Wouldn't they be eaten even if there were no humans and they were never domesticated? Surely it would be better for the animals to attempt to improve conditions on farms rather than to stop eating meat.

A vegetarian is basically promoting the genecide of farm animals. If you're vegetarian for health reasons or even simple personal preference, that's one thing. But don't try to claim the the moral high ground.

If everyone was a vegetarian/vegan what would happen to all the farm animals? Is it better for pigs, cows, and chickens to be extinct than eaten? Wouldn't they be eaten even if there were no humans and they were never domesticated? Surely it would be better for the animals to attempt to improve conditions on farms rather than to stop eating meat.

A vegetarian is basically promoting the genecide of farm animals. If you're vegetarian for health reasons or even simple personal preference, that's one thing. But don't try to claim the the moral high ground.

The meat industry commits genocide, your argument is back to front. Farmers don't keep pigs and chickens because they like having them around, they just exploit them because the public seems to like eating their meat. The best we can hope for is conditions for farm animals drastically improve, see compassion in world farming.

Yes, vegetarians: would it be ok to eat a cow that died of old age!?? No cruelty involved there, surely?
I'm vegetarian but I don't consider eating meat evil. I have a very big problem with industries that use and abuse animals (by the billions).
If a vegearian considers themselves 'better' than a meat eater, then it's probably because the vegetarian is actively trying to put a stop to these industries, where as a meat eater is supporting them.
I was wondering when someone would tackle that thorny question. Any other thoughts on the matter?

Modern grain farming methods kill God's little creatures by the thousand. Unless you're growing all your own food you're just as guilty as we are, so get off your high horses, you're making the poor things saddle-sore. Thankyou.

I started eating meat again a few months ago after 6 years of vegetarianism.

I was sick of it, sick of being different, I knew in the big scheme of things I was making no difference to animal cruelty, I wasn't politically active, my morals had deteriorated, I basically sold out.

And I still don't really care. I don't know why.

I started eating meat again a few months ago after 6 years of vegetarianism.

I was sick of it, sick of being different, I knew in the big scheme of things I was making no difference to animal cruelty, I wasn't politically active, my morals had deteriorated, I basically sold out.

And I still don't really care. I don't know why.

That's akin to the person that doesn't vote because they feel their one vote won't make any difference to the outcome. What would happen if we all felt that way? :rolleyes:

I was wondering when someone would tackle that thorny question. Any other thoughts on the matter?

Modern grain farming methods kill God's little creatures by the thousand. Unless you're growing all your own food you're just as guilty as we are, so get off your high horses, you're making the poor things saddle-sore. Thankyou.

It's one of the few remaining interesting and open arguments on the subject. It's been discussed before and as humans we all leave a footprint on the planet, otherwise we die. Grain farming is carried out partly to feed humans and partly to feed farm animals that end up being slaughered for their meat. Perhaps if we humans didn't consume such vast quantites of meat then there wouldn't be a need for so much grain farming. It must be acknowledged that the animals who die in the process of farming vegetables, grain, fruit, etc are still free and might just as likely be eaten by a predator (discounting pesticides which I'm against). Factory farmed animals suffer from the moment they are born to the moment they die, needlessly.

If everyone was a vegetarian/vegan what would happen to all the farm animals?

Many which are now created specifically and solely to be consumed would never be born. And thus, a huge amount of suffering would be eliminated right there.

Existing animals would not be killed off, but would be allowed to live out their lives. Some would no doubt breed, and so the species would not become extinct. In fact, it would seem to be a moral obligation for human beings to help maintain biodiversity, as we already do in some cases regarding animals we do not consume as meat.

A vegetarian is basically promoting the genecide of farm animals.

What a silly statement.

There would be no spare land for cows to just walk around on. People only own cows for milk or meat....so what if neither is needed? Bye bye cows.

Anyway I think I can pretty much end the argument here: You have canines. There we go. Look in the fucking mirror.

so do cows.

and as jamesr said, we are already working on conservation projects for other animals, what makes you think that out governments wouldnt assign some land as a domestic farm animal sactuary?

There would be no spare land for cows to just walk around on. People only own cows for milk or meat....so what if neither is needed? Bye bye cows.

No. Roughly two thirds of farm land would become free, and could be used as free-range homes for cattle.

Anyway I think I can pretty much end the argument here: You have incisors. There we go. Look in the fucking mirror.

So, you are saying that because I can eat meat, I should or must?

I can rape and kill, too. Does that make it right?

so do cows.

and as jamesr said, we are already working on conservation projects for other animals, what makes you think that out governments wouldnt assign some land as a domestic farm animal sactuary?

Uhhhh, woops, I meant canines.

:(

No. Roughly two thirds of farm land would become free, and could be used as free-range homes for cattle.


You have completely missed the point. What farmers are going to keep cows that cost money to keep, but don't make any money? Are they going to keep them as pets? Who would want to keep cows in your fantasy vegan state? What would be the point? Didn't it occur to you that they might want to use that land to grow soya beans or whatever it is you new age types actually will eat?

You have completely missed the point. What farmers are going to keep cows that cost money to keep, but don't make any money?

That's ok. The farmers don't have to do it. The government can declare certain wildlife sanctuary areas, just as it currently does for other animals. Ever heard of national parks?

That's ok. The farmers don't have to do it. The government can declare certain wildlife sanctuary areas, just as it currently does for other animals. Ever heard of national parks?

So you are telling me you are going to increase the need for arible farmland, reduce the availibility of natural fertilizers. jeopardize the health of billions of people, put countless people out of year round employment, seize land eminent domain style, make taxpayer fund it, and somehow this is morally right and good science. Man, whatever you smoke/shoot/take you could make a fortune.

BTW that is not ad hominem, ad hominem would be assuming you are that messed up without chemical help.

So you are telling me you are going to increase the need for arible farmland, reduce the availibility of natural fertilizers. jeopardize the health of billions of people, put countless people out of year round employment, seize land eminent domain style, make taxpayer fund it, and somehow this is morally right.

I don't know where you dreamed this up, but it wasn't from my posts.

And you claim I'm on something?

So, you are saying that because I can eat meat, I should or must?

I can rape and kill, too. Does that make it right?

Nobody said that, in fact you are the one that putting words in other people's mouth. Not only that but you are again trying to draw a connection between meat eating and rape. Admit it you are only using emotive arguments becuase you know your science is too shaky and your logic is even worse.

Well the argument was essentially "I can, therefore it's my right."

However assuming that one can eat meat doesn't carry over to other areas, like rape.

I see what James meant, but I think that is stretching it.

But, just because one has teeth and jaw strength to eat meat doesn't mean we have the right. But we can, so a lot of us do. And me. We have the means to eat meat and not very much stopping us, so we tend to do it. We have the means to rape someone, but there is a lot stopping us, so we tend not to do it.

I don't know where you dreamed this up, but it wasn't from my posts.

:sarcasm on: Oh no, how dare I look at the whole picture rather than the primrose path you put me on. Oh my god, it'll destroy the very fabric of your arguments. Oh the horror, how dare I nat bow down and worship at the great James R's feet. :sarcasm off:

Seriosusly though do you think I am going to just let you thuroughly ridiculous argument slide without challenge?

And you claim I'm on something?

Actually, it's more of a hope. I actually claim there is an intelligent person behind the name and in many cases you prove it. This case you're still lacking. Nothing personal, but if you are going to make an argument like this you have to analyze every part of it. From cultural identies, regional supply and demand, economics, social dynamics, and everything else. You want the world to be vegan? i suggest you look at exactly what would need to be done, and how you are going to maintain it in the face of difficulties. When you have you might have a much more viable argument and once again prove your abilities as you have in other areas.

TW Scott:

So, you are saying that because I can eat meat, I should or must?

I can rape and kill, too. Does that make it right?

Nobody said that, in fact you are the one that putting words in other people's mouth.

Brain on, TW.

Tell me how you interpret this statement:

Anyway I think I can pretty much end the argument here: You have incisors. There we go. Look in the fucking mirror.

Remember to bear in mind the context of the discussion in your explanation.

Not only that but you are again trying to draw a connection between meat eating and rape.

Did you miss the point again? I've been through this with you before. Stop pretending to be thick.

Admit it you are only using emotive arguments because you know your science is too haky and your logic is even worse.

What emotive arguments?

PS No point responding to your latest post. It is devoid of any content.

Excuse me for calling a spade a spade James R.

Yes we can eat meat, in fact we seem designed for it t be part of our diet. Nothing bad happens if we practice it in moderation. It cuases no natural social problems.

Yes we can rape, but that is a human invention. We are not designed socially or psychologically for it. The raper does it for a sense of his own self importance. The raped is traumatized and likely unwillingly to mate again. This hurts the species and the individual.

So comparing the two is like comparing fresh squeezed orange juice and artificially sweetened and flavored orange drink with no nutritional value whatsoever. One is good for you and other has no redeeming virtue except to the evil person who made it and even that is dubious.

Yes we can rape, but that is a human invention.

Sharks do it. Hell, two or three sharks will pin an unwilling female down so the stonger shark can place his seed in her.

I think the difference is rape is defined in reference to humans, you cant rape an animal you can only rape a human, you can force an animal to have sex with you but this isnt defined as 'rape'.... maybe im splitting hairs

Yes we can rape, but that is a human invention. We are not designed socially or psychologically for it. The raper does it for a sense of his own self importance. The raped is traumatized and likely unwillingly to mate again. This hurts the species and the individual.
.
We are not designed for rape? I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of all sex from the dawn of time would be defined using present standards as rape.

For most of human history, whenever an army would pass thru they would rape and pillage. To this day it's a problem. Rape is completely natural, it is only a thin veneer of civilization that prevents it.

I think the difference is rape is defined in reference to humans, you cant rape an animal you can only rape a human, you can force an animal to have sex with you but this isnt defined as 'rape'.... maybe im splitting hairs

I think you are splitting hairs. You probably don't see shark rape as "real rape" because sharks don't have the ability to come together and generally agree that "it is wrong." Whether rape is wrong or not, it happens in both humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are the only ones that place a moral label on it.

I think it just depends on the species and whether rape actually helps promote the species or not. I am not sure if pact dogs rape but I know humans don't need to.

I still dont think its the right word for the animal kingdom where the morals dont apply

Morals don't apply for people either, we are just raised to think they do. Every person has their own set of morals deep in their mind, we only coinside with certain morals because they are forced upon us.

Morals apply to me and how i view my world speak for yourself

I think it just depends on the species and whether rape actually helps promote the species or not.

Evolution doesn't care about promoting the species.

Evolution doesn't care about promoting the species.


refine that comment, because it sounds like one of the most incorrect comments I've heard... im just worried im missing something

The basic unit of evolution is the organism (or if you reductionist, the gene) and not the species.


Unless you believe in species selection of course, which I do not.

We are not designed for rape? I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of all sex from the dawn of time would be defined using present standards as rape.

For most of human history, whenever an army would pass thru they would rape and pillage. To this day it's a problem. Rape is completely natural, it is only a thin veneer of civilization that prevents it.

Actually, no rape is not natural. It's an assertion of power and dominance having nothing to do with lust and everything to do with making someone suffer. In some cases to make a whole group suffer. Rape affects bot the attacker, the attacked , and witnesses in numerous ways. Some physical and some psychological. Overall these are detrimental to the species.

If we were designed for it we would not have the instinctual reactions we do. How many of you actually have your stomach turned just hearing about rape? How many of you have wanted to get a rapist alone and kick the crap out of him? How many of you have wondered would a jury convict you for killing a rapist? I will bet that most of you have and that even the pacifist have considered it.

As for what some people call rape in the wild. one small problem Rpae is done for power. Forced mating is a evolutionary tool used by nature to make sure only the strongest breed.


BTW in a pack animal, like humans, Evolution is a society wide phenomenom. A small change does occur in an individual, but if that change is detritmental to the group it is culled out even if it was beneficial to the individual.

1. Maybe vegetables and fruits also have feelings. Perhaps they even have more feelings than animals.

2. Someone said that it would be right to eat a cow that died of old age. Would it also be right to eat a human that died of old age then?

Actually, no rape is not natural.
How can it happen in nature then? Maybe nothing can be unnatural because everything is nature.

i wouldnt eat a cow that died of age any more than i would eat one that was slaughtered, as i dont need to. as for not eating humans that die of old age, well that seems to be a stigma of our society, not a natural thing, there is a tribe in new guinea that still practices eating their dead relatives(do a google on 'kuru virus' and youll find it)

even if vegetables were sentient, and able to 'feel' pain(yes we all know they react to stimuli) by eating vegetables, we are reducing our slaughter rate by 90%. so is it wrong to kill 10 to save 100?

best to do like yogis, and eat nothing. then no one is harmed.

Actually, no rape is not natural. It's an assertion of power and dominance having nothing to do with lust and everything to do with making someone suffer.
That's one of those "facts" that's thrown around. What is it based on? Rape is wrong, I'm not disputing that of course. But I've never believed this BS about rape not being about sex.

Rape is having sex without the women's consent. Forcibly taking that which you have no right to. Theft is taking property without the consent of the owner. No one says theft is about power or making someone suffer. Why is rape so different?

Men have a strong need/desire for sex. Why is that not motivation enough? Even if this dominance/power crap is part of it, lust certainly has something to do with it!

TW Scott:

Yes we can eat meat, in fact we seem designed for it to be part of our diet.

No. We evolved to be able to eat meat. That isn't the same as design. Moreover, evolution doesn't dictate moral behaviour. Ever heard the phrase "nature, red in tooth and claw"?

You still haven't grasped what the naturalistic fallacy is, even after all this time.

Nothing bad happens if we practice it in moderation. It cuases no natural social problems.

Some studies have suggested that meat eaters suffer a number of health risks that vegetarians do not.

Yes we can rape, but that is a human invention. We are not designed socially or psychologically for it. The raper does it for a sense of his own self importance. The raped is traumatized and likely unwillingly to mate again. This hurts the species and the individual.

The meat eater eats meat because he likes the taste. That hurts the species he eats. Of course, you don't care about that, because to you humans are the only important species, because you figure you're human and you're automatically important.

madanthonywayne:

Even if this dominance/power crap is part of it, lust certainly has something to do with it!

How do you explain the raping of 90 year olds?

Lust?

madanthonywayne:
How do you explain the raping of 90 year olds?
Lust?
Good question. Perhaps in that case it may be that lust has little to do with it. On the other hand, some people are turned on by wierd shit. Sometimes literally.

I still dont think its the right word for the animal kingdom where the morals dont apply

Well to you.. you are thinking about the definitions of the words. Definitions of words are up to us... but the actual idea in consideration is either true or not.