I was wondering when someone would tackle that thorny question. Any other thoughts on the matter? Modern grain farming methods kill God's little creatures by the thousand. Unless you're growing all your own food you're just as guilty as we are, so get off your high horses, you're making the poor things saddle-sore. Thankyou.
I started eating meat again a few months ago after 6 years of vegetarianism. I was sick of it, sick of being different, I knew in the big scheme of things I was making no difference to animal cruelty, I wasn't politically active, my morals had deteriorated, I basically sold out. And I still don't really care. I don't know why.
That's akin to the person that doesn't vote because they feel their one vote won't make any difference to the outcome. What would happen if we all felt that way? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's one of the few remaining interesting and open arguments on the subject. It's been discussed before and as humans we all leave a footprint on the planet, otherwise we die. Grain farming is carried out partly to feed humans and partly to feed farm animals that end up being slaughered for their meat. Perhaps if we humans didn't consume such vast quantites of meat then there wouldn't be a need for so much grain farming. It must be acknowledged that the animals who die in the process of farming vegetables, grain, fruit, etc are still free and might just as likely be eaten by a predator (discounting pesticides which I'm against). Factory farmed animals suffer from the moment they are born to the moment they die, needlessly.
Many which are now created specifically and solely to be consumed would never be born. And thus, a huge amount of suffering would be eliminated right there. Existing animals would not be killed off, but would be allowed to live out their lives. Some would no doubt breed, and so the species would not become extinct. In fact, it would seem to be a moral obligation for human beings to help maintain biodiversity, as we already do in some cases regarding animals we do not consume as meat. What a silly statement.
There would be no spare land for cows to just walk around on. People only own cows for milk or meat....so what if neither is needed? Bye bye cows. Anyway I think I can pretty much end the argument here: You have canines. There we go. Look in the fucking mirror.
so do cows. and as jamesr said, we are already working on conservation projects for other animals, what makes you think that out governments wouldnt assign some land as a domestic farm animal sactuary?
No. Roughly two thirds of farm land would become free, and could be used as free-range homes for cattle. So, you are saying that because I can eat meat, I should or must? I can rape and kill, too. Does that make it right?
You have completely missed the point. What farmers are going to keep cows that cost money to keep, but don't make any money? Are they going to keep them as pets? Who would want to keep cows in your fantasy vegan state? What would be the point? Didn't it occur to you that they might want to use that land to grow soya beans or whatever it is you new age types actually will eat?
That's ok. The farmers don't have to do it. The government can declare certain wildlife sanctuary areas, just as it currently does for other animals. Ever heard of national parks?
So you are telling me you are going to increase the need for arible farmland, reduce the availibility of natural fertilizers. jeopardize the health of billions of people, put countless people out of year round employment, seize land eminent domain style, make taxpayer fund it, and somehow this is morally right and good science. Man, whatever you smoke/shoot/take you could make a fortune. BTW that is not ad hominem, ad hominem would be assuming you are that messed up without chemical help.
Nobody said that, in fact you are the one that putting words in other people's mouth. Not only that but you are again trying to draw a connection between meat eating and rape. Admit it you are only using emotive arguments becuase you know your science is too shaky and your logic is even worse.
Well the argument was essentially "I can, therefore it's my right." However assuming that one can eat meat doesn't carry over to other areas, like rape. I see what James meant, but I think that is stretching it. But, just because one has teeth and jaw strength to eat meat doesn't mean we have the right. But we can, so a lot of us do. And me. We have the means to eat meat and not very much stopping us, so we tend to do it. We have the means to rape someone, but there is a lot stopping us, so we tend not to do it.
:sarcasm on: Oh no, how dare I look at the whole picture rather than the primrose path you put me on. Oh my god, it'll destroy the very fabric of your arguments. Oh the horror, how dare I nat bow down and worship at the great James R's feet. :sarcasm off: Seriosusly though do you think I am going to just let you thuroughly ridiculous argument slide without challenge? Actually, it's more of a hope. I actually claim there is an intelligent person behind the name and in many cases you prove it. This case you're still lacking. Nothing personal, but if you are going to make an argument like this you have to analyze every part of it. From cultural identies, regional supply and demand, economics, social dynamics, and everything else. You want the world to be vegan? i suggest you look at exactly what would need to be done, and how you are going to maintain it in the face of difficulties. When you have you might have a much more viable argument and once again prove your abilities as you have in other areas.
TW Scott: Brain on, TW. Tell me how you interpret this statement: Remember to bear in mind the context of the discussion in your explanation. Did you miss the point again? I've been through this with you before. Stop pretending to be thick. What emotive arguments? PS No point responding to your latest post. It is devoid of any content.
Excuse me for calling a spade a spade James R. Yes we can eat meat, in fact we seem designed for it t be part of our diet. Nothing bad happens if we practice it in moderation. It cuases no natural social problems. Yes we can rape, but that is a human invention. We are not designed socially or psychologically for it. The raper does it for a sense of his own self importance. The raped is traumatized and likely unwillingly to mate again. This hurts the species and the individual. So comparing the two is like comparing fresh squeezed orange juice and artificially sweetened and flavored orange drink with no nutritional value whatsoever. One is good for you and other has no redeeming virtue except to the evil person who made it and even that is dubious.
Sharks do it. Hell, two or three sharks will pin an unwilling female down so the stonger shark can place his seed in her.
I think the difference is rape is defined in reference to humans, you cant rape an animal you can only rape a human, you can force an animal to have sex with you but this isnt defined as 'rape'.... maybe im splitting hairs
