Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Esperanto
No one is safe. I turned vegetarian for a few weeks and during that time I was turning purple. look at this from http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydoerge.htm I am outraged and I'm going to take it out on the farm animals. Anyways, I don't know how anyone can possibly know if vegetarians are healthy. I was pretty sick eating those toxic pellet raisins and soy products all those weeks. from http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art14546.asp

If you read the article, it says:
"These findings have led Dr. Doerge to conclude that additional factors appear necessary for soy to cause overt thyroid toxicity. These factors include:

iodine deficiency
consumption of other soy components
other goitrogens in the diet
other physiological problems in synthesizing thyroid hormones. "

Many people have eaten lots of soy for many years without problems. Asians eat it all the time.

Some people do have allergies to soy, but I think that they are in the minority by far, and you do not necessarily need to consume soy to be a vegetarian.

If you want to compare the toxicity of soy to meat, meat is way more toxic, with all the free radicals, and the growth hormones and antibiotics that people feed the animals, and the fact that animal flesh decomposes more quickly than plant food, meaning that it rots in your intestines, which can lead to cancer.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Interesting study showing that eating beef results in less killing of animals than eating vegan.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm

This study uses flawed logic and comes from an non-credible source that loads itself with keywords. It is a web page about getting rid of "pest" animals, so obiviously it is slanted:
"Wildlife Damage Control information on the control of raccoons, squirrels, skunks and other wildlife causing property damage"

Firstly it assumes numbers regarding how many animals per amount of land are killed each year.

Secondly, it assumes that the same amount of food will be produced from land whether used for grazing or growing plant food, which is not at all true. Firstly, as Monique mentioned, there is an efficiency problem (a huge one) with the introduction of the "middle man". By using animals that grow and repair and stop growing and continue to repair, you are wasting food. Secondly, much less food is going to be grown in the form of grass than in wheat, corn, etc.

Thirdly, it assumes that ruminant food actually comes from grazing animals. The fact is that most comes from intensive confinement farms that require grown crops to be fed to the animals. The intensive confinement has its own effects on wildlife, as well.

 

[Dissident Dan]

We should not eat meat. It is not necessary for survival or proper health. Animals raised for food, at least in the USA, live in horrible conditions--crowded, confined, not cared for, abused, made to grow in ways that their bodies can't handle, etc. (check out www.factoryfarming.org).

There are environmental problems: fecal lagoons spills, contamination of water supply, overuse of antibiotics leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

It's really a very simple issue. It's just a matter of overcoming one's prejudices and/or greed.

 

[Kerrie]

i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, people in third world countries are in different conditions than we are in. That has no bearing on us.

"Should we eat meat?" is a perfectly valid extremely important question.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

Not all humans will continue to eat meat. Someone converts to vegetarianism every day, I'm sure (if not more.) In the end, arguing about anything is probably pretty pointless on a discussion board since, very rarely, does it change anyone's mind.

Many vegetarians view meat eating (and animal killing) as entirely unnecessary and, in fact, quite gluttonous. It is inflicting pain for no reason since there are suitable alternatives already out there. At the very least, people who choose to consume meat should get it in the least cruel way possible.

 

[Kerrie]

Gal, I can agree with your point, however, people will stop eating meat more for health reasons (such as the recent mad cow discovery in Washington State) then for the treatment of animals...

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I'm for eating Vegans. There docile and dim-witted, so they'll be easy to capture and butcher. Just think of it, all your vitamins, minerals and proteins in one tasty morsel.

 

[Kerrie]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1073135194312870.xml

face it...in some form or another, we utilize the cow in our daily consumer products...this link will be accessible for just a few weeks...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Are you trying to say that we are stuck on cows and can't do without?


The materials made with cow by-products, except maybe a few, like Jello, can and have been made without them. Sugar can be made without bones. Glue can be made without cows, etc. It's not like we will go without our consumer and industrial products if cows are no longer eaten. They will just get the materials in different ways. The link says that most of these uses weren't around until the latter half of the 20th century. These uses just evolved to do something with all the waste.
--------------------------

Robert, why are you so hostile towards vegans?

 

[Kerrie]

dan, yes, i am trying to say that the average consumer uses products made from cows, thus there will always be a demand for animals (cows in this instance) to be slaughtered...trying to convince a mass of people will take a huge effort in education and knowledge...this newspaper article took a step in that effort, as it was on the front page of The Sunday Oregonian-Oregon's biggest newspaper...because Oregon is affected by the potential threat of mad cow disease, this article is huge in our local news...the point i was trying to drive however is people will not stop eating meat for the animal's well being, but more likely for their own...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The question that I was trying to address was: "Should we eat meat?", not "Will people stop eating meat?".

 

[Kerrie]

the question is unrealistic...the question could be rephrased to say:

should we cut back on how much meat we consume? i think that is much more possible for the masses of people to attain, especially if the health of these people is at stake...through education and awareness of the treatment of animals prior to being slaughtered, this could happen...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The question is perfectly realistic? Its assumptions that there is meat, people eat meat, and there may be a "should" are all perfectly valid. What you consider unrealistic is people following reason if the answer should turn out to be "no".

But that should in no way hinder the discussion. The question is not one of what people will do, but what people should do.
Anyway, trying to end the argument in this way would be a great disservice to knowledge and one's own discussing abilities.
What if, when people asked, "Should people own slaves?", all discussion of the subject was ended by saying that people giving up their slaves is not going to happen?

 

[Kerrie]

i would temporarily stop for health reasons (especially since the mad cow disease in washington was found 3 hours from where i live), but i have low iron in my blood making me at risk for anemia...my doctor recommended me to eat more red meat at one point to improve my iron...no, i don't need red meat on a daily basis, once a week or a couple times a month is adequate...

my answer to this question is, yes, people should eat meat especially if it helps people who are the same condition i am, but in moderation...

as for the conditions that the animals are raised in, yes, i can imagine how horrid it is...perhaps if these farms were to raise them humanely (which would mean grains that are more costly) and incorporate the costs of doing this, meat would be more of a delicay rather then a daily food source...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Detailed research on the mad cow/CJD outbreaks in Britain suggest that the risk of contracting CJD by eating beef is very low, even if, as in Britain, there are a lot of infected cattle. Indeed the epidemiology is so random it's difficult to sustain the statistical connection betweeen CJD and mad cow at all.

 

[Kerrie]

yes, i have read that too, however, because of the ugliness of the actual disease, a lot of people won't even take the chance of eating meat...also, it's the ground meat that has a higer chance of containing it then the muscle cuts..

 

[Rader]

physosomatic

After burning 100¨s of thousands of animals in England there are so few cases if any, that they do not publisize it. Anyway the chances of getting mad cow disease were as high as going down in a jet liner at the height of the disease in those animals. Does anyone ever wonder why when virtually everyone is exposed to a disease only a few fall ill?

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Kerrie
The question is: should we cut back on how much meat we consume?

I think most people understand by today what animals really is, maybe mostly thanks to Darwin's evolution principle?

I find this topic question rather dated, and that we need to move on: I think most people today know deep inside 'animals are like us', or something similiar. The question is: How should we cut back on how much meat we consume. How can we make things better. One thing we could do is to offer more 'tasty vegan food'. I find in norwegian stores today there's way too little of those quick-food packets.
We know we can't go from A to B in an instant, but we can always try, we can always take one step at a time.

Imagine one day we can successfully make meat chemicly, and we'll think back 'on these terrible times when we ate out brothers' :)

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by pace
Imagine one day we can successfully make meat chemicly[/B]

we already have that, it's found at McDonalds...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
we already have that, it's found at McDonalds...

Jokes aside...

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO9931222&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Process and patent
In 2001, dermatologist Wiete Westerhof from the University of Amsterdam and businessmen Willem van Eelen and Willem van Kooten announced that they had filed for a worldwide patent on a process to produce in vitro meat (patent number WO9931222). A matrix of collagen is seeded with muscle cells, which are then bathed in a nutritious solution and induced to divide.

NASA's efforts:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993208
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992066

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by pace
I think most people understand by today what animals really is, maybe mostly thanks to Darwin's evolution principle?

I wish..

I find this topic question rather dated, and that we need to move on: I think most people today know deep inside 'animals are like us', or something similiar. The question is: How should we cut back on how much meat we consume. How can we make things better. One thing we could do is to offer more 'tasty vegan food'. I find in norwegian stores today there's way too little of those quick-food packets.
We know we can't go from A to B in an instant, but we can always try, we can always take one step at a time.

This much is true. I've always been curious what vegan food availability is like in other countries. Here in the US, depending on where you live, there are quite a few yummy vegan convenience foods for sale. Where I live (in Jacksonville, FL), most of the major grocery chains carry a wide selection of vegan/vegetarian food stuffs and there is also a very nice health food store which has every product you could dream of. Convenience foods include: microwaveable meals, mac'n'(fake)cheese, lots of fake cheese in general (some of which are rather bleh), meat analogues in the form of burgers/hot dogs/sausages/riblets/turkey/cold cuts, vegan sour cream, cream cheese, ice cream. All kinds of stuff that's actually really good. Then there are all of the normal foods that even a lot of non-vegans eat (hummus, vegetables, you get the idea.) But without more vegans/vegetarians, there is not much of a market for these kinds of foods and it's difficult to promote the research/testing involved to make better products..

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i would temporarily stop for health reasons (especially since the mad cow disease in washington was found 3 hours from where i live), but i have low iron in my blood making me at risk for anemia...my doctor recommended me to eat more red meat at one point to improve my iron...no, i don't need red meat on a daily basis, once a week or a couple times a month is adequate...

I definitely understand where you're coming from with this. Most menstruating women have to worry about their iron intake quite a bit; I have no idea how close I am to anemia but when it's almost time for my period, I sometimes have what I call "iron crashes". I've actually gotten a good handle on this as I've learned what foods are high in iron (blackstrap molasses, bok choy, spinach, cream of wheat, raisins, peanuts, almonds, broccoli..) If you make them staples in your diet, there isn't too much to worry about. Either way, I don't know how low your iron levels have gotten. Eating red meat is a quick and easy way to boost your levels but it's not the only way to keep them up. Even if you weren't eating meat, I'm fairly sure eggs have a bit of iron in them though I'd have to look into it. For more vegan iron info, here is a link:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/iron.htm

 

[MudBuddha]

I think an issue that has been only lightly touched on thus far is the lack of difference between animals and humans. That is to say, animals are not sufficiently different and therefore discrimination is not justified. For example you could say that any reason you have for discriminating against an animal could equally be said about a mentally retarded human. Hence if we were to discriminate against animals we would raise a severe double standard.

Yes, meat is an easier meal, but does that justify the torture animals are put through to prepare it? Society at large has become so distant from the origins of their food that non-human animals are still animals like us. As for the often-posed question "Will people stop eating meat" in my opinion it is a resounding no. The market makes lots of money and too much is at stake in a businessmans world.

As for the person who originally posted, discrimination between an endangered species and a chicken is arbitrary. In fact, I would say that the chicken is more worthy of saving on the basis that it quite possibly endures more than the endangered species ever would.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Really, it's a very simple issue; it just takes overcoming your prejudices (everyone has prejudices) and desires. It's really very obvious, when you think about it from a "blank slate" perspective that other species of animals have feelings just like we humans do. If there is any basis at all for ethics, it is the existence of feelings.

Then, it just comes down to taking the old cop-out or not. Many people say, "But I like my steak!", or, "I don't know how you do it." The truth is that most of it is just in how you approach it mentally. If you are contantly anticipating and thinking that it will be hard, then you will probably falter in your will-power and give up. However, if you don't have such a "half empty" perspective, it is much easier. Anyway, if you try it, it's not that important whether you falter momentarily, as long as you keep trying.

Considering the gravity of the situation, saying that it's yummy is no excuse. Some self-restraint is required. What I find incredibly ironic about this all is that conservatives or right-wingers are the ones that tend to act like they have the moral high-ground and emphasive personal responsibility, yet most of them don't have the gumption to exercise any restraint when it comes to this highly serious situation. Anyone who takes "personal responsibility" as a political mantra is shown to be a hypocrite of the gravest sort if not even attempting to become vegetarian.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Really, it's a very simple issue; it just takes overcoming your prejudices (everyone has prejudices) and desires. It's really very obvious, when you think about it from a "blank slate" perspective that other species of animals have feelings just like we humans do. If there is any basis at all for ethics, it is the existence of feelings.

Then, it just comes down to taking the old cop-out or not. Many people say, "But I like my steak!", or, "I don't know how you do it." The truth is that most of it is just in how you approach it mentally. If you are contantly anticipating and thinking that it will be hard, then you will probably falter in your will-power and give up. However, if you don't have such a "half empty" perspective, it is much easier. Anyway, if you try it, it's not that important whether you falter momentarily, as long as you keep trying.

Considering the gravity of the situation, saying that it's yummy is no excuse. Some self-restraint is required. What I find incredibly ironic about this all is that conservatives or right-wingers are the ones that tend to act like they have the moral high-ground and emphasive personal responsibility, yet most of them don't have the gumption to exercise any restraint when it comes to this highly serious situation. Anyone who takes "personal responsibility" as a political mantra is shown to be a hypocrite of the gravest sort if not even attempting to become vegetarian.

dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently.

Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not propose a prescription for how to live, he merely gave a description for what has happened. I didn't realize when he became a god, either. Just because something has been happening a certain way doesn't mean that it's o.k. to continue it. If you're going to use survival of the fittest as a justification, then you can never claim that anything is wrong. Slavery is not wrong. Eugenics is not wrong. Genocide is not wrong. Nothing is wrong. Is that really what you believe?

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently.

Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not propose a prescription for how to live, he merely gave a description for what has happened. I didn't realize when he became a god, either. Just because something has been happening a certain way doesn't mean that it's o.k. to continue it. If you're going to use survival of the fittest as a justification, then you can never claim that anything is wrong. Slavery is not wrong. Eugenics is not wrong. Genocide is not wrong. Nothing is wrong. Is that really what you believe?

are you saying it's instinctual to rape someone as much as it is instinctual for the cheetah to feast on a rabbit? yes, darwin gave a REALISTIC description of what has happened because of our biology, that doesn't make him a god, quite the opposite really...as for the examples-slavery, eugenics, genocide...these don't have to do with human survival, but more human enhancement...i could never cut my own growing children down to just vegetables as they need meat (mostly chicken and fish is what i feed them) to grow healthy and strong...do you have kids that you are concerned for their proper nutrition?

how many third world country citizens are vegetarians by choice? do you think if they had the opportunity of eating what most americans have taken for granted, would they deny it because of sensitivity to animals? what about all the roadkill on the road? is it cruel to keep animals in the zoo? i am not trying to make this a joke, but i feel these are realistic questions that should be addressed just as equally as the one in this thread...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Yes, I would say that rape is pretty darn instinctual. We've just had thousands of years of society to meme it out of us. (Even though "instinctual" or not is irrelevant)

Meat is not necessary for proper health. In fact, being vegetarian is healthier, unless you limit yourself to french fries or something silly like that. There is a lot of literature available regarding this. I invite you to check it out. Meat is definitely not necessary for survival...even uttering so is incredibly preposterous (stating such a thing is only possible by being blinded by prejudice), as everyone knows that vegetarians exist and live to old ages. So, it is no better eugenics, slavery, etc. Hell, eugenics could possibly be necessary for longtime survival of the species (which would mean that the "survival of the fittest" argument would justify, although I must once again mention that s.o.t.f. is mearly a description of what has happened, and should not be taken as a prescription for what should happen.)

Propositions:
1) It is possible to live a long, healthy life as a vegetarian.
2) Not being a vegetarian causes beings to suffer
3) Beings suffering is not good
4) One should not do a thing that causes a bad (not good) thing

Therefore:
One should not be not a vegetarian
One should be a vegetarian

 

[pace]

The Oppertunities.

'Poor' people in africa don't have much choice not eating meat, but we have. We can always choose something else. Actually a lot of vegan food is cheaper. Pancakes and porrige are both cheap and tasty meals, always liked them since a child, as so many others. (Galatea, it almost seems as usa has better vegan oppertunities than here in norway, I think there are a lot of raw material here, but I see scarcely little of the vegan-meat, and especially quick-food-vegan-packages(do you have well of this too in usa?) here :/. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong shops, got to check more into that, I've mostly just been looking in the two biggest foodchains)
I think the child issue have a lot to say. You learn in psychology how much the first years have to say powering your persona. When you learn how much that taaasty good ol hamburger taste from day one, you have a much harder time as a grownup trying not to eat meat. So if you're having a child, and agree in me in these issue, you should try not giving meat to your kid imo.

DDan, isn't that chemically produced meat(at least I'm not talking about that traditional funny tasting vegan(fake)-meat, but pure organical made meat in laboratories) still in question? I mean, isn't it well known that we're still not sure if it's healthy or not? That we don't know the chance of getting cancer or other biological diseases from it ?
I mean isn't it still in it's testing period? Or perhaps gene-infused food -liberal country as USA, some states already permit these things?

The Evolution.

Just because we see cheetahs eat meat, doesn't make it a natural right: The Evolution says animals are like us, 'We see all of one species eat meat, therefore us humans have no choice but do the same' doesn't have any credibility to it, in fact it's a logical absurd proposition since Cheetas are like us(prooved by evolution), they might as well be as much into this system as us: necessarily eating food to survive, and also be socially inflicted as young by eating meat. Many of us know how much power the social can have.
There is no line in experience, and how far does it have to go before we see it? Do we have to see ONE cheetah hesitating eating some meat before we understand it's not about race? No.
We also have this wonderful thing called science that has made us much more organized, giving us more oppertunities, making it all easier.

Just do it.

I think we all do some contribution in this. Almost all of us eat a little less meat from one day day or another, maybe some of us even if we don't think about it. Even if we don't eat meat one day, we choose to 'not eat so much of it'. I personally find girls better at this issue, than boys. Us boys have the bad habbit of thinking it's a 'Either this, or that' question, 'Either you're good, or you got no choice anyway and can go all the bad way' 'Vegan, or no vegan' etc. So I'm not saying we meat-eaters are simply evil for eating meat: I think most of us do something now and then, a step here and there. And that it's cool! The issue is that just some of us are much better at it than some others. And some blessed ones have managed stop eating it.

The Psychology.

Another thing I came by the other day was that, I was thinking one day I'd decided maybe becoming a vegan; then I thought the traditional thought 'But I'll NEVER eat meat again :('. But then I'm thinking: The feeling 'Never' really isn't an argument. It would be an argument if I lived forever, but I aint. So when I'm saying 'Never' it's also 'I never ate any meat from 9 to 11 today'. Shall I say: 'OH NO! Gotto not eat meat never'. What I'm saying is that you can use the macro argument in micro-time. That the 'never' argument isn't an argument. So that next time that this thought pops up in our head, we can try thinking 'well, you aint eating any meat right now either[if you aint;)], so stop thinking these ridiculous thoughts'. hehe, don't know how much it could help, but it's a psyschology issue. This also plays a part when you try not eating meat. Finding a counter-argument is in the long run always helpful.

So let's STOP FOOLING OURSELF, let us always try, we know we can try, start by doing a little here and there. And let's make ourself conscience too, and others, as most of us how much power the social can have. And let's see where it's going. If we didn't make becoming a vegan, hey, at least we ate a little less of our brethern. Congrats, we still made the world a little better place to live in! Trying is also the death of boredom, The bored are the moralless and non-trying, in my experience :)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Pace's post brought an interesting contrast to mind.

Some people like to justify eating meat by invoking the memory of natural selection. They use a Darwinian justification. The funny thing is that if the knowledge that we have gained from Darwin should shed any light pertaining to the matter, it should be how similar each of us really is to members of other species. The similarities are so great (the differences so small) that they really are of no importance in this issue, so if we should extend compassion to other humans through self-restraint (exercising responsibility), we should do the same to our non-human co-inhabitants, as well.

Yet, the greatest difference is in our intelligence. Let us use it in order to make ourselves more humane than they.

 

[Kerrie]

Native Africans don't get the choice to eat meat, realistically, but do you think they would take the opportunity if it was extended to them? What about fish? What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested? How do we know that we are more intelligent then animals when they can survive in the wild on their own, but a majority of humans can't? I think your claim of humans are more intelligent then humans is slightly arrogant, because we are defining intelligence in the human perspective...

How about the Native Americans who have hunted buffalo, wild turkeys, and even whales off the coast of Washington? Do we change their protected way of life too? I think to stop eating meat should be a personal choice...at the same time, I think all people who choose to buy meat should be severely educated of what they are putting into their bodies as far as how the livestock they are eating is raised...perhaps that might change their ways of thinking to a degree I see this question as a personal choice though, not something mandated by law (within our lifetime), and I don't see it too much different then controversey of abortion-another personal choice that affects another...

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Kerrie

What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested?

I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Fish I count as animals, in the stricly analytical way.
About grain: We don't know, but we have scarcely little evidence suggesting so. If we get somewhere, maybe even making our own grain in a somehow grain-merciful way. But in essence, we are biological living creatures, and need to eat biological living things. But saying that because we eat biological living things, there is no hope but eating and killing whatever; is no argument.
It's like saying that because we kill, it doesn't matter in what amount we kill. Because it does, we can always try our best, and we know that. But we aint perfect beings. We can't tell ourself that because we aint perfect, there is no hope at doing better, that the world can just go to hell because we ain perfect already. Even tho we sometimes fool ourself with that. It's an hopeless and stupid argument, it'll get us right down the drain.
But being aware for all life is a good thing nevertheless imo(and if that's what you meant). I think we should be good towards all life, and strictly sense I dislike when we mess too much with mother nature. But we can only take one step at a time. So let's prioritate the animals.

Originally posted by Kerrie

How do we know that we are more intelligent then animals when they can survive in the wild on their own, but a majority of humans can't?

The tradition that we speak, and animals don't, is an old argument used to proove we are intelligent creates, dating at least back to Descartes. Now in recent studies, and that we see monkeys speaking, it's kinda dated. Humans obviously have more IQ and language skills than other animals, but there are lots of more intelligent factors as you well put out.

Originally posted by Kerrie

I think all people who choose to buy meat should be severely educated of what they are putting into their bodies as far as how the livestock they are eating is raised...perhaps that might change their ways of thinking to a degree I see this question as a personal choice though, not something mandated by law (within our lifetime), and I don't see it too much different then controversey of abortion-another personal choice that affects another...

I think the animal case is more important than the abortion case, since the abortion case is more obvious. The debate that only is left in the abortion case, is when it's humanly to abort the baby.

I completely agree with you on the human-distant-to-animals argument.
We've always been close to the ones we've been hunting, and payed tribute. Now we're living in a society like never before, where we've grown distant. We need to get knowledged again. We've become alienated, it's maybe the major question in this issue.

Again, think it's a political choice. I can eat less meat, and I can pay tribute, an extra point to the politicians that take the animal case the right direction.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
Native Africans don't get the choice to eat meat, realistically, but do you think they would take the opportunity if it was extended to them?
[...]
How about the Native Americans who have hunted buffalo, wild turkeys, and even whales off the coast of Washington? Do we change their protected way of life too?

I believe that I, as well as others, have already stated that all this is irrelevant. You cannot justify your own actions, in your own conditions, based upon someone else's actions in their conditions.

What about fish? What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested?

Fish are animals, too, and should have their feelings respected.
Plants do not have nervous systems, and, as such, do not have feelings.
Also, even if plants did have feelings, it would cause the killing of fewer plants to eat them directly, than to feed them to animals and eat the animals, as well as not killing animals.

I think that anyone who poses this argument has not really thought this through, or would have come to the same conclusion. It is an argument that one comes to when one wants to defend one's position at any cost, so searches for any argument that seems viable. However, the effort extended at criticizing the opposition's argument is not existent in checking the validity of one's own argument.

I think to stop eating meat should be a personal choice...

You're right. It should also be a personal choice of whether I want to raise humans for consumption. We should not get in the way of others getting in others' ways.

 

[Kerrie]

I believe that I, as well as others, have already stated that all this is irrelevant. You cannot justify your own actions, in your own conditions, based upon someone else's actions in their conditions.

you didn't address my question, clever way to avoid it while attempting to "put me in my place"...

Also, even if plants did have feelings, it would cause the killing of fewer plants to eat them directly, than to feed them to animals and eat the animals, as well as not killing animals.

so do we eat artificial food that may cause disease and sickness for humans down the road? i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth...

You're right. It should also be a personal choice of whether I want to raise humans for consumption. We should not get in the way of others getting in others' ways.

currently we legalize abortion, instead of fetuses getting eaten, they are merely discarded as biological waste...animals and plants however are consumed for human survival...i don't want to hijack this thread, but if you believe abortion should be a woman's choice, then so should eating meat, otherwise i see that slightly hypocritical...

there are many laws that protect wild animals...animals that are raised for food are just that...i will comment on how disgusting a meat packing plant is, and perhap we can move to a more humane way of raising meat for a limited food consumption instead of the mass meat market...

the catalyst to the whole mass meat market by the way is human overpopulation...my recommondation is to not reproduce so you don't have to worry about proper nutrition for a growing child or to add to the overpopulation problem, encourage those who do eat meat to investigate on their own the treatment of animals raised for food, and to support local farming...i work directly with american farmers in my job, and it is sad to see them lose their farms because the general population buys their produce that is grown in other countries...