Wow, this has absolutely been the most ridiculous debate I’ve ever seen. For the record, I’m a meat-eater. And, for the second, I think legendaryblaze or whatever his name is… is an idiot. I believe that we should be eating meat, if only because it’s much simpler for us to get what we need. I also fully believe in not wasting meat and paying respects to the animals that sacrifice their lives for our own health (and happiness).
What we do is extremely selfish and, often, extremely sadistic. I think the only remedy to this is awareness of consumption. Only organic, grass-fed, free-range animals… and a massive respect for those creatures that we consume. Because, let’s face it… these things are DYING for us. That has to mean something.
HangerBaby’s comment was somewhat accurate, though. Chickens, turkeys, and ducks do not appear to be self-aware (they fail a myriad of tests). On the other hand, cows and pigs appear to display startling intelligences, particularly pigs. I don’t think it matters much. A sentience (feeling creature) dying is a sentience dying. The worst thing is taking a peak in a McDonald’s trash can or something and seeing just massive amounts of unfinished chicken, beef, etc. These things were living creatures.
So my only rules for eating meat are:
As often as possible, look for the most humane source as possible (the purchasing of halal and kosher meat is a good indicator of this and readily available).
Never, ever, waste meat.
At the end of a meal, reflect on what was consumed, and be grateful to the animals for sacrificing themselves for you.
Also, I know some people are going to argue that kosher/halal meat is inhumane… The Halal Study ← this study involved basically hooking up goats’ brains up to a machine and seeing the response. It appears that in a proper cut, the animals do indeed go braindead immediately, and so the tradition does appear to be the least painful method of slaughter possible.
This is a recent article about it though, which makes it clear how money still rules the production and it’s impossible to find the perfect cruelty free meat. It mentions, for example, how castration and spaying (yes, even spaying) are performed without anesthesia (simply because anesthesia costs money). I do think that if there’s no perfect option, one should still try to use the least damaging one. Like you said, slaughter is part of the process, so at least it needs to be humane and painless.
"As responsible consumers, it’s easy to decide to avoid factory-farmed pork. The hard part is what to make of the most acceptable alternative. Does free-range farming justify the mutilation that’s often required to keep pigs outdoors? As an ethical matter, the question is open to endless debate. What the conscientious meat eater can take away from it is not so much a concrete answer as a more nuanced way to think about our food choices. In this age of deeply convincing attacks on factory farms, consumers must be careful not to immediately assume that every alternative to factory farming is as “all natural” or humane as its advocates will inevitably declare. The alternatives might require still more alternatives. "
Oh and I also think that if you’re referring to self-awareness from a psychological point of view (the “I think therefore I am” type of thing), is rather irrelevant. It doesn’t change the fact that all vertebrates feel pain and fear and have the instinct to survive.
Haha I know, my mom has a close friend (who was like an aunt for me growing up) who has a milk farm. Straight-from-the-cow milk is nothing like store bought! I honestly like it better after it’s homogenized, etc. I remember she’d tell me to try it right when they’re milking the cows, because it’s still warm but I never tried it. The whole “still warm” thing is just too weird lol.
Edit: I notice the double meaning in what I said… and it was not intended.
[/quote]
Should try it, fresh milk from a cow is about the best you can get, even if it’s warm lol i guarentee you, you won’t look back.
Just to put this all in perspective here. Animals aren’t noble for letting us eat them. It isn’t immoral to eat them. Don’t worship nature as a god. Animals live by instinct, not rational thought. They have no rights.
If you choose not to eat animals, fine. Our choice to eat meat is not more or less “moral”.
Animal’s “Rights” Versus Man’s Rights: Animal “Rights” Activists Want to Sacrifice Man’s Rights
[quote]nik133 wrote:
Hey guys this isn’t about me, but one of my dad’s friends is trying to persuade him to become a Vegetarian and she brought up the fact that you can get the same nutrition without eating meat.
Anyways I personally think it is stupid to deprive your body of something that it has evolved with and eaten for thousands of years and also these animals are bread to be killed, it’s not like we are depriving them of some amazing life they were going to live, they are here so we can eat them.
Anyways anything that would further my side of the argument would be great, but if this turns into a debate for both sides that would be even better!
Thanks
Nik[/quote]
Thats a bunch of shite.
Cooked protein is usually digested to 95% of its original protein content from MEAT.
its as low as 73% from veg, and lets not forget that one amino acid cannot simply be replaced by another.
I’ve said before that meat is only cheaper because it’s mass produced. If a whole lot of people started buying tofu it’d be cheaper.Geez you’re slow. I do like how you think that really poor people buy burgers, lol. Do you want me to tell you a little bit of what it is like to be poor in a 3rd world country? You’d be surprised. Bread is the staple when you don’t have money. Then things like rice and beans. In Brasil rice and beans in the most consumed food, and it’s THE food for those who are poor. Beef, it’s a treat, not a staple.
[/quote]
Oh man. The reason i started this argument is because you said you don’t eat meat because there’s suffering involve, when you can easily eat meat without any suffering involved. I gave you alternatives (hunting or buying from free range) and you turned it around and started talking about other shit, which led us to go off a tangent.
And i like how you’d keep medical research on animals to a minimum.
Again, we come first.
And do not confuse poor with homeless.
"We may have done all that. We’ve also comitted genocides, caused extinction, we rape, murder, steal, lie, and we litter our planet with our trash. Oh, and we have dumbasses like you walking around feeling superior. "
Animals don’t kill? Animals don’t steal? Someone has been watching too much Dora the explorer.
“It’s because it’s out morals that we must apply it. Otherwise you could say that those things (pedophilia, for example), are OK as long as the person believes to be doing right, as in, the act is not against their morals.”
That’s exactly what morals are though: a belief system that governs one’s behavior. What exactly are you trying to say?
“Slaves and jews were always considered humans smartass. But they were considered inferior. Here’s the key: inferior. They were never seen as a different species, but as an inferior race or culture. And it’s disgusting how human kind believes it has the right to inflict pain on that which is inferior.”
So hence…they were sub-human? Didn’t have the same rights as humans? Aka not a fully fledged humans?
FYI, the reason the colonies who invaded Africa had no problems with turning blacks into slaves was because they believed they had no soul (not human). Animals were also believed to have no soul. http://library.thinkquest.org/13406/ta/2.htm
See the connection?
"These peoples were labeled ‘untermensch,’ the German word for sub-human. As such, labels became reality and reality became a holocaust, resulting in millions of deaths and untold levels of suffering. When a group of people like the Nazis begin to believe in the sub-human label they propel, the group afflicted becomes the equivalent of animals, free to be killed, tortured and dehumanized, free to be robbed of freedom, opportunity and happiness. " http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14091.htm
Unter = under
Mensch = human
“The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it.”
From a pre-nazi era propaganda book,
I’ll say it again: They did not believe they were human.
And again, i am against torturing animals. I am against hurting them for the sake of hurting. I don’t find it funny or cool. However to eat an animal, one must kill it. This will always involve some degree of pain (unless shot through heart/brain with a bullet). It is (usually) inevitable.
“Yea, probably caused by your irrational worshipping of meat.”
I don’t worship meat, i just have a problem with people who don’t eat meat for stupid reasons. Just like some people don’t like to squat cause it hurts their knees and they don’t want to become “too big”. If someone told me meat is all you need, then i’d tell them they were a fucking idiot. The key idea here is “golden mean”. Something you clearly don’t practice.
“However you mean by “you”, it doesn;t change my point, survivability and indulgence are opposutes. If by humane alternative you mean hunting, then the Hitler analogy has nothing to do with it, and it’s quite obvious it refers to your argument that animals are meant to be killed.”
Some animals that we breed are meant to be killed…so yes?
And yes it does matter. I see neither meat nor vegetables as indulgences. An indulgence would be the fact that you have the ability to choose. It’s an insult to people all over the world that you would deny readily available meat. Some people would kill for a steak because of what it gives the body. Indulgences are candy, popcorn, fast cars and other shit like that.
You said it yourself that you don’t like to drive and would prefer to take public transport. Yet sometimes you have no choice. You could walk (vegetables), since it’s cheaper, is less pollutant but it takes more time. Taking a car with your husband( meat) would save you some time, even though it costs more on a global scale (pollution, money, etc). Do you see what my point is?
Indulgences are also when you have too much meat OR vegetables bought/consumed per individual. We need to mass produce meat like we mass produce vegetables because of the demand.
Someone who is 40 percent fat and weighs 300 pounds is indulgent. Someone who works a hard manual labor job and eats alot of meat is not indulgent.
However, you’ve got it right, my dear. The problem is not cattle, the problem is not the corporations or anything like that. The problem is us. It’s us not because of suffering or selfishness. The problem is us because we are over populating this planet. There are too many fucking people on earth and it’s getting worse. These people want to live too, and will work and pay for their food.
I think we took the “be fruitful and multiply” command a bit too seriously.
“That was just one example to show how misinformed you are to think that one cannot find good nutrition in a vegetarian diet.”
I never said that. I said vegetarian diets are retarded. Two very different things
If you cannot eat meat because you hate the taste or you are unable to (literally), then it is not your fault.
If you are doing it as some self proclaimed act of love for animals, then i can’t help but find that stupid. I explained why meat is not an indulgence. It is a food like any other.
And please do not use the excuse that if no one ate meat, we could use those grains (cows eat grass, hay and sometimes grains) to feed the human population. Someone will claim monopoly on vegetables eventually. The world revolves around money. Those who are too poor to buy food today will be too poor to buy your vegetables tomorrow.
There is famine because of wars, governments, disease and climate. It’s not just so simple as to stop feeding all the cows and feed people instead.
You have to take into account cultures and people. As mentioned before, you cannot grow a vegetable farm anywhere. You’d have to get some people to move out of their cities to areas that are more easily cultivated. Some people won’t want that. They’d rather stay in their village and starve. Someone would have to oversee the farms and entire project. You’d need to regulate everything (sanity inspections, etc). Ensure everyone gets an adequate amount of food. However then you run into problem. Should more food be given to those with larger family or should it be one same amount for all? What happens to those who work in the cattle industry? If the poor get free food, why can’t a hardworking engineer who makes money get food as well? He is more beneficial to society, why should he be discriminated against? And who the fuck is going to pay for all this food to be cultivated and transported (to the poor, none the less)?
You will never be able to abolish world hunger. So if you pretend to be intelligent, you won’t use 3rd grade arguments.
Even if half of the population of 1st and 2nd world countries stopped eating meat entirely, meat would still be mass produced. There would STILL be a market. Let’s not forget the exponential increase in human population.
Not eating any meat, no matter how much of a egocentric high it gives you, will not solve anything. That is my point. So go ahead and have some meat.
“All the big forests in the world were doing just fine before livestock population skyrocketted in the 20th century, so no, cows are not helping the Amazon survive, your argument there is empty.”
Cows aren’t helping the Amazon survive, but it is helping Brazilians survive (and the giant corporations). For example Europe refuses to grow any genetically modified crops. The states are big on engineered food. Brazil then sells to Europe and makes alot of money.
Yes, cattle are a large reason that the Amazon is deforested. I will not argue with you there.
That is the Amazon though. How about Haiti, Canada, Madagascar, China, India, Nigeria, Indonesia and many more?
Few of it is due to cattle. None of those places i mentioned are suffering deforestation due to cattle. It’s due to logging (desks, paper, cardboard, etc), subsistence agriculture, property claiming and urban expansion.
There is also a reason that cattle farming is so rampant in Brazil. Brazil supposedly has terrible soil due to all the rain. Planting any form of crop will not yield good results. This is because the rain dilutes the minerals in the soil, making it of poor quality and practically useless.
The solution Brazil came up with was to deforest an area and install a cattle farm. Then deforest another area for logging, then plant soya beans and use massive amounts of fertilizer (taken from cattle farms). Run the soya bean farms for all they’re worth. Then move the cows to the soya bean farms while starting the process all over again. Your country has poor soil and that is the reason why cattle farming is rampant in Brazil. Here is an example of why agricultural farms are not always the answer to the problem.
And fyi, reforestation is at a record high.
[quote]animus wrote:
WI also fully believe in not wasting meat and paying respects to the animals that sacrifice their lives for our own health (and happiness).
What we do is extremely selfish and, often, extremely sadistic. I think the only remedy to this is awareness of consumption. Only organic, grass-fed, free-range animals… and a massive respect for those creatures that we consume. Because, let’s face it… these things are DYING for us. That has to mean something.[/quote]
Look man, if you think i’m an idiot, then that’s your opinion and i respect that (seriously). I can’t please everyone.
However, don’t turn around and start this mumbo jumbo hug the trees bullshit.
The animals aren’t sacrificing themselves because they aren’t given a choice. A cow nurturing it’s calf is not “love”, it’s maternal instinct. There is a fucking difference.
Cows, pigs and chickens have all failed the self awareness test. While this is not the end all, be all…i think it’s pretty obvious that these animals have absolutely no fucking clue what is going on.
The reason people feel for animals is because they put themselves in animal’s shoes. They are imagining themselves as PEOPLE in those conditions. You have to think like an animal to know what an animal feels but how the fuck can you do that since you aren’t a chicken, you aren’t a cow and you aren’t a pig.
