I am a "meat eating person" if you will. Vegans may claim humans were not designed to eat meat, meat eaters will deny it. Meat eaters may claim Vegans are malnourished, or something of the like, Vegans will deny it. The simple truth is, humans were deigned to eat meat, but it is not necessary to do so, if proper substitutes are consumed. In my opinion this argument should be purely on moral grounds. My own stance is this: The treatment of animals in the meat industry is inexcusable, however meat eating is in many ways something I am not willing to give up. For starters, I am a believer that in almost all general circumstances, making a moral decision such as recycling or being Vegan, will not make ANY marginal difference. I am aware of the very fair counter argument that this very thought process is the cause and effect of itself, but unless one of you builds a time machine and returns to the past and changes the way our culture makes it decisions, this will be very tough to change. Additionally, even if I were able to bring myself away from my precious, delicious meat... I would still have to deal with the cultural, convenience, and pleasurable side effects. I don't believe I am the only meat eating person who does so for many of these reasons, and would like to bring that to light. Again, I will say before I leave, I truly admire Vegans for putting their ethics before themselves, and ask that they accept those of us who cannot or will not, and vice-versa to you judgmental meat eating persons.
I'll pose you with the same question I've asked here before: do you think voting is in vain? Your post echos a position that most everyone who has participated in this conversation has taken. You do not condone the status quo of your food's means of production, but you aren't willing to take the step of altering your diet because it seems futile. That is understandable. Why do we accept the status quo? Here's a scenario. Imagine a poll is taken of all commercial food consumers in the US. Now imagine that everyone had all the facts about the means of production. What do you imagine the approval rating would be for factory farms? This is total speculation, but I imagine it would be somewhere around 10%. There are people like me who want nothing to do with any of it on one extreme, and people who don't see anything wrong with it at the other. I believe that the vast majority would echo what you said, something like "I will continue to eat meat even though I don't like the way it's made". If the majority thinks a change needs to be made (and in this case, I would speculate a vast majority), it is insane not to try to make it. And yes, this calls for much more than people just "voting" with dietary changes. Or are we that much of a slave to the status quo? There are other factors at work to intentionally keep the status quo in place. Namely, the industry itself. It's a big problem. Are we up to it? Does intelligence count for anything at all? @Matty Hopefully I'll be able to watch the whole thing when it comes out somehow. Funny how studying this topic has made human diet in general interesting.
there i think that it is respectable that you can give up meat for the sake of animals. how you dont say "hey, one more is no difference" and eat a cheeseburger. i eat meat, but i am going to add something to the thread which may or may not have posted. is being the most adaptive species a good reason for being able to kill whatever you want because you think it tastes good? the lion is an animal which is made to kill. humans were evolved from monkeys, which is something that didnt eat meat. so, meat isnt our way to survive, so do we have rights to kill animals that dont have the adaptibility and intelligence just because we dont like salad? why dont we have these animals on our conscience when if we killed a human, it woud make you worry to death?
People kill animals only for dietary preference. It is a simple matter to have a child be a vegetarian from birth. They will never know the difference. If only people had sense. This guy provides a better and more detailed argument than i could ever provide: The McDougall Newsletter July 2003 - Meat In The Human Diet Some good quotes: "In a failed attempt to chew and swallow pieces of food, usually meat, approximately 4,000 people die each year in the U.S.14 They choke on inadequately masticated chunks that become stuck in their throats. The Heimlich maneuver was specifically designed to save the lives of people dying from these “café coronaries.”14." "The human intestine is long and coiled, much like that of apes, cows, and horses. This configuration makes digestion slow, allowing time to break down and absorb the nutrients from plant food sources. The intestine of a carnivore, like a cat, is short, straight, and tubular. This allows for very rapid digestion of flesh and excretion of the remnants quickly before they putrefy (rot)." "Eating meat diminishes sexual performance and masculinity. The male hormone testosterone that determines sexual development and interest has been found to be 13 % higher in vegans (a strict plant diet – no animal products of any kind) than in meat-eaters.18 Meat-eaters are likely to become impotent because of damage caused to the artery system that supplies their ***** with the blood that causes an erection.19 Erectile dysfunction is more often seen in men with elevated cholesterol levels20 and high levels of LDL “bad” cholesterol21– both conditions related to habitual meat-eating."
Just wanted to let anyone who gives a damn about my latest dietary fad, my position on this topic has changed a bit. I think it's good for a healthy debate to let folks know if you've changed your position, especially if some of them helped you to get there. I've adopted for myself a new standard, one that can more evenly be applied to people all over the world, if they choose to do so. I'll not consume any animal products that came from an animal that wasn't killed by either myself, or a member of my family. I'm relaxing my standards because I'm lazy. Again, not sure if anybody will care to read this, but just in case.
It's an improvement over eating all meat, and probably a healthier choice, but you can do better. Processed meat is additionally unhealthy because of all of the growth hormones, drugs and special feed that go into the cows or other animals and are stored in the muscle and fat. Whatever form it may come in, meat it always unhealthy, and as the guy in the article above said, it should be eaten on special occasions as a specialty, not regularly. People always argue that without it, 'you don't get enough protein'. Bullshit. If you're hunting polar bears all day or some ****, sure, but considering the activity level of the average american, a bowl of broccoli provides plenty of protein. I've been a vegetarian my whole life, and nobody can tell because I'm very healthy and even larger than the average person at my school.
Its human nature to involve. Just because monkeys did not eat meat does not mean we should not. If you guys want to actually go something about it campaign around town or join PETA. (not that anyone really pays attention to their ads) Convincing people that eating something is wrong just doesn't work for me. People say trees have feelings, so what do you think the plants feel when people come up and chop off their arms and limbs? seems pretty cruel to me. Im sure it hurts the wee little plant even more when their having a good day, soaking up the sun and some monster comes up and rips the entire plant, roots and all, out of its home and suffocates it in some plastic baggy. The same bags that we see all around the grocery store.
I've had a bit of a revelation, and maybe a glimpse at deeper truth. See if you guys can follow me on this, and let me know if you think I'm on to something. Remember I'm after the truth, not defense of my position. This takes some empathy. Imagine the point of view of a person named Sam who grew up in a city, he and his whole family have never been to a farm, and regularly eat meat from grocery stores and restaurants. Now imagine someone says to Sam here, Hey Sam you shouldn't eat meat. Sam isn't impressed with this or any argument you use to back it up. Now imagine that you change the whole thing around. This time you say "Hey Sam you shouldn't eat meat that you or your family didn't kill." Can you almost instantly tell that this is more convincing? The reason why is that everything that Sam knows about the history of man and beast's relationship is flashing though his mind. The second statement is extra-infused with thruthiness. Sam can sense it, you can sense it. The implications of both rules are exactly the same for Sam. If he accepts both, none, or either, he and his family aren't going to go out and start hunting wildlife. They're tied to their environment in powerful ways. Results aren't about results, results are about the way you argue. When I say to people that I don't eat any meat that me or my family didn't kill, it demands a lot more respect. It's just a better thing to say. It directly attacks the source of the problem, which is factory farming. And, now maybe I can catch an occasional fish here and there.
Sure, that sounds better, but why pander to people? People do things just because they do them, not because they believe in doing so. People in this country eat meat because they grew up with it, and while it was not really their choice to do so, they fight with it till the death. Its ignorance and stubbornness which prevents them from seeing the truth. The ego says 'whatever i do must be right' and so the millions of close minded fools are produced. And then, of course, when someone tries to say something different, that may JUST be right, they instantly deny it and shut it down with illegitimate arguments. Just like whisper did right here.
Hari I appreciate that you have a noble take on this issue, and one that is basically in line with mine, but I must respectfully warn you that you're showing some signs of being closed-minded, which is the true root of the problem in the first place. Progress is damn hard work, and you're not trying to beat your opponents you're trying to convince them. It isn't pandering in this case because I honestly believe it to be a better standard, inclusive of more lifestyles. I've taken the argument approach of dividing the overall topic into 3 separate issues for a long time now, and have since structured the OP to reflect this. They are: 1. Human interests, to include biology and history of civilization 2. Environmental impact 3. Animal interests Just for clarity, I'll re-state the change I've made in my position, for reference. It is a better argument to suggest that "one shouldn't eat meat that they didn't kill, or a member of their family didn't kill" than to suggest that "one shouldn't eat meat." It's obvious that 2 and 3 are convincing on their own, to anyone who has sensitivity to such things. 1 has always been much more interesting because this is where the debate heats up. I've been comfortable, until now, with the position that the easy-to-demonstrate fact that modern humans can be fully nourished without animal products (while not a convincing argument alone), puts 1 to rest, thereby enabling and strengthening 2 and 3. This has been a good position, but it's always come with a caveat that it only applies to people in a situation similar to mine. It leaves out entire populations around the world who can't be fully nourished without animals, and it completely fails to acknowledge the fact that history got us here. It's a damn arrogant thing to say, or even seem to others to be saying, that people were wrong throughout history who supplemented their diet with meat, when those were literally the very people who put you in your position today. It isn't correct to say that eating meat is wrong, because clearly it isn't true. If it were, almost every person who has ever lived wrong would be wrong. I have managed to zero in on the true problem. As we embrace division of labor on a national scale, the distance between the living animals and the Big Macs gets larger and larger. This creates disrespect for said animals. The root of everything I have against factory farming is summarized by the word "disrespect". Animals are due our respect, that is as close to universal truth as it gets for me (and I'm always extremely cautious of "universal truth"). The environmental and animal abuse atrocities that are perpetrated by factory farms fill me with intolerable rage and disgust, directed at their disrespect. And as such, I haven't eaten a speck of meat in 3 years. Hunters and fishers who commune with nature and indulge in a measure of respect do not fill me with rage or disgust. Remember what it means to make a clean kill. Remember that we are are mandated to survive. Remember that nothing would be as it is today if it weren't for agriculture. Agriculture has gotten progressively more and more centralized, but that doesn't mean that it was always bad or that all forms of it today are bad. I have a hard time knowing how "local" a cut of meat may be at any given restaurant, and I generally don't have much hope that it didn't come from a factory farm. I use the word "family" in my position for a very specific reason. It is vague, but it includes what it needs to. The word family is wide open for interpretation, and carries a sense of the concept of "community". I don't have a single family member that I know of who hunts, and actually very few who go fishing. I don't include that line in my position for my sake, but for inclusiveness of other people I interact with sake. I don't want to boycott animal professionals who do it right, such as legitimate free range operators. I haven't indulged in these alternatives because I haven't trusted myself to make exceptions, and I'm still not sure if I'm mature enough to. That's why I'm starting with the one (almost Cartesian, almost Kantian) maxim that I won't eat anything I didn't kill myself. My journeys through life may place me in a situation where I need to eat meat for survival. I'm going all over the world, and don't plan on avoiding any part of it for it's unpleasantness. I feel a need to hone my survival skills rather than my money-making skills, and a big part of that is de-programming some of the money-only habits of mind. This means that my aversion to actually killing something has to go, as long as I rationally guide myself in the process, and never forget respect. So, in conclusion, I hope that I have demonstrated that my position change isn't an attempt at gaining a tactical advantage over my opponents (that may still be a side-effect), but a sincere move towards honesty and truth. This is the purpose of arguing.
Yes, that is my problem, i have a message to give, yet i'm terribly ineffective at delivering it. Though i may sound close minded, i promise you i am not. It just just i have not heard a single even remotely convincing argument for eating meat besides 'its good protein'. Nobody finds the need to argue for eating meat as everyone does so anyways, so its accepted as default. Thats what bothers me. Lack of awareness. People just do things because they do. No time is taken to consider why. In an extreme example, there might be an unchallenged dictator who is just accepted as a dictator as nobody even considers what it might be like if he wasn't. While i agree with your proposition, and the honor principle that you described, it's just not practical for the every day american. Wild animal populations aren't high enough, people in cities can't hunt, nobody has time anymore, etc. It just would not work for the masses though it is great as a personal practice. Thinking of that strangely enough reminds me of the movie 'Avatar' in which the Na'vi thank the dead animal for it's life and nourishment. Something tells me the Native Americans were way ahead of their time when they did the same thing. I really have nothing against somebody who kills an animal for survival with honor, but then i think of some fat kid sitting on his couch eating chicken nuggets all day. Those animals were bred, manipulated, and executed by machines for our enjoyment, not survival. Their dead bodies have been mutilated into little chunks so we can consume them leisurely as snacks. I honestly really despise the point of view in which 'god created animals for us to chop up and eat'. That is the single most egotistical and selfish outlook on the planet that i have EVER heard.
I think the beauty of the argument is that it doesn't tell people in cities, the main market for manufactured meat, to go make impractical changes to their life that their not going to make anyway. It does in fact tell them to cut down on their meat consumption in a very direct and more personal way. By loosening it's strictness, it will make more vegetarians out of factory farm customers. It's still very possible that I will never eat meat again because of the impracticality and deliberation of getting it myself. Ideology can always be improved with due respect for practicality.
People eat meat because it is easy. If I told an omnivore they couldn't eat foods with the vowels "U" or "O" in their names, or some other ridiculous criteria, it would come down to this: "Is my ease of access to all possible food sources worth more than my ease of mind?" It generally isn't. The only people who would be deterred would be those who object on moral/ ethical/ societal grounds to the killing of animals, and those who are believe that a strictly vegan diet will make them healthier/ fitter. The existential nihilist and amoralist in me is completely indifferent, but on the rare occasion when i'm a complete hypocrite, and my deep depression wanes, and I (foolishly) believe I care about things: for a few minutes I believe that ethics exist, and a secular-humanist appears. And then he gives up. If by 'disrespect' you mean: animals are submitted to excruciating, unnecessary pain and poor living conditions to increase profit, and to pander to a gluttonous world when cheaper, more sustainable, nutrition options exists, then I suppose. This is where we diverge. Because as much as I find kittens adorable, and while i'd never consider hurting an animal "fun", I respect animals as much as I respect inanimate objects. I don't even believe in the concept of respect. I'd certain never expect/ demand or hope that someone respect me, or anyone else. In short, i'm not going to pretend I care about animals seeing as how 'caring' about anything is, existentially, in vain.
Yours is possibly one of the most useful perspectives for me to consider in my effort to refine my perspective. We've talked about determinism before and I'm, at times, very much swayed by it. Yet, somehow determinism doesn't ease my anguish when I watch the movie Earthlings. I need something better, if just for myself. Part of me has no problem accepting determinism, but when it starts to take the fight out of me, the other part of me reminds me to howl at the moon. I can't disrespect that part of me anymore than I can disrespect any other animal. I must refine my rational thinking to respect my instincts, I have no choice in the matter. I've realized that this is a more correct approach than ignoring and disrespecting my instincts out of misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is my fault and my flaw to work on, and I've made a recent personal breakthrough due to my efforts. My rational concession to my instincts on the topic of determinism has taken the form of acknowledging that ethics do exist in some form. That's not irrational. Ethics may be 100% delusional, but they are fact in the people I interact with, and thereby a part of the structure of the world that I cannot escape. I must work within the system. The source of my respect for animals is instinctual, not rational. The source of my demand for respect is instinctual, not rational. Until recently, I felt as you did, that my instincts were not of consequence. Now I know better, because I've managed to establish communication. I've found the english-to-emotion rosetta stone. It turns out, pre-civilization hunter-gatherers are it for me. I think for some people it may come from a later stage that includes the transition to agriculture, but definitely pre-civilization. No one is born with civilized instincts.
Warning! Fail spelling omatic 3000!!! There is a boy named Bob. His best friend is John. As soon as they were born they were forced to eat as much a possible and were left in the cold to suffer. After a lifetime of unbearable torture and suffering they have finally passed there "test" and are now "free to live there life" (all they want to do is play with each other which they couldn't do in the past because they were being crushed against walls and other people to near death) and as the gates open to "freedom" hooks are impaled into there backs and they are dragged into a machine leaving nothing behind but blood. Bob watches john torn apart and crashed into shapes for the amusement of bears. As blood and tears flow from bobs body he is torn apart. He is later eaten by a bear that says "it's just one more person. Who cares right?" There is a man named Jack and he has had it with these mother f*cking snacks on this mother f*cking plane and has decided to kidnap another woman. He says"it's just another woman. Who care's about all the people that care about her and who cares about her! I'm stronger than her therefore I can do what I please with her." He then tortures her as horrifically as he can and rapes her repetitively and then after years of torturing and rapeing her, he gets bored and as she begs for mercy he throws her in a trash compacter and sets it to go as slow as it can for his own amusement. He then goes off to get his victim number 793 In other words, he did whatever the hell he wanted with her because he only cares about himself. That is going to get removed because it was about human suffering. If it was about animal suffering no one would give a ****. Remove it and your only digging the grave of meat eaters. For any of you who couldn't give up meat because it "tastes to good" or for anyone who just doesn't care, go get a cheese grater and grind off all the skin off your legs and bleed to death so you can feel a tiny percent of what you put animals through. One day a civilisation with billons of years higher technology and evolution will come and enslave us all and put us through a lifetime of hell just so they can have another snack. They will show know mercy, and that will be the day I laugh....
I eat meat because it tastes good and provides my body with nourishment necessary for my survival. With regards to the production of chicken/other animals purely for our pleasure, thats what happens when you have over 6 billion people living on a planet. We got to be fed some way and unfortunately its done via mass breeding and slaughtering of livestock. Just a fact of life imo.
That is WAYYY wrong. They don't have to be abusive to animals, they just can be to squeeze out a little extra money. It's not like we wouldn't be exactly the same (we'd be even better off because the quality would be so much higher) without the mass breeding and slaughtering. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that animals are made for eating, fine. However, you need enough respect for them that you're not cruel and abusive and actually appreciate it. That's not what happens in today's world.
Eating meat is no easier than not eating meat. I've gotten along fine my WHOLE life. It's not very hard to avoid. And no, torture of animals is not necessary. The cleanest and quickest kill with the animal in the most comfort possible is optimal. The farming industry used to consist of individual farmers who cared for and loved their livestock. Through industrialization, this process has been bastardized into animals being born into crowded cages, only to be injected, processed, and slaughtered. And do you know why the animals suffer so? Because it 'costs too much to make them comfortable'. Torture in the name of profit. And its not just the industries, its people lacking responsibility for what they eat. I could dice up a cadaver and throw it in with the chicken and nobody would know the difference. While i don't agree with the consumption of animals in the first place, killing them with honor and not capturing and torturing them is a big step in the right direction. Even if you are nihilist or believe in no purpose, what bad can doing good do? As this is a gaming site, this metaphor seems appropriate: it's almost as if we have established control of the earth (map) and proceeded to spawn kill the masses for our profit and amusement. You are taking away and shortening the experience and life of a living, breathing, conscious fellow existence. Those cows may as well be you. You just got damn well lucky enough to be a person, not a cow.
What I don't get is why can't they treat animals in the same respect as they do for kosher meat? I don't want this to turn into a religious debate, obviously, but there's a few things that, to me, make it seem much more...fair, for lack of a better word. -Animals are not allowed to be abused in any way...that means no cooping up, injections, etc. -Animals are not allowed to be grinded up or shot or anything like that...there's a very specific way you do it with a knife (which I've seen), which apparently kills them instantly with no pain -Along with that, there is a few stuff that's purely on respect for the animal, prayers before and after a slaughter, covering up any blood, etc, along with that the knife must be able to cut your finger by touching it and not have any nicks at all, and also is resharpened after every slaughter -They also have to be very healthy, so no young animals like veal and such There's a few of the things. Now, kosher meat IS significantly more expensive than normal, considering this probably costs the owner quite a lot more money than without. However, I don't see why the standards couldn't have been this thoughtful to begin with. Government standards are about nothing, and as the population gets fatter and fatter and we want more and more, it's just going to become worse if nothing happens.