Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[pace]

And I believe that the theory of evolution will cause more good to other animals in length, than it has caused us bad things.

 

[chroot]

Personally, I've found myself at the conclusion that vegetarianism is not just "not right", but in fact wrong.

Well, most of what you say doesn't make any real sense, honestly.

Eating meat is efficient and more efficient than eating substitutes. Not only is meat more efficient, but it is also more enjoyable in many instances.

Define 'efficient' for me. If 'efficient' means having a large amount of protein per unit weight, then yes, it's efficient. If 'efficient' means having a large amount of essential vitamins per unit weight, then no, it's extremely inefficient.

The 'enjoyment' factor is also debatable. I will agree with you that the dominant reason that people eat meat is simply that it tastes good, but there are many people who find fruits more enjoyable than steaks. It's very subjective, and you can't really use such sweeping generalizations to make a logical argument. They're called "arguments by assertion."

Animals cannot contribute postively to society in an amount that justifies not eating them.

Since when have animals been tasked with contributing something to human society? Is it our right to declare that every living thing on the planet either help us or end up in our bellies? That's extortion. It's not only immoral but illegal to extort people, so why shouldn't that moral standard apply to other living things, too?

If something doesn't help us, why shouldn't we take advantage of it? Maybe it's cruel, maybe we wouldn't like it if people did that to us, but what justification for being vegan does that create.

It makes an excellent justification for being vegan. The whole point of veganism is this: There are two ways to live your life. One depends upon the exploitation of animals, the other does not. Given that choice, vegans choose (for many reasons) to live a life that does not depend on the exploitation of animals. In other words, if you don't have to kill animals, why should you?

The whole premise of treating animals how you would like to be treated is based on fear.

Fear? Veganism is driven by three motivations:

1) Health. It seems generally true (though far from certain) that people are healthier when they eat less meat. The medical community has accepted this for quite some time.

2) Environmental protection. The farming of animals for food is extraordinarily wasteful with land and natural resources. The amount of energy and land required to produce 1000 kcals worth of meat is much, much larger than the amount of energy and land required to produce 1000 kcals worth of edible plant matter.

3) Animal rights. Many vegans simply adhere to the afore-mentioned philosophy: if you don't have to kill an animal, why should you?

Perhaps you don't know any vegans, but I know many -- and none have ever expressed anything resembling fear. Unless, of course, you mean the fear of heart disease and liver failure from eating at McDonald's.

But with humans that logic applies and can benefit you directly rather than through some unlikely possibility. If animals can't help us the only reason I can see to let them live, is a reason based on fear. They wouldn't like to be in an animals situation, so instead of taking advantage of an opportunity - vegans refuse to do so based on fear.

This is just abject silliness.

Even though vegetarians aren't overtly harming people. Vegetarianism is insufficient and works against idealism, making it wrong in my mind.

Vegetarianism is insufficient? What does this mean? What does it mean to 'work against idealism?' This doesn't make any sense.

- Warren

 

[pace]

Yeah! Go chroot!

 

[chroot]

Now the argument becomes 'any killing of an animal for consumtion is morally wrong' ?? Sorry but I dont' see the justification for that. Is your cat morally wrong when it kills a mouse or bird?

Lower animals do not have the capacity for technology or ethics, so comparing human behavior to lower animal behavior is silly. There is no particular reason that we should model our behavior on lower animals.

What about dolphins? They have a pretty high cognitive ability and they eat other fish.

They may have great intellect, but they lack technology. Technology is a critical component.

Only in recent years has mankind's technology enabled veganism. In the past, a diet without meat would more than likely render you malnourished. Our understanding of nutrition and our agricultural abilities have finally enabled mankind to make an unfettered choice between a diet that exploits animals and a diet that does not. It seems quite silly to make that choice by observing the behavior of lower animals who do not have the choice available to them.

If you look at the evolution of the human race, at what point in its history did it suddenly become 'wrong' to eat meat? When was our reasoning capacity high enough that we should have said 'lets stop eating meat'.

In the recent past. Most vegans (not the ones you see on TV holding signs) are not militant. They don't really care if you eat meat or not, as long as you don't persecute them for their choices. Few vegans will say outright that 'eating meat is wrong.' They will simply say that they have chosen not to eat meat. Why should they?

I've heard people say that they're healthier when eating vegetarian but it also seems to take a good dietary knowledge to pull this off.

It seems funny that you ask for reasons, then provide them yourself. The most common reasons are for better health, for environmental protection, and for animal rights. Every person who chooses to be vegan chooses for one or more of those reasons. Some vegans are concerned only with their health and couldn't care less about killing cows.

And being vegetarian to 'boycott' the poor treatment of animals really doesn't fly either.

I haven't heard of many vegans being vegan solely to boycott animal mistreatment. In fact, the two camps are somewhat disparate. Many (if not most) PETA members are meat-eaters, and many vegans don't really care about animal rights.

- Warren

 

[Revelationz]

Some things about the adaptation of humans to a meat diet

1. I spoke with a nutritionist once, who said that there are structures in the brains of developing children that do not develop properly without cholesterol that can't be gotten from plants. He thought it positively harmful to deprive a child of meat entirely. However, not a lot of meat is needed to make up the requirement.

2. Pure herbivores like cows have long GI tracts for digesting plants, incisor teeth for cutting plant fibers, as well as molars for grinding them. Carnivores like lions have short GI tracts for digesting meat quickly before it rots in the warmth of the carnivore's body and have 'canine' teeth for tearing flesh. Omnivores like humans have intermediate length GI tracts and all types of teeth. This leads me to conclude that humans are designed to eat both flesh and plants.

 

[chroot]

1. I spoke with a nutritionist once, who said that there are structures in the brains of developing children that do not develop properly without cholesterol that can't be gotten from plants. He thought it positively harmful to deprive a child of meat entirely. However, not a lot of meat is needed to make up the requirement.

You have one data point -- one person's opinion. Many other nutritionists would say precisely the opposite, that meat is not required in any respect.

This leads me to conclude that humans are designed to eat both flesh and plants.

And we're biologically diggers, too, since we have those pretty fingernails. Why aren't you out digging for termites?

- Warren

 

[Alkatran]

Whichever path is the most beneficial is the one that should be followed. If vegetarianism can be implemented in such a way that it is better than what we have, then by all means go for it.

Just don't forget how picky some people are about their food.


Technicly, to side-step the 'animal rights' issues, you could 'create' an organism through genetic manipulation (obviously not now, we have not the knowledge!) that would simply constantly grow (cancer! yay!), have minimal (if not any) brain, definitely no pain reception, etc... and tastes good. A big blob oozing off a table isn't going to make people think "oh no! cute thing being killed!"

You never know...

 

[arildno]

Alkatran:
Have you read Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crane"?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

By people refusing to eat meat, because they refuse to kill animals (who don't help society), they are creating changes in the economy that make it less efficient. Society has to adapt (or has adapted) to provide options for vegans. Some vegetarians also rebel against meat eating. Restaurants could delete vegan specific options - allowing for employees to have the spare time to volunteer or do something else more important. This infringing on useful time is an example of how vegetarianism "works against idealism". In an idealistic world, the extra time would be avaliable.

Exhorting humans is considered wrong because those humans have potential to do something for society. Animals who don't contribute aren't equal to humans with the potential to contribute. Should we prey on everyone/everything that doesn't contribute to our society? If it gives us pleasure - logically, why not?

Should the goal of an individual not be to gain the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain by working within society and choosing the option best for "themself and the group"? Logically, to me atleast, it should be.

Through analysis it seems to me that meat eating contributes to this goal in a greater amount than vegetarianism. Therefore, idealistically - everyone should eat meat.

I don't see my linking of vegetarianism to fear as being silly at all. In some cases, perhaps not all, you could make a logical case towards that point. Why else would someone spare an animal's life if not because of empathy, which is linked to understanding, which can be extrapolated to the idea of a vegetarian being fearful.

Your stuck in a room eternally - you have all your essentials for life. However, you see something that can make you happy. Your told an animal will cruely die if you are to get that thing. Why wouldn't you get it? They animal will never contribute to you directly in any way. However, through its death you can achieve something that will bring you pleasure.

Why is it cruel to kill a dog? Dogs have personality traits and physical characteristics that make them contribute to the pleasure of humans.

Using animals for meat seems completely correct in my mind. The root of the issue for me lies in what is a greater contribution to society. Meat eating or vegetarianism?

 

[chroot]

You really seem to have some deeply confused notions about the way the world works, Dooga.

By people refusing to eat meat, because they refuse to kill animals (who don't help society), they are creating changes in the economy that make it less efficient.

Now it's an economic problem? If you keep shifting the topic of this debate from one subject to another, we're never going to have a useful discussion. Please don't use the stupid tactic of continuing to argue when you're backed into a corner.

Point of fact, raising animals for meat is far less economically efficient than growing plants. Animals use more raw resources for the same quantity of edible product. Our economy would be much more efficient if we stopped raising animals.

Restaurants could delete vegan specific options - allowing for employees to have the spare time to volunteer or do something else more important.

Uh, what? Restaurant employees work specific shifts. They don't work overtime to make vegan dishes. Once again, point of fact, vegetarian entrees often take less time to prepare than cooking meat entrees.

Now you're arguing extrema -- ridiculous extrema -- our society is less efficient as a whole because restaurants have larger menus and their employess have less time to volunteer? This is an argument by assertion, again. I challenge you to provide some evidence that society is losing valuable man-hours of volunteer time because restaurants include vegan options. This is just laughable. Plain laughable.

Of course, you don't seem to have a similar problem with blue and red and green and white and purple tennis shoes. How about the thousands of different automobiles we have to choose from? How about the wide variety of kitchen faucets? Don't all these options also detract from the precious pool of volunteer hours?

Should we prey on everyone/everything that doesn't contribute to our society? If it gives us pleasure - logically, why not?

Perhaps because, despite prevailing dogma, we are part of an ecosystem. Preservationists desire to keep the environment and the ecosystem as stable as possible. We don't really know what the effects on the planet's habitability will be if we kill all the animals and raze all the forests, just because we can. Some of us would rather not find out.

Should the goal of an individual not be to gain the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain by working within society and choosing the option best for "themself and the group"? Logically, to me atleast, it should be.

Thankfully, we're not all as selfish as you. Besides, you didn't respond to my earlier point that many people find fruits more appetizing and satisfying than steaks. Point of fact, vegans are working toward their own happiness, your inability to understand that happiness notwithstanding.

I don't see my linking of vegetarianism to fear as being silly at all. In some cases, perhaps not all, you could make a logical case towards that point. Why else would someone spare an animal's life if not because of empathy, which is linked to understanding, which can be extrapolated to the idea of a vegetarian being fearful.

I've already answered this. Can't you read? People might choose not to kill an animal for health reasons, for environmental reasons, OR, often lastly, for animal-rights reasons.

Your stuck in a room eternally - you have all your essentials for life. However, you see something that can make you happy. Your told an animal will cruely die if you are to get that thing. Why wouldn't you get it? They animal will never contribute to you directly in any way. However, through its death you can achieve something that will bring you pleasure.

Boy, I sure would like to kill your whole family and take all your money. Perhaps I should, since you're not likely to contribute to my happiness in any other way.

Why is it cruel to kill a dog? Dogs have personality traits and physical characteristics that make them contribute to the pleasure of humans.

Ah, so we'll just keep all the cute and cuddly animals, and eat all the ugly ones left over. Superb rationalization.

The root of the issue for me lies in what is a greater contribution to society. Meat eating or vegetarianism?

You've yet to provide any evidence that society benefits from meat consumption. If you're really working towards the good of society, perhaps you should spend your time worrying about welfare, public health, social security, low-income housing, water quality, education standards, and so on. They all seem to have a much larger impact on society's well-being than whether or not I eat a hamburger or a salad. I suspect you are just couching your rhetoric behind a banner of "societal benefit' to avoid looking like the bastard you really are.

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

1. Some people enjoy a salad and others enjoy meat, true. Could a case not be made that for some, meat eating creates an amount of pleasure? To hamper this pleasure because of animals (that don't contribute to people directly), seems unfair to me. I'm not addressing vegetarians in general as wrong in this instance, but the ones who advocate the dissolution of meat eating.

2. That was an extreme example because I couldn't think of anything else at the time.

3. Not taking a risk that results in pleasure because of fear of a theoretical possibility of pain is typically frowned upon. I have to think on this.

Omit 4.
5. The room is a representation of society as a whole. In reality if you killed one of my family members they would deprive you. They would contribute somehow to someone then that person would to someone else, ect, therefore contributing to the society your a part of.

However using the room as a metaphor for society the only thing that can effect you directly is getting the pleasure bringing object. Logically, the animal dieing shouldn't be of any concern.

6. Dogs do more because of there looks, and as a result, they contribute.

Anyway, I hope you haven't been too offended by my rhetoric. On a "hopefully" positive note, I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics. Your not the only one to congratulate on this, the study of Mitosis helped as well.

It will likely take me awhile to incorperate this new information based on differences among offspring, into my current philosophical theory. Thanks for your patience.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics.

that would really be a very good idea.

while your 'philosophy' might appear to be 'logically consistent' (eg to not eat meat deprives those who enjoy eating meat from meat eating pleasure), it may not take values into account (eg i used to eat humans, but now i don't even though it deprives me of pleasure).

so eventually you come down to what qualities do we value as humans - and these may actually prove to be logically worthwhile ;)

in friendship,
prad

 

[chroot]

I'm not addressing vegetarians in general as wrong in this instance, but the ones who advocate the dissolution of meat eating.

You are changing your story. You quite specifically began your intrusion into this topic with the assertion that vegetarianism is wrong. Now you're trying to escape by claiming that you really just meant to address those militant vegetarians who want to stop you from eating meat. Why don't you just consider apologizing, rather than trying to convince us all that we just misread you?

2. That was an extreme example because I couldn't think of anything else at the time.

Posting ridiculous arguments is far worse for your case than posting no arguments.

3. Not taking a risk that results in pleasure because of fear of a theoretical possibility of pain is typically frowned upon. I have to think on this.

This "fear" concept of yours is out of left field. Few people have decided not to eat meat out of some kind of fear.

5. The room is a representation of society as a whole. In reality if you killed one of my family members they would deprive you. They would contribute somehow to someone then that person would to someone else, ect, therefore contributing to the society your a part of.

I expected this response. How about if I instead just go out on the streets of San Francisco tonight and slay a bum or two in cold blood? The bums are certainly not contributing to society; in fact, they're leeching from it! It should be totally okay to go kill those people. When the police stop me, I'll just explain that it gave me pleasure, and they weren't contributing anything anyway.

Yes, yes, it sounds great to have a moral standard by which the right to life is determined solely by contribution to Dooga Blackrazor. Excellent plan!

Anyway, I hope you haven't been too offended by my rhetoric. On a "hopefully" positive note, I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics. Your not the only one to congratulate on this, the study of Mitosis helped as well.

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -- Andre Gide.

- Warren

 

[XMLT]

We need meat for protein which plays an important part in our protein synthesis making the most vital amino acid molecules for proper functions of body cells.

XMLT

 

[chroot]

We need meat for protein which plays an important part in our protein synthesis making the most vital amino acid molecules for proper functions of body cells.

XMLT

All of the protein and amino acids you need are available in foods not derived from animals. You do not need meat to get them.

- Warren

 

[XMLT]

But most of them come from meat.

XMLT

 

[physicsisphirst]

But most of them come from meat.

this sort of thing is an ill-conceived line of reasoning that was a result of a misinterpretation of a statements by the likes of francis lappe moore back in the 70s or 80s. she said something like 'to get proteins like meat supplies, you need to combine vegetables properly'. unfortunately, what stuck was the notion 'to get proper proteins, you need to combine vegetables proteins properly'.

as a result, some people still hold the strange idea that you can't get your proteins on a vegetarian diet or that vegetarian diets are somehow deficient in something or other.

vegetarian diets are not only as 'complete' as you want them to be, they are fortunately missing many of the key ingredients that you really don't want messing up your inards.

in friendship,
prad

 

[chroot]

But most of them come from meat.

Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants.

- Warren

 

[siliconhype]

"Is your cat morally wrong when it kills a mouse or bird? It doesn't even eat it."

Cats don't eat mice and birds? I had a cat, it ate mice and birds.

 

[XMLT]

Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants.

- Warren

Then you have to eat a lot of plants. You're going to be very busy.

 

[allanpatrick]

No he isn't.

 

[chroot]

Then you have to eat a lot of plants. You're going to be very busy.

That's very stupid. Do you actually know anyone who is vegan? Can you ask him or her about his/her diet?

- Warren

 

[XMLT]

That's very stupid. Do you actually know anyone who is vegan? Can you ask him or her about his/her diet?

- Warren

Oh, cmon. I was just joking around. I know there are lots of vegans and their diets anyway. Nevermind, just forget what i have said. Jokes sometime don't work at all.

XMLT

 

[chroot]

XMLT:

Sorry for not catching the joke! There's been a lot of misinformation in this thread already, so I unfortunately assumed you were one of them. My apologies.

- Warren

 

[XMLT]

Warren,

It's fine.

XMLT

 

[arildno]

It's fine.

XMLT

Your joke was fine, too..

 

[XMLT]

arildno,

Thanks. I'm a Vietnamese with a very little knowledge of English. So if I make mistake just tell me ok?

XMLT

 

[arildno]

Sure enough; I was not sarcastic, if you thought so..

 

[XMLT]

-arildno
I didn't think that you were sarcastic. I was just saying that since it's true.
Anyway, back to the topic, I voted yes.

XMLT

 

[physicsisphirst]

Your joke was fine, too..

hey i didn't get the joke
everyone else seems to get it
what's the joke?

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I began the topic with a stance and stated that I wanted other opinions. I thought that implied that I wasn't completely certain on what I thought. In the quote you mentioned - I had said "in this instance". I wasn't referring to the whole argument but dependent clause contained in that paragraph.

Through society people are linked together and affect one another. The bum does provide hierarchy reinforcement through inaction. However, he still could be contributing negatively to society. In that case, he should be given the opportunity to contribute. If he refuses he should be forced to contribute through any means necessary. If he has such resolute as to resist torture I wouldn't object to his death. His organs could be harvested and used.

Going back to vegetarianism, I am not unsure on my stance, but inclined towards it being an incorrect view. Through the eating of meat and a vegan diet - and the harvesting of animals - jobs are created. Through eating only vegan, vegetarians likely decrease the amount of jobs. While the requirement for more vegetarian food becomes imminent the requirement for meat is lower. By having two industries going the requirement for material & machinery is higher and more jobs can be created.

Some vegetarians do not enjoy eating meat. Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat. If you could enjoy more food you would have more sources of enjoyment, since variety often provides more joy. To put it simply it seems like not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw. One that I have, but I don't deny that it seems like a problem. Not only for the purpose of pleasure, but for survival of humans if something were to happen to certain food sources. Variety should bring more pleasure, and the enjoyment of more things to create more variety is more efficient.


Chroot, you seem to be getting offended by some things I'm saying. I know my rhetorical skills aren't excellent and I phrase things in an incorrect way sometimes. However, despite the absence of certain skills in some areas - I am trying to discuss this issue intellectual as you are.

~This way opinion written somewhat formally.

 

[chroot]

If he [the bum] has such resolute as to resist torture I wouldn't object to his death. His organs could be harvested and used.

You're a psychopath. Do you have no respect for life at all?

Through eating only vegan, vegetarians likely decrease the amount of jobs.

You really can't make these kinds of arguments by assertion anymore. If you can't provide any evidence for this statement, I demand that you retract it. It's stupid anyway -- farmers who raise animals can just as easy farm vegetables on the same land. The same number of mouths need to be fed with same number of calories. Vegetable calories are much cheaper to produce than animal calories. The farmer who switches to raising vegetables because meat is no longer fetching a good price will actually end up making more money. It's plain, simple supply-and-demand economics.

First you assert that vegetarianism reduces the pool of volunteer hours available. Now you assert that vegetarianism removes jobs. What's next? Does vegetarianism cause ugliness? Does vegetarianism make the Sun weaker?

Some vegetarians do not enjoy eating meat. Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat. If you could enjoy more food you would have more sources of enjoyment, since variety often provides more joy.

What?! Wouldn't it - logically - also be better if people liked to eat rubber and glue and old tires and sheet metal and solid waste? They would have more sources of enjoyment, and that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

To put it simply it seems like not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw.

Since everyone dislikes some kinds of food, I would suggest that it's a genetic variation, not a flaw. Genetic diversity is essential for the survival of a species. I know you're only 16, but have you ever taken a biology class?

Not only for the purpose of pleasure, but for survival of humans if something were to happen to certain food sources.

Oh, now it's a survival issue. It's no longer about killing bums and eating cows for pleasure, now it's about survival? Guess what? If it comes down to eating a hamburger or dying, there are very few vegans who would choose death. To be sure, there are some PETA members who claim they would rather let their children die than kill a cow, but I'd venture that they might change their minds when actually confronted with such a reality.

Chroot, you seem to be getting offended by some things I'm saying. I know my rhetorical skills aren't excellent and I phrase things in an incorrect way sometimes. However, despite the absence of certain skills in some areas - I am trying to discuss this issue intellectual as you are.

I hope that anyone with even a mild respect for life (human or otherwise) would be offended by your statements.

- Warren

 

[siliconhype]

"not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw."

Wow, so, i have a genetic flaw if i think poisoneus mushrooms are really nasty tasting?

You have got it the other way 'round, not liking certain foods is a genetic defense mechanism, since you are most vulnerable when you have put a food in your mouth, your body wants to make sure you don't and it does that by making you have prejudices against certain foods. Of course, this is not the whole story, different cultures like and dislike different foods, therefore this is also something that effects what food you eat, and it has nothing to do with genetics, Jews don't have a gene that makes them not like pig. Another factor that determines what food you like is the training you got from your parents. Children watch and are tought from their parents what to like and what to avoid, and when they grow up, they know that the foods that they have eaten are good and so continue to eat that kind of food as experimentation would pose certain risks to them. Some people, as adults, or in a multicultural society, overcome food taboos, for lack of a better word, and learn to eat a variety of foods; again, this has nothing to do with genetics.

Other comments you made make even less sense. Take the: "eat meat for jobs" campaign you got going there. I can see you being a union advocate for the poultry industry in a few years. ;) Jobs are a retarded reason, illogical and withought an ethical or moral basis - in reality, perhaps not in the ideological world you dwell. Because in reality, Ford replaced people, thus jobs, if that's how you define people, with robots. And that's t just the tip of the, metaphorical, iceberg.

"Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat."

No, logically it's better if you don't like meat. Technology is the only reason we like and are capable to like meat. "Back in the day", we eaither ate the meat raw, or we learned to smoke and salt it to keep bacteria from taking it over. But meat is very dangerous, in fact, your mind has a mechanism that, if you had no social conditioning, would lead you to a vegan type diet. For more information check out "How the mind works" by Steven pinker, that's one choice, which i recomend, since it is written by a scientists who has published a few books before, and follows a long and broad view of the subject.

Of course, in the end, in this society at least, choosing to be vegetarian is more of a ideological decision than anything else, sometimes it is touted as a health choice, but really, if that was the case, all meat eaters would be dead or really sick by now and we would have learned after the millenia of meat eating that maybe we shouldn't do it. Since we haven't run into any problems, it does, in the end come down to ethical and moral choices, weather for the sake of the environment, the sake of the animal or other reason, which has nothig to do with health or genes - or jobs.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I haven't seen any logical support towards the value of life. If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit. This goes for someone else as well, if someone isn't contributing to society, force them to or get rid of them. The metaphorical state of conscience based on treating others "how you would like to be treated" is illogical when applied to non-contributors. If you strive towards excellence through contribution, there are no reprocussions aside from theoretical fear.

I am familiar with the processes of Biology and why asexual reproduction is flawed. Therefore, I realize the importance of diversity. I was looking at the issue from a different perspective using some of the same logic. The purpose of my posting was to gain further intellectual information on the topic through perspective. Since that is happening, my goal is being achieved.

I have to contemplate the issue of Vegetarianism further before I comment on it again.

 

[chroot]

If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit.

So you see no reason not to declare yourself judge, jury, and executioner of any person on Earth that you deem a "non-contributor" eh? Welcome to the Middle Ages, m'Lord!

I have to contemplate the issue of Vegetarianism further before I comment on it again.

This really has nothing to do with vegetarians, Dooga. This heart of this discussion is your disgusting self-aggrandizement. You feel that you are so far superior to everyone (and everything) else on the planet that you alone are qualified to make a decision as to who lives and who dies.

I fear you're going to have a lonely life ahead of you.

- Warren