Is eating meat morally wrong

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know, there is a lot you do not understand. I can't fix that for you. Especially with your attitude. My two statements make no contradiction, in fact one supports the other. How could an animal seldomly act immorally if it does not have morals? That you cannot grasp that simple of a concept is frightening to me. Why? Becuase it means you fail to grasp that other beings are independant of your moral system.

As for me ignoring you supposedly substance filled posts. You have failed to show how eating meat is immoral for any other reason than you think so. Do I or animals care what you think? Should we? Would a tiger ponder your moral system as it snaps your neck? Does a giraffe care about you ideas? I know I don't. Why? I've explained it above and perhaps one day far in the future you might understand it. I won't ask you to support it. Nor do I demonize being a vegan or vegetarian. I refuse to judge people on their diet., becuase that is such a stupid way of being elitest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never said animals were immoral. I said I don't judge them for what they do as long as they do not destroy their own kind. Totally different concept there. One you won't ever get becuase you fail to see that different beings can and do have different moral codes.

First of all your list is pretty bogus, I am not so sorry to inform you. What you classify as reasons that eating meat is immoral are first nonsensical and second completely irrelevant. Second I don't have to defend anything. Nor do I answer to the likes of you. Hate to tell you thi, but in any scheme of things you are worth exactly the chemical composition of your body, about a dollar fifty.

I don't even have the vaguest of conscience pangs over eating meat. And I feel guilty for breathing some days. This tells me that there is nothing wrong with eating meat.

Actually I was pleading with you to start acting morally and quit your harping. See, you are much like the pro-lifers you fight against. instead of just presenting facts without your opinion latched on, you decided to try to guilt people into what you think they should be doing. Knowing that it is hard to argue against cruelty to animals you chose that track. Such a shame really becuase it a fallacy all in it's own right in regards to eating meat.

Why should I let you off the hook for your hypocrisy? I see no real reason. Of course you have the same out that you so generously gave me. However I hope you don't take it. Why? Becuase as time progresses you reveal more and more how little faith you have in your position. A fault I do not have as I don't need faith in mine.

 

No, you can't. A vegetarian diet does not give you as much protein, and besides, vegans aren't cool. They re teh suck.

The will to power, eh?

No. Besides, there is no god. If it is so wrong for people to eat meat, why don't you go tell an omnivorous bear to eat only vegetables? Or, better yet, why don't you look in your own mouth? See those sharp teeth? That's for cutting into meat.

Jim boy, what fail to realize is one simple fucking thing: not everyone shares your moral views. Not everyone has your exact morals. People, whethery ou like it or not, have different opinions and do not look at it in the black-and-white scheme that you do.

 

Eating meat may have been very improtant in our evolution, consequently, our digestive systems, and the way we process food, is also geared to processing meat (not exclusively though). We need meat like products, but not nessisarily meat it's self.
Psychologically, we may be geared to eating meat - maybe that is why some forms are good - like steak, and lobster ect.

 

As opposed to you ad hominem filled replies, hmm again a interesting double standard. You'll of course label that an ad honimem attack as opposed to an observation of the truth.

I do have morals and none of them includes that eating meat is wrong, ergo eating meat is not immoral.

Yours is not superior and in fact could be called inferior instead of different. I choose to call it different and be done with it. Still doesn't change the fact that eating meat is not immoral.

Cannot fail at what one did not attempt. I don't refute that for you the reasons make sense, but my brain is completely functional so it might as well be gibberish.

No, actually you aren't, but you are dangerous enough to warrant me trying to protect the public.

Actually there is no pretend to it. There is no need to justify something right. You however seem to be driven to justify your own views as if you know they are wrong.

There is no need for defense as my actions are right. The actions of meat eater across this globe are absolutely right. The act of eating meat is not wrong in the slightest. The act of raising livestock is not wrong in the slightest. Humane slaughtering techniques are not wrong in the slightest.

Saw your assinine skewed distortions of reality called facts and realized I would never change your mind. Except for animals feeling pain, your points are sketchy at best. Like 4.5 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef. I get more nutrition out of that beef than that grain so it works out.

Wonders how you got all that out of what I said. You must have an inventive mind. I said that for the discussion of how meat is produced, animals cruelty is a straw man. Unlike you I have been to slaughter house. The animals are killed in a completely painless way. They do not feel anything as they die. So you're arguments of animal cruelty are irrelevant.

I did notice how you missed the larger message in my posting, but ah well I am used to it by now, as is our audience.

Hmmm, would it be that point when you begged me to walk away? Yep that would be it. As for the hole being dug, it's for you. Funny thing is you're doing the digging.

 

These arguments go way too far. I would like to start a post disecting the psychology of some of these personal attacks in these forums. I think this is an interesting phenomenon in and of it's self.

If we are going to survive, we must eat. Eating in a large part is captured energy from the sun. Meat is concentrated form of energy from the sun. If you want to not kill anything, then don't eat. Plants are a precious commodity too. I could make a very strong argument that some forms of plant life display intelligence. I am not arguing for or against eating meat, rather for a better understanding of ourselves.

 

First off, James, I am not suggesting that we should strive to right no wrongs, merely that some are just a little more important than others. I at least would think that somebody worried about rape, theft, and murder such as yourself would understand that, but then, what would I know about your intelligence?

In the meantime, I find that Such things as rape, theft, and murder do not come naturally based upon the fact that only sentient creatures can specifically feel lust, greed, and hatred. It is only the sentients that do these things with purpose. Ambition is a trait of sentience. A planned engagement in these activities is not natural. An accidental engagement in and of itself is an accident, though this is very rare for some of the afformentioned. Meanwhile, an engagement of these activities from the closest thing to a natural cause, insanity, is of course not natural for the species even if naturally ocurring because of a mutation in genetics or external stimuli.

Finally, my "silly argument" has merit. Plants serve as the backbone of the world's food chain, with the only more important level being the sun and the Earth's heat. Now, if so many species depend upon plants for survival, is it moral for humans to compete with them for the food and make them work harder to get it? Is it moral to bring about higher chances of overconsumption of the plants which animals depend upon, possibly causing a collapse of the ecology of the world? You may find this hard to believe, but humans exist as part of the ecology of Earth just like every other species, and we have certain responsibilities within this, One of them is to help control the populations of species which we consume, including both plants and animals. Plants are just as important, if not moreso, than individual species of animals to ecology, so how can you say that eating the animals is worse?

 

TW Scott:

*sigh* TW Scotty, did you take basic biology at school?

As you pass up the food chain, energy is continually being LOST (mainly as heat) by animals. In otherwords, a set biomass of grain would have far more energy than the same biomass of meat. Because cows, upon consuming the grain, DON'T STORE ALL OF THAT ENERGY IN THEIR FLESH. It is lost in body functions (esp. heat loss), faeces, urine, etc.

WTF?
I admit that sometimes I have had my disagreements with James R on certain topics, and found him to be rather politically correct regarding discussions of race/immigration, but he certainly isn't dangerous to the public. The only thing he is a danger to is your credibility, as he continually tears your bullshit to shreds.

 

Eating meat is generally morally wrong however there is one exception. Eating dog meat korean style cooked is morally right. In fact astonishingly enough the user James_R has the typical picture of a dog in his avatar, whose meat is morally right to eat. The fine dog meat delicatessen can be enjoyed without worrying abour morals, because dog meat was designed for human consumption. Microwaved dogs are probably a fine dish too, of course then they have to be prepared with spices and served with salad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

if eating chickens is moral then should eating dogs be moral too

 

I said nutrition not energy. Learn to read,

Actually in my own moral code being politically correct is a hazard to the population. So is making claims of your own superior moral code. Jame R has proven himself to be a rabid fascist when it comes to his morals. I would rather they were not spread at all, but if they are I will be their trying to deprogram the populace.

 

I'm still waiting for substance in your posts in this matter.

Of course not, you're running from the truth becuase you can't refute it.

Yes, but can you get whole protein from grains? Sufficent iron? Adequate copper? Usable amount of Vitamin B? Not liekly in even 10 to 1.

Sorry, but you must have visited an operation that is not as modern as the one I worked in for the summer. The cattle never saw the one before it die and they had a neurologist tell them how to do the killing no pain what so ever. So your argument is empty. Just becuase a few places mess up does not make it immoral.

 

TW Scott:

I knew that your uneducated ass would reply with that comment, as you try to wriggle out of yet another blunder. It's a pity (for you) that carbohydrates, lipids and protein (*hint* We break these down to produce ATP... energy) ARE classified as nutrients, hmmm? In fact, all nutrients are involved in metabolic processes, which generally result in the release of energy.

James isn't the one dogmatically promoting the unnecessary slaughter of sentient beings. Who's ideals are dangerous, again?