deleted in protest to really poor moderation

It becomes a moral issue when eating meat is against the set of moral dogmas that rule your life, for instance when your religion prohibits the mastication and digestion of pork.

I have always wondered if the ban on Pork was more becuase it was not as safe to eat back in the days where religions held more sway than science.

Eating meat should not be a moral issue at all. There is no reason for it to be without stretching the very limits of logic.

I have always wondered if the ban on Pork was more becuase it was not as safe to eat back in the days where religions held more sway than science.
.

correct

Pigs wallow in dirt and eat anything, so quite simply it was considered not safe to eat them!
Lots of things we do today for symbolic reason have a basis in reason , we've just forgotton what it was!

How many Muslims and Jews (and other peoples) are aware of the fact that circumsision originated from egyptian snake worshipping practices and has zippo to do with anything else!

I don't feel morally wrong when eating meat.

I think this thread is too similar to the "Cruelty to animals" thread

I got the quote from that thread, Its not personal opinion re pro or not pro eating meat I am after its your views on 'when does something become a moral issue, what makes it moral, what makes this subject a moral issue or even if it is a moral issue?

If technology became sufficiently advanced to synthesise meat from non-living materials, thereby obviating the need to kill animals, would it be immoral?

More of a sci-fi question, I suppose... :p

well, I kind of am already against Gm, and prefer organic everything, so I'm sure I wouldn't go for any sci-fi synthetic meat.

hmmmmmmm interesting point tho'.

If technology became sufficiently advanced to synthesise meat from non-living materials, thereby obviating the need to kill animals, would it be immoral?

More of a sci-fi question, I suppose... :p
Like growing a plusating lump of flesh with no brain or organs, and applying electric shocks every so often to stimulate it so it does not become weak and without consistency? I like that idea, it would be like a meat plant.

bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeugggggggggggh

Well, I suppose that's one solution, if a slightly unappealing one :p

But what if you had nanotech that could assemble, say, a steak, without it ever having been living tissue at all? Same would be possible for plants, presumably - shuffle some molecules around and voila, carrot!

Also a good idea. However I still like the idea of a...

MEAT PLANT!

I read something years ago about how animals such as cattle, came to be domesticated and the book kind of suggested that being 'farmed' by man was better for the species than to be left to their own devices and wild predators.

I know if we didn't farm cattle her in the Uk, there would NOT be any cattle roaming around wild, so they'd (except for few in zoo's) become extinct here at least. Therefore there may be a moral argument to keep farming in that we are keeping the species going?

I'm very in favour of humane farming methods and humane slaughter/transport etc etc.

If you look at our teeth and our digestive tract, you can easily see we did not evolve to be pure herbivore. And it takes a fair amount of dietary suppliments to live off of a pure vegitarian diet.

To turn the entire human race into vegitarians just isn't practical.

Besides, what have you got against those poor plants? Aren't you afraid of hurting THEIR feelings?

:rolleyes:

Meat is food. Food. Y-You know, the stuff that we, uh...EAT...to LIVE. There's no fuckin' moral issue, it's fuckin' food. Food is food. Just eat it and be happy.

Besides, what have you got against those poor plants? Aren't you afraid of hurting THEIR feelings?

:rolleyes:

who said anything about 'hurting feelings' are your 'projecting'?

sigh, we've gone over this.
The bottom line is this:
1) People do not need to eat animals to survive.
2) not only do we not need to, it would be better healthwise NOT to eat meat. The whole health/need point is moot.
3) This means that in the modern world, people eat animals ONLY to give them pleasure.
4) Most meat comes from factory farming, which is inhumane.
So the point is... combining 3 and 4: People treat animals inhumanely and kill them PURELY for pleasure. That is morally wrong.
Meaning that yes, eating meat is morally wrong. Simple logic.

Well, those are the main points.
others are that it takes more natural resources to raise meat, meaning that it's also morally wrong because it's bad for the environment.
The taking up of extra resources also means that if the farms used for growing cattle, pigs, etc. as well as the farms used to grow food to FEED those animals were turned into farms to grow food for HUMANS, the world hunger issue wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Please refer to the following threads:

Animal Cruelty
Vegetarians please read

I have written quite a lot there on why meat eating is a moral issue, though strangely a number of people in the current thread have forgotten or chosen to ignore it.

If it is morally wrong for humans, an omnivore, to eat meat, is it also morally wrong for bears, another omnivore, to eat meat?

Can bears survive without eating meat?

Maybe, if they had vitamin supplements artificially mixed in with plants.

What do you think of the "Meat Plant" idea anyway, James R?

ok, James and Alpha Wolf, what about the point I made that if we didn't farm cattle, they'd cease to exisit? Is that morally just? Eradicating a species? We'd need the land they live on for crops, they wouldn't be able to roam wild (not in Uk any way, maybe in USA as lots of land) so if we all went vegetarian overnight what future for the cattle?

Not arguing about what you've already said re cruelty etc, just always pondered this point re what happens to the species!

Thanks

Can bears survive without eating meat?
Yeah, hence "omnivore", government fiend.

nicely edited Hapsburg; your original message:

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Yes, hence "omnivore", government fuckwad. :rolleyes:

not so polite

perplexity can you answer this question?

If we didn't farm cattle, they'd cease to exisit? Is that morally just? Eradicating a species? We'd need the land they live on for crops, they wouldn't be able to roam wild (not in Uk any way, maybe in USA as lots of land) so if we all went vegetarian overnight what future for the cattle?

Not arguing about what you've already said re cruelty etc, just always pondered this point re what happens to the species!

Thanks

So its ok for cattle/pigs etc to cease to exist? Is that animal friendly?

I googled the question and found this? Thoughts please?

"Animal rights activists may cause animal extinctions!

Submitted Monday, May 23, 2005
Submitted by: Patti Kahl


We all love cute little rabbits and horses, pigs and chickens, right?! And it may seem cruel to kill and eat them and certain animal rights activists would make it illegal to do this. But I wish they would think through to the end consequences of this attirude, for both the animals and for humankind, before pushing this agenda.

The fact is, cows, chickens, turkeys, sheep, goats, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, horses, asses (and others) are only alive today because of their symbiotic relationship with humans. In short, they are domestic livestock and their survival is dependent upon humans keeping and breeding them.

Domestic animals must be kept & bred by humans or they will go extinct! A hundred years ago, with 95% of Americans living on farms, every area kept and bred it's own distinct breeds of pigs, chickens, horses, cattle, rabbits, etc.... But, because most farming is done today by huge "mega-farmers", who only keeps one or two breeds of each of these farm animals, many breeds of domestic livestock go extinct every year. To make matters worse, fewer people enter into raising & breeding them because of the expense, time involvement & pressure from activists! Because of this, we are loosing our rich genetic inheritance to extinction. Keep in mind that animal extinction is not limited to wild animals!

In order to maintain a specific breed, domestic animals must produce offspring, from which the best (a small fraction) are kept for breeding. So what becomes of the remaining offspring? The only humane, & financially practical, plan is to butcher them for humans to eat. Would these activists (who purport to "love these animals so much") prefer these animals never be born (extinction) instead of have a purpose for humans?

I have heard the theory of converting the land, currently being used for grazing by (or production of food for) domestic livestock, to grain & vegetable crops for direct human consumption. This flawed theory fails to take into consideration the facts that

1. Most domestic livestock are grazed primarily on hilly, rocky, forested & non-irrigated land. Should we chop down forests to plant grain crops? Should we plow hillsides, exposing top soil to erosion? Should we tap into our (already strained) natural water sources to irrigate vegetable crops?

2. Most grain crops fed to livestock are crops not fit for human consumption. The mold content is to high, it sprouted in the field before harvested or it’s an agricultural by-product that humans don’t eat (like corn stalks, straw, etc…). Should we waste these resources instead of converting them to high quality protein for people?

Plus, what is the logical conclusion to taking all the food away from animals? EXTINCTION! Thus, the true end goal of these activists is the extinction of our domestic animals! Most of them do not seem to understand that, but rather just want to do the right thing for the animals. However, because most are city people they do not understand the realities of domestic animal care & breeding nor the very important part they play in sustainable agriculture.

Along with the realization that chemical farming is not sustainable, and with more and more farmers making the transition back to traditional sustainable farming methods, the important role of domestic livestock [to sustainable agriculture] is becoming increasingly apparent. The manures, that the animals produce, plus the effects of proper grazing, do away with the farmers' needs for chemical fertilizers and herbicides. Without our domestic livestock animals, humankinds' transition back to sustainable agriculture would be very difficult (if not impossible)

I raise, butcher & eat meat rabbits but if activists have their way I'd have to stop and thus I would also stop keeping and breeding them altogether as I could not afford the luxury of keeping them as just pets. Thus moving this breed one step closer to extinction! "So what", they might say, "we don't need meat animals anyway?" But the reality is, if we allow our rich heritage of livestock breed diversity to dwindle to just a few "pet" breeds, when an infection comes along ("when" not "if") and wipes these out, we will have no genetic diversity to fall back on. Thus the entire species would become extinct! No more domestic pigs, rabbits, etc..! We need the genetic diversity and, to keep it, people need to be able to breed, butcher & eat the domestic animals, including rabbits!

Over the centuries farmers, the world over, have bred and nurtured hundreds of different breeds of each of these species. They occasionally cross bred the different breeds (of say pigs) in order to keep the genetics strong and to ensure the ultimate survival of the species.

Therefore, this variety of domestic livestock breeds is our genetic inheritance and it is paramount to the ultimate survival of the different species themselves. On top of that, our domestic livestock hold a very important place in sustainable agriculture. They not only provide a way to turn marginal (rocky, hilly, forested) land and waste agricultural products into a food source for humans but they also provide an organic source of fertilizer for crop plants. Thus, in the face of ever increasing fossil fuels (the source of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides) this genetic variety is critical to agricultures’ future (our food supply) and thus to the very survival of mankind.

However, today we have fewer and fewer small farms, to propagate and care for the diverse breeds, while the larger modern "mega-farms" keep only one or two breeds of each species. With this scenario, all it would take is a disease to infect one particular breed and (with no other breeds to fall back on) the species will become extinct! Just picture a world without pigs, chickens, sheep, cows and (even) horses and understand that this could happen if we do not act now!

For more information, see http://www.harmonyhomestead.net"

I am not saying I agree with this, I myself am aspiring to be vegetarian one day, meanwhile the question re animal extinctions is of interest to me. Thank you

so you are saying it is ok to eradicate species? If we stopped eating meat tomorrow we'd have to slaughter millions? Is that moral?

Reason for this questioning, here in Uk few yrs ago, we had foot and mouth amongst few cattle, result thousands upon thousands had to be slaughtered and burned, whther they were infected or not.

I was very dismayed at this terrible loss of life. Milking herds for example slaughtered in thousands.

Meanwhile i was shocked that animal rights activists only concern was the glee they felt about farmers losing their livlihoods. they would not comment on the deaths of the animals, they really did not care.

How can you care about animals and not care about this wasteful slaughter?

How can you promote vegetariansim (which I hope to be soon...but shan't push my will onto others) to the point of species extinction?

What is the defence for this?

So, you would rather the cattle have died of disease than being humanely slaughtered?

the VAST majority slaughtered NEVER had the disease hence the post, I doubt the UK population will go kill themselves whehn bird flu hits...incase they get it.

Theoryofrelativity :
ok, James and Alpha Wolf, what about the point I made that if we didn't farm cattle, they'd cease to exisit? Is that morally just? Eradicating a species? We'd need the land they live on for crops, they wouldn't be able to roam wild (not in Uk any way, maybe in USA as lots of land) so if we all went vegetarian overnight what future for the cattle?

First off, cattle wouldn't cease to exist if we stopped eating meat. They'd still be needed for milk and stuff like that. Although yeah, they are treated inhumanely too... but way back when I said the only reason I'm against eating meat is because most of it is factory farmed and that's inhumane, not because I think the actual act of eating meat is wrong. If cattle/etc were treated humanely, i'd have nothing against eating meat.
secondly, I don't think there will ever be a time when my arguments apply to every single person on earth. There ARE people who HAVE to eat meat in some of the poor countries in the world. There are others with diseases and stuff that also have to eat meat to survive.
and third, I really wouldn't mind if domestic cows and others went extinct. first, domestic cattle and stuff are not separate species, they're subspecies. Meaning that the species wouldn't go extinct. second, even if they were different species, they were created by humans, and have zero role on the natural environment. It wouldn't negatively affect the environment in any way if they went extinct.

Hapsburg, about what you said about animals eating meat:
That's comparing apples and oranges. What other animals do has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with what WE should or should not do, or what is moral or not. Other animals eat their own kind, does that mean we should too? I mean, c'mon comparing things like that is ridiculous.

theoryofrelativity:
So its ok for cattle/pigs etc to cease to exist? Is that animal friendly?
It may not be animal friendly, but yes it's ok for them to cease to exist. There are reasons why it's wrong for the vast majority of speceis to go extinct, and not many of those apply to cattle/pigs.
so you are saying it is ok to eradicate species? If we stopped eating meat tomorrow we'd have to slaughter millions? Is that moral?
Oh c'mon, whoever said we should slaughter them all?
And be a little more realistic- even if all humans did stop eating meat (which is fairly unrealistic but not completely), it would happen in years. There'd be no need to kill them all in one night, we'd just stop breeding them so much.
How can you care about animals and not care about this wasteful slaughter?

Ugh, people keep going off tangents. This really has nothing to do with whether eating meat is humane or not, but whatever. I do care about that wasteful slaughter, same right now with chickens and a while back with hundreds of lovebirds (I have two lovebirds and I love them to death... no pun intended), but I realize that sometimes these things are necessary. Nobody's saying we should worship animals and never touch a hair even if they're about to kill and eat us... I'm just advocating not treating animals cruely, the only purpose being for our pleasure. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. When it comes to diseases and stuff, many times you're saving lives (both human and other animals') by killing a bunch of cattle, chickens, ducks, lovebirds, whatever it may be. It's good for the bigger picture.

How can you promote vegetariansim (which I hope to be soon...but shan't push my will onto others) to the point of species extinction?
see above.
I never get this... what exactly is pushing your will onto others? I mean... we're not going around FORCING people to be vegetarian. at least I'm not... I'm just telling you why it's morally wrong to eat meat, and why you SHOULDN'T eat meat. And why am I doing that? did I just bring it up in some random place and start ranting about it? no, people ASKED what our views were. I'm just giving you all what you asked for, and then people go around saying i'm pushing my will onto others and crap. Oh please.

It is probably best to eat meats sparingly, at best. Increased meat consumption leads to bad health.

The argument that stopping meat production would make cows and sheep go extinct is ridiculous.

At present, these animals are bred especially so that they can be used as food. In other words, millions of animals are brought into existence every year only so that they can be killed and eaten.

If humanity converted to a vegetarian diet tomorrow, then the currently-living animals could be allowed to live their natural lives, but we would restrict their breeding to gradually reduce numbers. We could still preserve the species at whatever level was deemed appropriate - perhaps in special wildlife sanctuaries like the ones we already have for other species which we don't eat.

Arguing that the meat industry is somehow being kind by creating animals to be killed is a very stupid argument indeed.

Take a similar argument. We do not, in general, eat dogs. Have dogs gone extinct? Why not?

Okay, I have it. It is actually morally wrong not to eat meat. See, meat is a highly effiecent way to make common grass an edible product. Thus refusing to eat meat is refusing to use a resource that is renewable and does the least ammount of environmental damage.

James R, you still havn't answered my query. Would eating meat that has been grown in a vat by genetic science be morally wrong? It never had a brain or indeed any other organs

I don't get what you are saying, Scott. Can you explain some more?

nicely edited Hapsburg; your original message:

Yes, hence "omnivore", government fuckwad.

not so polite
I calmed down a bit. You have to admit, though, he is a bit of an ass, telling what I can and cannot fuckin' eat. It's my food, bitch! My food, god-fucking-dammit. My motherfuckin' food.

Okay, I have it. It is actually morally wrong not to eat meat. See, meat is a highly effiecent way to make common grass an edible product. Thus refusing to eat meat is refusing to use a resource that is renewable and does the least ammount of environmental damage.
That's sad. Are you really that desperate?
Communist hamster:
James R, you still havn't answered my query. Would eating meat that has been grown in a vat by genetic science be morally wrong? It never had a brain or indeed any other organs
I don't really get that either... but if it never had a brain or any other organs, it's not morally wrong to eat it, since it never suffered or anything like it.

Okay, I have it. It is actually morally wrong not to eat meat. See, meat is a highly effiecent way to make common grass an edible product. Thus refusing to eat meat is refusing to use a resource that is renewable and does the least ammount of environmental damage.

Eh, I don't think you were being sarcastic.
Too bad.

Free range cattle, while better for the environment than America's grain-fed stock, still do a lot of environmental damage to feed lots of people. One patch of land could be used to grow, as perplexity pointed out, 40 thousand kilos of potatos, or 330 of beed. Not very efficient.

But we don't need efficent. Cultivating that land destroys what it was and you can nver get it back. Cattle ranching allows it to stay as it is.

Yeah, the soil will be destroyed when cultivation occurs, unless you cultivate only peanuts and tubers...but then just eating peanuts and tubers would not be very healthy, now would it?

That's sad. Are you really that desperate?
Communist hamster:

I don't really get that either... but if it never had a brain or any other organs, it's not morally wrong to eat it, since it never suffered or anything like it.
I shall start developing one at once.

Communist Hamster:

Would eating meat that has been grown in a vat by genetic science be morally wrong? It never had a brain or indeed any other organs

I can't see any reason it would be wrong per se.

When and why does humans killing animals to eat become a moral issue if at all?


When humans eat animals that they themselves are not capable of killing.


If one can catch and kill an animal, clean it, prepare it, cook it, and eat it, all this by oneself, I don't see a problem with killing animals to eat their meat.


But when a person has qualms about killing an animal, yet wishes to eat its meat,
this is when I think a moral issue is present.

Good point!

http://www.angryflower.com/meatsh.html

If humanity converted to a vegetarian diet tomorrow, then the currently-living animals could be allowed to live their natural lives, but we would restrict their breeding to gradually reduce numbers. We could still preserve the species at whatever level was deemed appropriate - perhaps in special wildlife sanctuaries like the ones we already have for other species which we don't eat.

Arguing that the meat industry is somehow being kind by creating animals to be killed is a very stupid argument indeed.

Take a similar argument. We do not, in general, eat dogs. Have dogs gone extinct? Why not?

Sorry James but this is very silly..Dogs are house hold pets hence not extinct, I don't know of any roaming wild, I do know dog patrols round them up if they do! Cows won't be household pets, and No if went veggie tomorrow they would NOT be allowed to live out their natural lives of 10-20yrs! We'd immediately need the land for crops. So sorry this reply not particularly helpful.

Also I NEVER argued meat industry being kind creating animals by creating animals to kill them???? Where did you get that from?????????? NOT ME! Don't misquote me please!

I'm asking if we went veggie tomorrow what would we do with the animals- REALLY, what would we do with them??

I studied animal welfare/rights/managment etc etc once (5 days a week for 2yrs) and college class was based in zoo so we could study species at first hand. I understand how management of animals works, and I can assure you if we went veggie tomorrow, (IN UK at least) the guns would come out and they'd all be shot, bar a very small handful. THIS is guarantted!

When foot and mouth hit, thousands of uninfected herds were slaughtered.

Whatever reasons for breeding them, this is not kind or moral.

eh? you comparing a meat eater to a butcher of civilians....ridiculous and quite insane, not to mention down right offensive.

well eating meat and butchering civillians in iraq is a BIG step not small one!

Although I get the point you are making, hence abortion being legal and widely accepted. Murder ok and redefined when it suits ones own needs!

Which brings me to two points that always baffle me:

Why are some anti animal cruelty vegetarians pro abortion! killing is killing?
Why do people call themsleves vegetarian when they eat fish? fish is livng creature not vegetable? Why don't they just say..I don't eat red/white meat?
Any vegetarians falling into above catagoriues like to share your views on this? Not an attack, genuinely curious?

Deleted

With yourself in good order, good deeds follow naturally enough,
and to that end I mind what I eat.

---
This reads like you're suggesting vegetarians are nicer, gooder, better people than meat eaters, knowing some vegetarians, can't AGREE 1millionth of a percentage with that at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Deleted

how is my post shortsightedness? This is what you suggest is it not?

But we don't need efficent. Cultivating that land destroys what it was and you can nver get it back. Cattle ranching allows it to stay as it is.
Cattle ranching also destroys land.
Theoryofrelativity:
Why are some anti animal cruelty vegetarians pro abortion! killing is killing?
Why do people call themsleves vegetarian when they eat fish? fish is livng creature not vegetable? Why don't they just say..I don't eat red/white meat?
Any vegetarians falling into above catagoriues like to share your views on this? Not an attack, genuinely curious?
1) no, killing is NOT killing. I have no qualms about eating beans. For one, fetuses do not feel pain, they don't think, they don't suffer, they don't have any emotions whatsoever. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. do. Two, fetuses are not grown in horrible conditions only to be killed and eaten just for the pure pleasure of it. Cows and others are.
2)I don' tknow, that's stupid.
3) vegetables are living creatures
Theoryofrelativity
This reads like you're suggesting vegetarians are nicer, gooder, better people than meat eaters, knowing some vegetarians, can't AGREE 1millionth of a percentage with that at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you've been saying things that suggest you think vegetarians are evil hypocrites who go around forcing people to be vegetarians and should all go to hell. (ok, maybe not that strongly)

Deleted

Cattle ranching also destroys land.
Theoryofrelativity:

1) no, killing is NOT killing. I have no qualms about eating beans. For one, fetuses do not feel pain, they don't think, they don't suffer, they don't have any emotions whatsoever. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. do. Two, fetuses are not grown in horrible conditions only to be killed and eaten just for the pure pleasure of it. Cows and others are.
2)I don' tknow, that's stupid.
3) vegetables are living creatures
Theoryofrelativity

and you've been saying things that suggest you think vegetarians are evil hypocrites who go around forcing people to be vegetarians and should all go to hell. (ok, maybe not that strongly)

You can clearly NOT read

I NEVER EVER suggested vegetarians were evil??? I intend to be one myself (said so here many times) when I am sure the diet and recipes are sorted! My boyfriend and best friend are vegetarian you sad loser.

re abortion, fetuses may not feel pain (check your facts on that!) but babies do and babies are aborted up to full term! I think they can feel pain from 8 WEEKS so check your facts vegetarian baby killer.

NO vegetables are not living 'CREATURES' they are vegetables! since when were they creatures??? how old are you?

I may want to be vegetarian but NO I don't agree that meat eating is wrong. I do however agree that some (not all) methods of farming are wrong.

I would never force my veg views on anyone just as I wouldn't force my personal 'god' beliefs on someone. There are too many people here that want to ram their biased views down peoples throats, thats what I object too.

Eating meat is NOT morally wrong, some methods of farming are.

And for those reasons (farming related) when I am able and can ensure a healthy diet (without supplements-cos if you have to supplement then its NOT healthy) I will be vegetarian.

Meanwhile DON'T make up your own crap about things I've said when I HAVEN'T said them, if you do you are a troll and need to go take your trolly ways into someone leses thread!

"I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams."
(W Sakespeare, Hamlet: Act II, Scene II)

Theoryofrelativity,
you appear to think that you own some sort of authority to try the merit of vegetarians as a class.

I do not accept that authority.
I see no real point or purpose to such a trial, no foreseeable consequence to it,
nor even anything close to a satisfactory means to conduct it.

For as far as I am concerned you are scarcely more than a vexatious time wasting troll.

Please rather attend to your own,
issues within the domain of your personal power and responsibility.

---

So I take it you are one of those vegetarians who believes in abortion and eats fish, I just think its hypocritical that's all. I'm sure it was you (can't be bothered to check) that said peoples views change to suit their prejudices, this is why I raised the question of vegetarians that don't eat meat because of their friendliness towards living creatures, but have no problems with abortion past 8 weeks. I thought that was excellent example of what you suggested.

Its' very simple, if you think thats 'trolling' you are nuts. Isn't anyone allowed to have ask questions that challenge your view?

I have no problem with vegetariansim, its a noble thing.

I do have problems with people who adopt a hollier than thou attitude and are full of hypocrisy.

Meanwhile how dare you accuse me of trolling my own thread? I can see by every reply you are indeed an individual who thinks they are higher and better than everyone else, and you'd be the same if you ate meat. You are ALL ego and so much so you can't even see it. Read back through your judgemental holier than thou (crap quotes) posts!

Deleted

you have no right to tell me what my rights are or are not

so you eat fish right?

Copied from the web:

"Pain in Fish

Fishing means intense pain and stress for millions of fish every year. Fish are treated in ways which would cause an outrage if cute, furry creatures were involved - but fish suffer just as much.

Pain begins when the hook pierces the mouth and the fish is reeled in. Many people remove the hook while the fish is still alive. Anyone who has ever had a fish hook stuck in their own flesh needs no convincing that this is extremely painful.
Pain is further increased if large fish are landed with a gaff hook. This large hook on a handle rips into the flesh of the live fish to pull it out of the water.

Livebaiting is another barbaric activity that increases pain. A live small fish is threaded up as bait for larger fish. Here is one description of how to do this, taken from a fishing magazine:

"The needle is passed through the front of the eye socket of both eyes. The material is then pulled through so that the hook sits on the head of the baitfish."
Remember that the baitfish is alive and feels pain, just like a dog or a cat (or indeed a human) would.


Stress

Once out of the water, fish suffocate rather like we do underwater. In their death throes fish writhe, gasping and flapping their gills as they desperately try to get oxygen. Anyone who has ever been unable to breathe even for a short time won't need convincing that this is a terrifying experience.

Intense stress is also caused by livebaiting and "playing" fish on the line, as is done particularly with big game fish such as marlin. Research has compared the behaviour of fish in these two situations with the behaviour of fish in a tank into which alarm substance had been released. Alarm substance is normally released by injured fish. This chemical causes panic in other fish, who flee as quickly as possible. In the experiment, the behaviour produced by the alarm substance was very similar to behaviour produced by livebaiting and game fishing. So, these activities cause panic, like alarm substance, but the fish can't escape and the panic may go on for hours.
Attitudes to Fish

It's hard for fish to arouse our compassion. They can't show their agony by screaming. They don't have the sad eyes of a seal pup or a dog.
In an article in The Adelaide Advertiser, Professor Bill Runciman, professor of anaesthesia and intensive care at Adelaide University, was quoted as saying:


"Fish constitute the greatest source of confused thinking and inconsistency on earth at the moment with respect to pain. You will get people very excited about dolphins because they are mammals, and about horses and dogs, if they are not treated properly. At the same time you will have fishing competitions on the River Murray at which thousands of people snare fish with hooks and allow them to asphyxiate on the banks, which is a fairly uncomfortable and miserable death."
Since fish have the same nerve endings, the same chemicals for transmitting and blocking pain, and the same receptor sites for anxiety-reducing chemicals as mammals, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that fish do not feel pain or fear.

Experiments

Animal experimenters acknowledge that fish feel pain and stress. In one of its newsletters, the Australian Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching advised researchers to reduce the pain and stress suffered by cold-blooded vertebrates (including fish) used in experiments.
The article recommended that: "humane restraint, analgesia and anaesthetic should be adopted whenever necessary. Adequate levels of analgesia reduce apprehension and stress, and decrease or suppress the perception of painful stimuli."



Fish Feel Pain

If fish can't show their pain, how can we know whether they feel pain at all? There is very strong scientific evidence to show that they do.

Fish have nerve endings near the skin which are very similar to those of humans and other mammals. We all have receptor cells (called nociceptors) near the skin, which are stimulated by events severe enough to cause damage to body tissues. The lips and mouth of fish are particularly well supplied with nerve endings.

Fish produce the same pain-transmitting chemicals as humans. There are two main chemicals involved. When a nerve ending is damaged, a substance called bradykinin is released. This causes the nerve cell to fire, sending an electrical impulse along the nerve. When bradykinin is released near the skin, a second chemical, called substance P, is released near the spinal cord.
Both substances are known to be involved in transmitting pain. For example, if bradykinin is injected into humans, it causes intense pain, even if a local anaesthetic is used. Both bradykinin and substance P are found in mammals, birds, frogs and fish.


Fish produce the same pain-blocking substances as humans. When in severe pain, humans and other vertebrates (animals with backbones) produce pain-killing chemicals called endorphins. These endorphins block pain by stopping the release of substance P.
Fish Feel Anxiety

For any chemical to be able to affect our brain, there must be special areas in the brain, called receptor sites, to which the chemical can attach. Fish, like mammals, have receptor sites for anxiety-reducing chemicals, such as the valium group of drugs. Dr Andrew Rowan, a Dean of Veterinary Science, has said: "This suggests that most vertebrates are capable of experiencing a form of anxiety which is physiologically similar to that seen in humans."


HAVING NOW READ THE ABOVE, I AM NOW CONVINCED THAT EATING FISH IS EVEN WORSE THAN EATING RED/WHITE MEAT AS THE SUFFERRING CAUSED IS MUCH GREATER.

You may elect to disagree, if as vegetarian who eats fish, these facts may not suit your higher moral ground.

Deleted

TAlk about the pot calling the kettle black, look over your posts and see what you accused meat eaters of...you said 'one step away from killing iraqui civilians', you are full of it!

Also
Libel does not apply here, I was expressing an opinion ..hence the words...'I take it' meaning 'I understood your post to mean xyz..' Maybe you should read about the definition of libel before spouting off about it.

By the way re your eyes thing, does that mean if its blind you'll eat it?

do u believe fish are blind?

Deleted

Theoryofrelativity:
I NEVER EVER suggested vegetarians were evil??? I intend to be one myself (said so here many times) when I am sure the diet and recipes are sorted! My boyfriend and best friend are vegetarian you sad loser.
Sheesh, calm down. I know you want to become a vegetarian and all. My point was that it READS like you are stereotyping vegetarians in a bad way, as hypocrites, etc.
re abortion, fetuses may not feel pain (check your facts on that!) but babies do and babies are aborted up to full term! I think they can feel pain from 8 WEEKS so check your facts vegetarian baby killer.
Well, when fetuses first feel pain is controversial. Here's what http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm says:
"Many physicians and researchers of fetal development believe that synaptic connections within the fetus' brain are necessary to perceive pain. These are not formed until well into the third trimester, when fewer than 1% of all pregnancy terminations are done.
Others, who tend to be pro-life advocates, believe that a fetus as early as 7 weeks after conception can feel pain. Thus, they believe that a fetus can feel pain part way through the first trimester, when most abortions are performed

Some of the experts' opinions may be so heavily biased by their pro-life/pro-choice stance that they are incapable of making objective observations."
As for the second part of your quote, hardly ANYONE agrees with late-term abortions. I know I don't, I just agree up to the first trimester.
I may want to be vegetarian but NO I don't agree that meat eating is wrong. I do however agree that some (not all) methods of farming are wrong.

Basically what I've said.

I would advise moralistic vegetarianism advocates to read through Huxley's Jesting Pilate.

Another way of looking at it is to recall a t-shirt about oral sex and morality: "If God hadn't intended for me to eat p@ssy, He wouldn't have made it look so much like a taco." Given that many species have been naturally endowed with a vegetarian diet, does that make them more moral than humans? Given that humans have evolved eating meat, and that our bodies are equipped for it, do we presume that our morals are wiser than nature, God, and evolution?

My body responds well to a diet of starches and meat. You'd think, watching me cook, that I would be a cholesterol risk. But, no ... my numbers came back in good shape only about a month and a half ago. Then again, I'm a meat snob; the "sausage" I eat is essentially pork's version of hamburger. I don't do chorizo (e.g. lymph and snout). Bacon, white fish, beef, and occasionally poultry. Did a bacon burger last night after catching a killer show of The Stabbs, The Makers, and Mudhoney. Warm. Tasty. Stabilizing. A great comfort, and what my body mostly demands. Went well atop the beer.

On the note of bacon...put sugar over a few strips of bacon, and cook it in the microwave. The sugar caramelizes, and it tastes so friggin good.

Maple syrup, too. Balances the scofield heat if you're into pepper.

Given that humans have evolved eating meat, and that our bodies are equipped for it, do we presume that our morals are wiser than nature, God, and evolution?

.

Agreed!

I said something similar to my ex wheh he wanted circumsise our baby boy,
Me: "does your religion believe itself to be more superior than God?"

Him:"NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO " He emphatically replied

" But you are presuming to alter his design? Do you think God is not capable through evolution of altering it if its not required? Are you more knowing as a man than God?"

He is now a muslim who is against circumsision!

Humerous reply, likes it.

sigh, people are stupid.
"Well, you are not omniscient therefore you must be wrong"
What a great argument... GREAT logic....right... that is an idiotic argument.

Just admit you're stupid and give up, and you WILL be stupid.

to make my reply short:
1) vegetarians on average live longer than meat eaters, and speaking of nature... humans being vegetarian is better for nature.
2) God is a stupid concept and cannot be used for this for obvious reasons... and besides, god and evolution? either god had something to do with us eating meat, or evolution did. It wasn't both.
3) We evolved to eat meat forever ago, doesn't mean today it's better.

sigh, people are stupid.
"Well, you are not omniscient therefore you must be wrong"
What a great argument... GREAT logic....right... that is an idiotic argument.

Just admit you're stupid and give up, and you WILL be stupid.

to make my reply short:
1) vegetarians on average live longer than meat eaters, and speaking of nature... humans being vegetarian is better for nature.
2) God is a stupid concept and cannot be used for this for obvious reasons... and besides, god and evolution? either god had something to do with us eating meat, or evolution did. It wasn't both.
3) We evolved to eat meat forever ago, doesn't mean today it's better.

Actually the only brainless wonder I have seen here would be you if there was one.

Vegetarians do not live any longer than smart meat eaters, the ones who know how to moderate their meat intake. It just seems that way becuase a life that sucks takes forever.

God is not a stupid concept. Believing in a higher power has helped billions use the strength they have to live better lives.

Actually I think we evolved to eat plants as well as meat.

Vegetarians do not live any longer than smart meat eaters, the ones who know how to moderate their meat intake. It just seems that way becuase a life that sucks takes forever.
Agreed.

God is not a stupid concept. Believing in a higher power has helped billions use the strength they have to live better lives.
And those billions rely on a fictional being and an old storybook rather than taking the responsibility to make thier own choices, thier own decisions, and take control of thier lives rather than wasting it bowing down to something that simple isn't there.

Actually I think we evolved to eat plants as well as meat.
Also agree.

Maybe vegetarians live longer because they're more forced to be aware of what they eat, and often compile a balanced diet as they "change sides" - because it gives them awareness. I bet people who've just been vegetarians all their lives, in communities where that's normal don't necessarily live longer.

sigh, people are stupid.
"Well, you are not omniscient therefore you must be wrong"
What a great argument... GREAT logic....right... that is an idiotic argument.

Just admit you're stupid and give up, and you WILL be stupid.

to make my reply short:
1) vegetarians on average live longer than meat eaters, and speaking of nature... humans being vegetarian is better for nature.
2) God is a stupid concept and cannot be used for this for obvious reasons... and besides, god and evolution? either god had something to do with us eating meat, or evolution did. It wasn't both.
3) We evolved to eat meat forever ago, doesn't mean today it's better.

NUTS is all I can say, re veggies living longer...prove it? I have NEVER heard this one before! Thats a new one! FISH eaters live longest and anyone who eats fish is NOT vegetarian! (Whether they choose to delude themselves by calling themselves one or not, they a e NOT)

scott:
Vegetarians do not live any longer than smart meat eaters, the ones who know how to moderate their meat intake. It just seems that way becuase a life that sucks takes forever.
... i'm talking about real numbers here, not relative feelings.

God is not a stupid concept. Believing in a higher power has helped billions use the strength they have to live better lives.
And has caused billions to die in idiotic wars, witch burning, etc has caused many others to be stupid and ignorant, has caused countless other things.

Actually I think we evolved to eat plants as well as meat.
agreed.
Theoryofrelativity
NUTS is all I can say, re veggies living longer...prove it? I have NEVER heard this one before! Thats a new one! FISH eaters live longest and anyone who eats fish is NOT vegetarian! (Whether they choose to delude themselves by calling themselves one or not, they a e NOT)
Um... either they deleted it from wikipedia, or I was mistaken (or I can't find it right now). If I was mistaken, sorry. I might have deduced that they live longer from the health benefits:
As an example, vegetarians tend to have lower body mass indices, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, some forms of cancer, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders that may be diet-related.

The Journal of the ADA also reports that children raised as vegans have approximately 20 more points of IQ than average. (source: JADA 1980; 76:142-7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition
holy crap, 20 points is a big difference!

The Journal of the ADA also reports that children raised as vegans have approximately 20 more points of IQ than average. (source: JADA 1980; 76:142-7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition
holy crap, 20 points is a big difference!

As Mark Twain famously said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

This is reaffirmation that Mark Twain was correct. If you just accept that statement that Vegans are smarter, then you haven't given it much thought. There are many factors that could have caused that statistic that has nothing at all to do with diet.

Vegans are not well represented in all societies, in all classes, in all cultures. Vegans are typically middle-class, white, suburban, college graduates. They live in better school systems, and have/are parents better equipped to nurture their children.

Many cultures are completely dependent on meat as the major source of food. This can be for economic, religious or geographic reasons.

I would also tie into this observation the statistics on living longer and general health.

Max

JADA stands for the journal of the American Dietetic Association, meaning they did not take samples from other countries.
Vegans are not well represented in all societies, in all classes, in all cultures. Vegans are typically middle-class, white, suburban, college graduates. They live in better school systems, and have/are parents better equipped to nurture their children.
Well, isn't that the whole point?
veganism is not something that's in the genes. If it was passed on through the genes, I would see your point. It's not.
and about living longer and general health, it's been shown that the actual eating of vegetables can reduce some things while the actual eating of meat can make them higher. What a coincidence that vegetarians in general do have lower X's and meat eathers have higher Y's, exactly what you'd expect. It's not some random thing like them getting into fewer car crashes or being robbed more/less. What they look at IS caused because of what they eat.
Besides, who the hell do you think they are? they're not elementary students. They know how to take data and interpret it, I'm guessing they went to college for that. And I might reconsider if it was just one small organization nobody's heard about, but it's more than one, big and respected organizations.

on an unrelated note, I was reading my AP biology book (campbell reece, 7th edition I think) and it said "It takes 4.8 Kg of grain to produce a Kg of grain fed beef"

Actually I think we evolved to eat plants as well as meat.

Isn't it the other way around? (I'm thinking of prosimians here)

Campbell reece mitchell is already in its 7th edition? Wow, I remember learning from the 5th 4 years ago back in my AP Bio class.

yep, Neil A. campbell died on 2004 though. It's sad... I love that book. So much info.
"He died in 2004 of heart attack just after the manuscript for the fifth international edition was completed."

"Well, you are not omniscient therefore you must be wrong"

I smoke cigarettes. I can quit. I don't exercise. I can start. I'm an American. I suppose I can move. There's lots I can do for my health before meat becomes a consideration. I look at the benefits of vegetariansim like I look at the psychological reward of redemptive religion. If I spent my life worshipping God, I would probably regret it on my deathbed. All those years wasted. Try "Aceldama (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fBBS9Yy2boEJ:homepage.mac.com/bdhilling/.Public/Aceldama.pdf+aceldama+place+to+bury+strangers+in+c rowley+pdf&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2)".

In the same notion of regret ... well, I wouldn't have had the wonderful, rare peppercorn New York the other night, a $57 steak on the occasion of a friend's departure. Nor the $13 glass of wine that went so well with it. (Don't look at me, I didn't pay.) Or the pepper-rub filet, made from Les Schwab's free beef. The bacon cheeseburger mentioned in an earlier post. Bacon and hash browns, late night at Beth's ....

As to the God argument, well, I should have used the word "or". I never would have thought to split that particular hair.

And so what if we evolved as omnivores a long time ago? Didn't say it was better.

And as far as omniscience goes, that's not the point. The question is a moral one. To refer to a consideration of the morality of morals in general:


The morality of having morals ... can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted.

"Is Having Morals Moral?" (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1007746)

Which leads me back to Huxley. Really, the argument is in Huxley. It seems I repeat this argument from time to time. I haven't the volume to transcribe at present, but I mentioned this last year in response to the topic, "Is it wrong to kill an animal? (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=749022)"

And Huxley's discussion of his tour of the Bose Institute, especially his direct and pointed consideration of moral vegetarianism--essentially, "Watch a plant gasp and suffocate, and then see how you feel about it"--pretty much sums up the point. It is merely a matter of perception. If you were capable of actually seeing your salad gasp, you wouldn't enjoy eating it as much. Of course, it's not like the garbanzos actually scream. Neither do the crab.

yep, Neil A. campbell died on 2004 though. It's sad... I love that book. So much info.
"He died in 2004 of heart attack just after the manuscript for the fifth international edition was completed."

Hmmm I must be wrong then... I took AP Bio in 2001-2002, and they were soon using the next edition, so I must've been using either the third or fourth edition.

JADA stands for the journal of the American Dietetic Association, meaning they did not take samples from other countries.

Well, isn't that the whole point?
veganism is not something that's in the genes. If it was passed on through the genes, I would see your point. It's not.
and about living longer and general health, it's been shown that the actual eating of vegetables can reduce some things while the actual eating of meat can make them higher. What a coincidence that vegetarians in general do have lower X's and meat eathers have higher Y's, exactly what you'd expect. It's not some random thing like them getting into fewer car crashes or being robbed more/less. What they look at IS caused because of what they eat.
Besides, who the hell do you think they are? they're not elementary students. They know how to take data and interpret it, I'm guessing they went to college for that. And I might reconsider if it was just one small organization nobody's heard about, but it's more than one, big and respected organizations.

You completely ignored his point. Or perhaps you complete misunderstood it. Most vegans are from upper middle class and above families. This means they have had a better education, either in better public schools, tutors, or private academies. Of courser they are going to test better than the average meat eater if that is the way you seperated them. However I would bet that if you took the same social level, similiar background, and similiar schooling that the IQ scores will be exactly the same.

JADA stands for the journal of the American Dietetic Association, meaning they did not take samples from other countries.

That was my entire point! That one highly unrepresented population scoring 20 points higher on an I.Q. test doesn't prove ANYTHING! Especially that they are smarter because of what they eat.


veganism is not something that's in the genes. If it was passed on through the genes, I would see your point. It's not.

No, you missed my point completely! My point was that this quote from the ADA doesn't prove that eating vegetables makes you smarter.


Besides, who the hell do you think they are? they're not elementary students. They know how to take data and interpret it, I'm guessing they went to college for that. And I might reconsider if it was just one small organization nobody's heard about, but it's more than one, big and respected organizations.

Just because they went to college doesn't take bias out of the conclusion. I guess you miss Mark Twain's point as well. Because his point was that you can prove anything with statistics, because you can't take the experimenter out of the experiment. If you hold onto some other naive notion, I wish you well, but this society works around money.

It doesn't matter the size of the organization, it is the lack of representative data. They are trying to prove that a small population of people are smarter because they don't eat meat. I bring up the point that this small population of people might have already been smarter, regardless of the fact that they eat meat. And to make this point I show, and you agree, that most vegans are part of a population that is already smarter than the general public. I was saying that middle-class, white, suburban people are smarter, regardless of what they eat.

If you can show me proof that this study took a sample of vegans and a sample of "meaties" that would be exactly alike except for the fact that one eats meat and the other doesn't, then I would have to detract my earlier claim. But upon that possibility I have another statement to make. But at this point I need not yet make it.

I would also like to thank TW Scott for recognizing the point and defending it.

Max

Actually eating 'EPA' makes you smarter! ;) Can be derived from vegetable source but largely fish sources.

Although humans were not made to eat meat just as all other primates were not made to eat meat, it is not morally wrong to do so. It is however biologically unconducive tothe human body just as smoking or frying your brain on 24 hours straight of anime and video games.

Primates not menat to eat meat? You do realize chimps eat caterpillars. Ape like the ants of there area, Baboons actually prefer meat. I think perhaps someone believes that all primates eat banana a little too much.

As for meat being bad for you, well anything in excess is bad for you. You can even die of drinking too much water. The point is moderation. Don't consume too much, but there is no reason to forebear.

The same can be said for eating paper. Humans can digest paper or even glass. Does it mean their body was meant to digest glass? The human body is biologically designed to digest fruits and vegetables. Not the same type that herbivore eat. More of a frugavore diet. Herbivores eat grass and leaves. Frugavores eat fruits and vegetables that we regularly consume as part of our diet, but not often enough all of our diet.

I got the quote from that thread, Its not personal opinion re pro or not pro eating meat I am after its your views on 'when does something become a moral issue, what makes it moral, what makes this subject a moral issue or even if it is a moral issue?

Well, morals will tend to imply some sort of dogma to which one adheres.

It becomes a moral issue to a person when it conflicts with the dogma to which one subscribes.

It has been stated in a book, of which at the moment I cannot recollect the name of it, that the moral issue is because of the shedding of blood.
Life flows through the body by way of the blood.
When you kill an animal and eat it, you have killed life which is a sacred thing which then gets into "religious" dogma of what is right or wrong and therefore brings into question the morality of eating animals.

Christianity says that you can eat animals freely without fear of committing some sacred heresy but it also says you should not practice your freedom in front of a person who may find it in his/her own mind as morally wrong.
Funny thing is about Christianity, Adam and Eve were more than likely vegetarians at the beginning.

The Jews were told not to eat any animal with cloven feet as they were unclean and therefore morally speaking the eating of those animals were morally wrong.

Ok why not just kill humans and eat them too. What is morally wrong with that?

Well, morals will tend to imply some sort of dogma to which one adheres.

It becomes a moral issue to a person when it conflicts with the dogma of which one subscribes.

This subject is a moral issue because of the shedding of blood.
Life flows through the body by way of the blood.
When you kill an animal and eat it, you have killed life.

Ok why not just kill humans and eat them too. What is morally wrong with that?

Okay first of all, you are right it is a personal moral code for most part. Since I view my self as a Omnivore (which we are, argue all you want) I see no problem with preying on "lesser animals". Like every other mammal species on the planet I abhor eating of human flesh. However like them if it was that or starve to death the body goes on the BBQ. Not that I would kill someone to eat.

I view my self as a Omnivore (which we are, argue all you want)
OK. Humans are not omnivores.

Ah, welcome back TW Scott. I thought you'd given up. But no, it seems you just have no answers to MY arguments, so you thought you'd try somebody else, I guess.

Don't mind me, but I can't resist...

Primates not menat to eat meat? You do realize chimps eat caterpillars. Ape like the ants of there area, Baboons actually prefer meat. I think perhaps someone believes that all primates eat banana a little too much.

The word "meant" implies some kind of design by a Creator. No animal is "meant" to do anything. Some primates can and do eat meat. Others do not. There's no "meant to" about it.

As for meat being bad for you, well anything in excess is bad for you. You can even die of drinking too much water. The point is moderation. Don't consume too much, but there is no reason to forebear.

Apart from all the ethical reasons, of course.

Okay first of all, you are right it is a personal moral code for most part.

Some personal moral codes are superior to others, of course. (At the risk of somebody citing Godwin's law, think about Hitler, for example.)

Since I view my self as a Omnivore (which we are, argue all you want) I see no problem with preying on "lesser animals".

i.e. the naturalistic fallacy again. "What is natural is necessarily ethically good."

Sorry, but this argument isn't any better this time than the last time you tried it.

Like every other mammal species on the planet I abhor eating of human flesh.

I'm sure that, given the chance, lions and tigers and bears would quite happily subsist on a diet of human flesh.

Then again, this is just an extension of the naturalistic fallacy, again, and we've already established that that particular argument is a waste of time, haven't we?

However like them if it was that or starve to death the body goes on the BBQ. Not that I would kill someone to eat.

Not even if you were starving and had no other food options? Why not, I wonder...

Well, let's not get into the same questions as those other threads mentioned earlier in this thread have already discussed which I have not read thoroughly yet.

We are talking about the morality of eating animals.

Now what exactly is meant by morality in the original question?
Is it about animal rights and vegetarianism of those other threads?

Why do we think animals have rights when we do not think aborted fetus have rights??

Why is it not morally wrong to kill a fetus?
That would be a good food source instead of animals.
Let's just eat them. Lots of good protein, vitamins, minerals in them.

Hey, why not just eat those who die like in the novel and movie "Soilent Green"?

One day that will be exceptable don't you think?

Farming of plants and animals have been in existance as long as man has been alive.
As intelligent man has evolved so has his farming methods had to evolve to feed the sheer numbers of people in demand of the product.
There is no difference seen between animal and plant in the consumerism of the food chain.

If I can pay someone to slaughter my meat for me, then I don't have to kill it and I can make his clothes for him and build his house which are things that I am good at doing as he is good at farming animals. We become community and specialise so that we can also expand our knowledge and minds with the free time given to us by specializing.

finewine:

We are talking about the morality of eating animals.

Interesting that you want to turn this into a debate about abortion, then.

Now what exactly is meant by morality in the original question?
Is it about animal rights? Why do we think animals have rights when we do not think aborted fetus have rights??

An aborted fetus is dead. Why should it have any special rights?

But, I'm sure you didn't mean that. You meant fetuses about to be aborted have no rights.

I personally have never argued that unborn foetuses don't have any rights. My position is that they aren't entitled to all the same rights as a newborn child. See the difference?

Why is it not morally wrong to kill a fetus?

Try reading the threads on abortion. Let's discuss vegetarianism here, ok?

That would be a good food source instead of animals.

Well, foetuses are animals, so similar kinds of arguments apply to not eating them. On the other hand, the life of a healthy cow might well be worth more than that of a two-week old foetus, for example, so we might worry more about killing and eating the cow. That wouldn't get rid of any potential rights the foetus might have.

Let's just eat them. Lots of good protein, vitamins, minerals in them.

I think you'll find that vegetarians won't eat animals OR foetuses. So, they are consist. Yet here you are, saying that eating animals is fine, but eating human foetuses is a great crime. Isn't that inconsistent?

Farming of plants and animals have been in existance as long as man has been alive.

No. Early man lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Farming only developed quite recently in our evolutionary history. Not that it is relevant...

As intelligent man has evolved so has his farming methods have to evolve to feed the sheer numbers of people in demand of the product.

Yes.

There is no difference seen between animal and plant in the consumerism of the food chain.

Animals are conscious and sentient. Plants are not. Quite a significant difference, if you ask me. Why do you ignore it? Don't you believe it?

If I can pay someone to slaughter my meat for me, then I don't have to kill it and I can make his clothes for him and build his house which are things that I am good at doing as he is good at farming animals. We become community and specialise so that we can also expand our knowledge and minds with the free time given to us by specializing.

Yes. And so? Are there no alternative jobs for farmers than raising animals for meat?

finewine:



Interesting that you want to turn this into a debate about abortion, then
An aborted fetus is dead. Why should it have any special rights?

But, I'm sure you didn't mean that. You meant fetuses about to be aborted have no rights.

I personally have never argued that unborn foetuses don't have any rights. My position is that they aren't entitled to all the same rights as a newborn child. See the difference?

Actually I am not trying to turn this into an abortion pro/con debate.

A fetus is not dead until it is aborted. It is living and suffers the same if not worse "pain" that farmed animals do. Where is a living fetus' rights? The 'superiour' of its kind has the 'right' to kill it. Why?
We could at least give its death meaning by eating it, couldn't we? I do know byproducts are used in medicine and beauty lotions but surely why not feed the masses of starving by farming out the killed fetus like we farm out the killed animals.
No, I do not see the difference , a fetus is an unborn child in the womb of its mother. I have had five children. When does a fetus become a child when it is born?? Hell no, it is a child, living and breathing as a fetus in the womb and then its next stage of development is called newborn, then toddler, then youth, than adolecent, then young adult, then adult, then senior citizen.

The point of this thread to me is not about vegetarianism but morality and when does morality come into play with eating animals if at all?


Well, foetuses are animals, so similar kinds of arguments apply to not eating them. On the other hand, the life of a healthy cow might well be worth more than that of a two-week old foetus, for example, so we might worry more about killing and eating the cow. That wouldn't get rid of any potential rights the foetus might have.

Indeed, the cow has more value than an unborn child? Why is that and is that moral?

I think you'll find that vegetarians won't eat animals OR foetuses. So, they are consist. Yet here you are, saying that eating animals is fine, but eating human foetuses is a great crime. Isn't that inconsistent?

I am pointing out different aspects of morality. I am not discussing vegetarianism. I will reiterate. This thread to me was not about vegetarianism.

I am pointing out the inconsistancy in the morality of championing the animal rights of animals that we eat, but ignoring the rights of another animal that we do not eat but discard as an inconvenient byproduct of the act of sexual copulation that will produce offspring.

No. Early man lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Farming only developed quite recently in our evolutionary history. Not that it is relevant...
You do not have to correct me with your superior intellect. I am well aware of farming developing quite recently. The point in my statement if you will look a bit closer is that farming did develop in our evolution and the point is relevant to the issue of morality of eating animals being discussed since we as humans tend to modify our morality for any reason to suit our own wants and wishes.


Yes. And so? Are there no alternative jobs for farmers than raising animals for meat?
Sure, they can farm plants and they can make synthetic furs and fabrics for clothing. I'm not arguing with you about vegetarianism as a better way.
The question here is the morality of killing animals. I am stating the facts of why farming of animals exist. Men like the taste of meat and will kill to eat it and will pay someone to kill for them.



Animals are conscious and sentient. Plants are not. Quite a significant difference, if you ask me. Why do you ignore it? Don't you believe it?

I do not ignore it. I view it the same way you see that babies don't have rights until they are born.
You can condone the abortion of babies and I'll eat animals. Either way we are killing life.
The morality question posed to me goes much deeper than sentient. It goes to sapient. I do not believe that animals are sapient. I do not believe fetuses are just animals nor do I believe that mankind is an animal in the sense of evolutionary progression on the food chain, though he may exhibit a more vicious pedatory instincts than any of the sentient beings we eat as animals.

Okay:

1: I mispoke myself it should read: I, almost every mammal on the planet, abhor the eating of my own kind.

2: Eating meat is only an Ethical issue if you believe it does. Like anything a belief is hard to change. It is also limiting and self defeating. A person rarely if ever sees past their own belief. They get so wrapped up in it that they will view anyone who doesn't have it to be morally bankrupt.

finewine:

You sound a little confused.

It seems to me that most vegetarians respect the rights of animals AND of human foetuses. They would not eat either of them.

On the other hand, most pro-life proponents are, strangely enough, meat eaters. While they march through the streets demanding rights for unborn children, at the same time they are quite happy to completely ignore the rights of animals not to be killed and eaten arbitrarily. To me, that seems hypocritical. If they say they respect life, then why is it not ALL life, but only human life (born or unborn)?

No vegetarian is advocating that we eat human foetuses, as far as I can see.

A fetus is not dead until it is aborted. It is living and suffers the same if not worse "pain" that farmed animals do.

I very much doubt that it suffers "the same if not worse pain", especially before the point where it has a fully developed nervous system. But let's suppose it does. Then we have an argument for not killing foetuses AND not eating meat. You still haven't presented a good reason why it is ok to eat meat.

Where is a living fetus' rights? The 'superiour' of its kind has the 'right' to kill it. Why?

First, realise that it is not a blanket right. In the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, for example, abortions are very rare indeed, and in my opinion the unborn child has greater rights at that time than in the first trimester.

Second, realise that we need to balance (at least) two sets of rights here: the rights of the mother and the rights of the foetus itself. If the mother's rights win the battle, then the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy. Right-to-lifers generally downplay the interests of the mother, making the interests of the foetus paramount in all situations.

We could at least give its death meaning by eating it, couldn't we? I do know byproducts are used in medicine and beauty lotions but surely why not feed the masses of starving by farming out the killed fetus like we farm out the killed animals.

Well, we could eat aborted foetuses, but I think you'll find that most people would find that a distasteful thing to do, for many reasons. I challenge you, in particular, to find a single vegetarian who will support your proposal.

No, I do not see the difference , a fetus is an unborn child in the womb of its mother. I have had five children. When does a fetus become a child when it is born?? Hell no, it is a child, living and breathing as a fetus in the womb and then its next stage of development is called newborn, then toddler, then youth, than adolecent, then young adult, then adult, then senior citizen.

I agree. Now, consider: do senior citizens have the same rights as adults? No. For example, adults are not entitled to discounts for certain things which are given to senior citizens.

Do adolescents have the same rights as adults? No. They are not allowed to vote, or drink or drive a car.

So, why do you assume that an unborn foetus should have all the rights of an adult, or a senior citizen?

The point of this thread to me is not about vegetarianism but morality and when does morality come into play with eating animals if at all?

The argument is very simple:

1. Animals can suffer.
2. It is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering.
3. Meat production causes unnecessary suffering, and the premature end of an animal's life.
4. Therefore, meat eating is wrong.

Indeed, the cow has more value than an unborn child? Why is that and is that moral?

Why is that? Because the cow may have a greater capacity for suffering than the foetus. It is conscious of its surroundings. It has no wish to die; on the contrary, it will make efforts to protect itself as best it can if somebody tries to kill it.

I am pointing out the inconsistancy in the morality of championing the animal rights of animals that we eat, but ignoring the rights of another animal that we do not eat but discard as an inconvenient byproduct of the act of sexual copulation that will produce offspring.

That's ok. I agree we should consider BOTH sets of rights. Agreed?

You do not have to correct me with your superior intellect. I am well aware of farming developing quite recently. The point in my statement if you will look a bit closer is that farming did develop in our evolution and the point is relevant to the issue of morality of eating animals being discussed since we as humans tend to modify our morality for any reason to suit our own wants and wishes.

Morality is meaningless if it can be modified at the whim of the individual. It becomes indistinguishable from pure selfishness.

Food for thought...Lmao!
===================.
Scientists forecast meat grown on kitchen counter

Article QUOTE:
"Scientists are trying to develop an industrial process that grows meat tissue from a few cells in a lab – or even at home, in a device like a bread maker.


Jason Matheny, University of Maryland researcher.
Instead of being cut from a farm animal, the beef, pork or chicken would be grown in incubators from a few starter cells, a growth medium and some hormones to get the cells to divide..."


http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2006/03/27/lab-meat-200602.html

Morality is meaningless if it can be modified at the whim of the individual. It becomes indistinguishable from pure selfishness.

Bingo! I agree. This remember is a thread about morality not about eating meat or about vegetarianism.

Mankind modifies morality all the time for our own selfish needs.

I am not taking a position either way. You make the wrong assumption on that. I am discussing all aspects of the morality.

I started out if you recall saying that the morality has to do with the spilling of blood and that the blood is the life of the animal.
Are you saying that an elderly citizen does not have the same right to life that an adult or adolescent does? Why?

As far as the fetus is concerned at 12 weeks it feels pain and tries very hard not to be chopped up into bits and pieces but just as the cow, it cannot escape its confinement that has been place on it by a 'superior' animal that choses to kill it. And what the pro choice advocates play down is the mental emotional anquish that the mother goes through and lives with after an abortion. Noone likes to talk about that and noone likes to talk about the aborted babies that do survive and live their sentient life. When does that sentient life start?

Everyone is controlled by their system of values. It is inescapable.
What system is correct? We all think our system of morality is correct.
Those that say and believe they are freed from any limitations and are free thinkers and open minded are not.
They are controlled by the values they set for themselves in their freed state and any new ideas will be accepted or rejected through that filter of values they've established for themselves.

I am not confused at all. I am not advocating and presenting a case for eating meat.
I am discussing morality and asking questions about what is it in regards to KILLING animals as the original post queried.

I make no judgements on it either way. Each must come to his own conclusions and live his own convictions. I am not trying to persuade anyone to change.

I did not think that this forum was about trying to persuade anyone to change.
I thought it was about presenting ideas and discussing them.
Vegetarians don't eat animal meat or fetus. :)
Meat eaters eat meat of animals.
Man chooses to eat meat because he likes the taste of it not because he needs to or has to eat meat.
Sapient beings are aborted as less valuable than sentient full grown cows.
Mankind in its selfishness modifies morality to justify his own set of values that frees him to believe and do whatever he wants so he doesn't have to be held accountable to a higher standard of morality. But then of course we don't have a higher standard of morality. We are all just conscious sentient animals but for some reason mankind has the power to say what is right or wrong whereas the cow does not.

finewine:

Bingo! I agree. This remember is a thread about morality not about eating meat or about vegetarianism.

Well, it is titled "Is eating meat morally wrong". To me, that suggests that it is about the morality of eating meat.

Mankind modifies morality all the time to for our own selfish needs.

I think you're mixing up "individuals" with "mankind". Mankind's morals are reasonably constant, with some small shifts. Individuals can sometimes change their minds.

I am not taking a position either way.

It sure sounds to me like you're pro-life rather than pro-choice, which is a position. On the vegetarian issue, maybe now would be a good time to decide what you believe.

I started out if you recall saying that the morality has to do with the spilling of blood and that the blood is the life of the animal.

Sounds similar to my argument about suffering...

As far as the fetus is concerned at 12 weeks it feels pain and tries very hard not to be chopped up into bits and pieces but just as the cow, it cannot escape its confinement that has been place on it by a 'superior' animal that choses to kill it.

Perhaps.

And what the pro choice advocates play down is the mental emotional anquish that the mother goes through and lives with after an abortion.

Not in my experience. The pro-choice advocates I know emphasize that deciding whether to have an abortion is almost always a very difficult decision for a woman to make, and there can be a lot of mental anguish at the time. It is not a life experience which is easy to forget for most women, either. However, research indicates that abortion does not leave women as emotional wrecks, wracked for life by guilt, as some pro-lifers would have you believe. Most women never regret their decision, either way.

Noone likes to talk about that and noone likes to talk about the aborted babies that do survive and live their sentient life.

How can an aborted baby survive?

When does that sentient life start?

Life starts long before conception. Sperm and ova are alive. Sentience only starts with the development of a central nervous system.

Everyone is controlled by their system of values. It is unescapable.
What system is correct? We all think our system of morality is correct.
Those that say they are freed from any limitations are not.
They are controlled by the values they set for themselves in their freed state.

Yes, I agree. But some systems of morality, as I said before, are objectively more defensible than others.

The argument is very simple:

1. Animals can suffer.
2. It is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering.
3. Meat production causes unnecessary suffering, and the premature end of an animal's life.
4. Therefore, meat eating is wrong.


1: Yes the animal can suffer. So what. Does that have anything to do with me and my relations with my peers, which food-animals are not.?

2: No it is not always wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering. To even think that is ridiculous. Otherwise we could not ever imprison someone.

3: I have to categorically deny this. These animals do not on a whole suffer, nor is this necessarily a premature death. Without our industies those animlas would not exist or be protected in the first place. Which is besides the point. When it is your time to go it is your time to go and nothing is going to stop it.

4: Eating meat is as morally wrong as breathing, drinking water, eating an apple, or posting on a forum. It is one of those things neither right nor wrong, but just there.

finewine:
Well, it is titled "Is eating meat morally wrong". To me, that suggests that it is about the morality of eating meat.
quote=theoryofrelativity
"What is it about our relationships with animals and how we view ourselves in relation to animals that dictates we should (if we should) take a 'moral' view?
I got the quote from that thread, Its not personal opinion re pro or not pro eating meat I am after its your views on 'when does something become a moral issue, what makes it moral, what makes this subject a moral issue or even if it is a moral issue?"

I think you're mixing up "individuals" with "mankind". Mankind's morals are reasonably constant, with some small shifts. Individuals can sometimes change their minds.
Mankinds morals have been reasonably constant in shifting towards a humanistic relativism that promotes the ambiguity of "You can condone the abortion of babies and I'll eat animals. Either way we are killing life but it is agreed to disagree and do what we want to do."

It sure sounds to me like you're pro-life rather than pro-choice, which is a position. On the vegetarian issue, maybe now would be a good time to decide what you believe. I already did. See above.

What matters is the discussion of the thread's question.
To require a person to take a position is to automatically set up assumptions about that person and what that person will try to say to convince you your position is wrong. You automatically put up walls to listening and only try to persuade the person to your stance.

Sounds similar to my argument about suffering...
Yes, it does. We are agreed.


Not in my experience. The pro-choice advocates I know emphasize that deciding whether to have an abortion is almost always a very difficult decision for a woman to make, and there can be a lot of mental anguish at the time. It is not a life experience which is easy to forget for most women, either. However, research indicates that abortion does not leave women as emotional wrecks, wracked for life by guilt, as some pro-lifers would have you believe. Most women never regret their decision, either way.
Research by whom? Pro-choice advocates? You can say the same thing to me. Research by whom? Pro-life advocates? I will tell you, yes, they are now. They are mothers who aborted their children and still regret it.
Have you talked with women who have aborted their children 5, 10 years afterwards?
Those that never regret their decision are those whose selfishness controls their morality to justify the killing of life. I am not condemning them nor judging them morally. This is the psychological fact at work in their lives.
This pro-choice advocacy of telling the mothers it is a difficult decision originated as a result of pro-life's pressure to get them to do so. It was not so at the beginning after Roe vs Wade. Do you know that Roe is now pro-life? Indeed, she is. Her morality changed towards the killing of life.

How can an aborted baby survive?
http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html

Life starts long before conception. Sperm and ova are alive. Sentience only starts with the development of a central nervous system.
The beginning of which is put into motion at conception when the DNA of sperm and ova are combined and a baby begins development.

Yes, I agree. But some systems of morality, as I said before, are objectively more defensible than others.
Why? What makes that statement true?
Why can't I kill you by bludgeoning you to death with a baseball bat or by chopping you into tiny little pieces while you were sentient because I do not like the color of your shirt or I want a midnight snack of human flesh?

The following has just occurred to me, historically, we in UK DIDN'T HAVE or know of the existance of vegetables, they were imported and then grown here few centuries ago.

We were hunter gatherers, meat and berries, had we been meant not to eat meat, we'd have died out long ago!

Massi warriers, eat only meat, again no such thing as vegetables where they live. A diet without meat for them WOULD not sustain them.

Vegetarianism is therefore something that can ONLY exist in the current modern and civilised world where we have been able to import and grow the variety of vegetables etc required to be vegetarian healthily.

Does this therefore mean that the moral issue only arises and applies to those in modern civilised world who have the choice?

I think it is only in the current modern and civilise world that there would arise any question about the morality of it because up until the current civilised world, morality was a more defined absolute in the general population than it is now. Being exposed to different cultures has now caused us to pause and think on what is right and wrong which is the bottom line of morality.

But then the dilemma becomes who decides what is right and wrong? That would be an interesting topic of discussion as well.

I am sure there is a thread on it somewhere on this forum.
Another query that comes from your post
Are we really more civilised or is our barbarianism more refined and sophisticated to be acceptable to the morality that is written on the heart?

[QUOTE=finewine]

But then the dilemma becomes who decides what is right and wrong?
QUOTE]

James R of course ;)

That is a scary thought. He's a little too black and white for me. There is no gray or off-white around him.

it's better to not eat meat because it causes suffering. but not for all people.... for some people it might be ok. like for animals, it's not wrong for a lion to kill, it might be the same way for some people too. and some people need to eat meat in order to survive, like eskimos.

But then the dilemma becomes who decides what is right and wrong?

i think god.

[QUOTE=finewine]

But then the dilemma becomes who decides what is right and wrong?
QUOTE]

James R of course ;)

You think so?? :D

it's better to not eat meat because it causes suffering. but not for all people.... for some people it might be ok. like for animals, it's not wrong for a lion to kill, it might be the same way for some people too. and some people need to eat meat in order to survive, like eskimos.



i think god.

What does god say about the rightness of eating meat?

foetus
:bugeye:

What does god say about the rightness of eating meat?

James R has already given his views on this matter ;) why you asking again ;)

What does god say about the rightness of eating meat?

probably the same as i said.

TW Scott:

1: Yes the animal can suffer. So what. Does that have anything to do with me and my relations with my peers, which food-animals are not.?

No. It has to do with your morality, or lack of it. If you have no regard for the suffering of other creatures, you are morally stunted.

2: No it is not always wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering. To even think that is ridiculous. Otherwise we could not ever imprison someone.

The key word, which you must have missed, is "unnecessary". It is quite easy to argue that imprisonment inflicts necessary suffering. If you would like to discuss whether imprisonment is right or wrong, start a new thread.

My statement stands. It is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

3: I have to categorically deny this. These animals do not on a whole suffer, nor is this necessarily a premature death.

How long would a veal calf live, if it was not killed? How is its death not premature? Because you want to eat it now, I suppose.

Clearly, you have little care or knowledge about animal suffering. The information is out there, and I'm not going to waste my time presenting it to you in bite-sized chunks (pardon the pun). Go look.

Without our industies those animlas would not exist or be protected in the first place. Which is besides the point. When it is your time to go it is your time to go and nothing is going to stop it.

Do you expect to live a natural lifespan, TW, barring any unfortunate accidents? Do you think that right should be protected by law? If your right to live is to be protected, why not the rights of animals? Or are they only there for your selfish whims?

4: Eating meat is as morally wrong as breathing, drinking water, eating an apple, or posting on a forum. It is one of those things neither right nor wrong, but just there.

Well, you're half way there. You've gone from proclaiming that eating meat is morally good and righteous to saying that it is neutral - neither good nor bad. Baby steps towards the final awakening.

That is a scary thought. He's a little too black and white for me. There is no gray or off-white around him.

Where are the shades of gray in your position on this issue, may I ask?

I mean, the relevant issues are quite straight forward here. You don't have to be smart to sort through them. You just have to appreciate that animals are not automaton robots built for your pleasure.


finewine:

Research by whom? Pro-choice advocates? You can say the same thing to me. Research by whom? Pro-life advocates?

Obviously, these special interest groups both have vested interests in conducting this type of research. However, I am sure that not all researchers are biased.

I will tell you, yes, they are now. They are mothers who aborted their children and still regret it.
Have you talked with women who have aborted their children 5, 10 years afterwards?

Yes. Have you?

Those that never regret their decision are those whose selfishness controls their morality to justify the killing of life.

This is lumping a whole heap of people into one basket. It is unjustified, presumptuous and, I assert, incorrect.

This pro-choice advocacy of telling the mothers it is a difficult decision originated as a result of pro-life's pressure to get them to do so.

It is a difficult decision regardless of what pro-choice or others tell them. I was talking about the feelings of the mothers, not the platitudes of special interest groups.

It was not so at the beginning after Roe vs Wade. Do you know that Roe is now pro-life? Indeed, she is. Her morality changed towards the killing of life.

This is one individual among millions. Just because Roe changed her mind doesn't say anything about the millions of other women who have had abortions.

The beginning of which is put into motion at conception when the DNA of sperm and ova are combined and a baby begins development.

A potential baby is not a baby. There is no reason to say that a potential baby ought to have the full rights of an actual baby. If we start down that track, all sperm, for example, should have a right to life, and masterbation ought to be a crime.

Why can't I kill you by bludgeoning you to death with a baseball bat or by chopping you into tiny little pieces while you were sentient because I do not like the color of your shirt or I want a midnight snack of human flesh?

Because you and I are on an equal footing as human beings entitled to a right to life. Your actions would infringe my interests without valid justification, and so I am entitled to protection of the law against such acts.

Do I really need to explain this to you?


Theoryofrelativity

We were hunter gatherers, meat and berries, had we been meant not to eat meat, we'd have died out long ago!
...
Vegetarianism is therefore something that can ONLY exist in the current modern and civilised world where we have been able to import and grow the variety of vegetables etc required to be vegetarian healthily.

Does this therefore mean that the moral issue only arises and applies to those in modern civilised world who have the choice?

The moral issue is there, regardless. But as in all cases, this is a matter of balancing one set of interests against another. Whereas eating meat might have been justifiable when alternative food sources were not available, in our modern society no such argument can be made.

Hapsburg

foetus
fetus

Haven't we been through that already?

Grab your dictionary, and look up "dipthong".

morality does not exist

And are giant centipedes, snakles, lions, tigers, sharks, and other meat eaters immoral to you?

No. It has to do with your morality, or lack of it. If you have no regard for the suffering of other creatures, you are morally stunted.

So a person who can differentiate between something that has no effect on his own wellbeing and what does is stunted? Think not. Yeah I feel sorry for animals that suffer. This is why I hunt, becuase starving to death is suffering and I would not do that to a deer. It is also why I have no qualms with eating meat. Why should a cow suffer the indignity of old age. If I could live until my body start to truly give out and then be taken out relatively painlessly I would probably choose that route myself. Although you will probably claim I am callous and crass and morally bankrupt. Personally I know better, my moral code is as strong as your, it's just not hypocritical.



The key word, which you must have missed, is "unnecessary". It is quite easy to argue that imprisonment inflicts necessary suffering. If you would like to discuss whether imprisonment is right or wrong, start a new thread.

My statement stands. It is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

Where is imprisonment necessary to the organism. Maybe if it has broken a limb a confinement of that limb is needed. But where does imprisonment become nuetral or beneficial to the oranism besides that.

How long would a veal calf live, if it was not killed? How is its death not premature? Because you want to eat it now, I suppose.

Hey, it could die in two seconds from freak thunderbolt. Who knows. Who's to say when a beings time is up. Certainly not I and clearly not you. You're using a strawman fallacy

Clearly, you have little care or knowledge about animal suffering. The information is out there, and I'm not going to waste my time presenting it to you in bite-sized chunks (pardon the pun). Go look.

I have great care for animal suffering. I have even doctored sick animals back to health, including a porcupine that wandered in a neighbors fox trap. Have you done such? I think not. Sure I care about animals, but they're not human. There is a line that has to be drawn.

Do you expect to live a natural lifespan, TW, barring any unfortunate accidents? Do you think that right should be protected by law? If your right to live is to be protected, why not the rights of animals? Or are they only there for your selfish whims?

I do want laws to protect me from fellow humans and I support the same laws for animals. I want no cows murdering cows. No sharks eating sharks. And no dogs selling dogmeat. Does that answer your question well enough.

Well, you're half way there. You've gone from proclaiming that eating meat is morally good and righteous to saying that it is neutral - neither good nor bad. Baby steps towards the final awakening.

Actually I do think it is right, but recognize your right to believe it is wrong. I would not force my view on you. Too bad you do not feel the same.

Where are the shades of gray in your position on this issue, may I ask?

Actually the shades of gray are the almost black shadows surrounding your actions of trying to force your opinion down the throats of other people.

I mean, the relevant issues are quite straight forward here. You don't have to be smart to sort through them. You just have to appreciate that animals are not automaton robots built for your pleasure.

I don't HAVE to accept anything. That is the beauty of not belonging to the Ministry of James R. I am my own person, just as you are. The difference is I want a world of free thinking people and you want people to share your opinions no matter what they are.

morality does not exist

Yes it does.

And are giant centipedes, snakles, lions, tigers, sharks, and other meat eaters immoral to you?

They have to eat meat. You don't.

Haven't we been through that already?
No-one spells it "foetus" except you and other arrogant assholes who cannot learn to spell "fetus".
The only country that spells it like that is Britian; UK is also the only country that spells "Aluminum" as "aluminium".

TW Scott:

Ah! Once again you let your true colours peak through. You also like to hunt animals for pleasure, as well as eating them for fun. And you think your hunting, which causes yet more pain and suffering for no good reason, is also justifiable, I suppose. How do you justify your hunting, by the way? Do you just enjoy hurting things?

So a person who can differentiate between something that has no effect on his own wellbeing and what does is stunted? Think not.

No. A person who cannot appreciate that creatures other than himself can suffer, and that that might matter, is stunted.

Yeah I feel sorry for animals that suffer. This is why I hunt, becuase starving to death is suffering and I would not do that to a deer.

Oh, you hunt for altruistic reasons to ... er ... save the deer by ... er ... killing them. Interesting logic. Why didn't the deer starve to death before you came in with your gun to save them?

It is also why I have no qualms with eating meat. Why should a cow suffer the indignity of old age. If I could live until my body start to truly give out and then be taken out relatively painlessly I would probably choose that route myself.

It is one thing for you to decide how to live (or not) your own life. But for you to make arbitrary decisions on behalf of other animals is presumtuous and selfish in the extreme. Once again, you merely confirm that, to you, all animals are nothing more than your property, to deal with as you see fit.

Personally I know better, my moral code is as strong as your, it's just not hypocritical.

What moral code do you live by? "Do what's good for TW" seems to be it, as far as I can tell.

Where is imprisonment necessary to the organism. Maybe if it has broken a limb a confinement of that limb is needed. But where does imprisonment become nuetral or beneficial to the oranism besides that.

There