Animal rights

[The Doctor]

Well, I figure we're at an impasse here: I see it being part of our proper diet as the best reason to do so, you are a whiney little bitch who thinks the lower bits of the food chain deserve mercy, so **** it, if the best reason won't convince you then discussion over, because there's nothing else I can add that's a "better reason".

[Captain...]

Well, it sort of does. He's happy to keep an animal in slavery and if I remember rightly he doesn't even feed it right (cats have to eat meat) - it's hypocrisy at it's finest. Why is it fine to keep animals but not to eat them and kill them (as, I might add, we are set-up to do: we were herbivores for a while, living off nuts, grains and fruit, but that's in the long distant past - modern humans are omnivorous, no question about it).

 

It may invalidate his right to preach on the subject but it doesn't change the facts on eating meat, and how it is inefficient and wastes a huge amount of resources and kills sentient beings. That was my problem, Oz posted facts about gross mistreatment of animals, his argument got countered with, "yeah but you've got a cat", or a picture of a steak.

[Mark_w]

Have a serious discussion about the morality of eating meat and I'd at least hear you out.

You are a whiney little bitch who thinks the lower bits of the food chain deserve mercy, so **** it, if the best reason won't convince you then discussion over, because there's nothing else I can add that's a "better reason".

 

 

---

 

I'm not being a whiney little bitch and it's not my fault that you can't justify eating meat with any argument other than 'we're capable of doing it'. If you committed any crime and tried to justify it with 'I'm capable of it', they'd lock you up in an instant so when we're having a serious discussion about the morality of eating meat, the 'best reason' (as you put it) clearly isn't good enough. If it was, then you wouldn't be resorting to petty name calling would you?

[Finnegan]

When you can justify why we shouldn't eat meat without making sensationalist comparisons between homicide and eating livestock, then you can have the cheek to insist meat eaters do the reverse.

[The People's Hero]

99% of vegetarians are all given a bad image by the 1% of preachy idiots who all appear to have turned up in this thread.

[Mark_w]

When you can justify why we shouldn't eat meat without making sensationalist comparisons between homicide and eating livestock, then you can have the cheek to insist meat eaters do the reverse.

 

I compare murdering humans and murdering animals, but that's not the justification for not eating meat. The justification is that I think it's wrong to kill any sentient being, which isn't an unreasonable belief. You might not agree with it, but surely we should all be free to post our opinions on an internet forum in a thread set up for people to do just that?

 

I also don't think it's unfair to expect someone who has asked for a serious discussion about the morality of eating meat, to explain why it's morally okay to eat meat. I think it's fair to say that being capable of doing something is no moral justification for doing it.

 

 

99% of vegetarians are all given a bad image by the 1% of preachy idiots who all appear to have turned up in this thread.

 

Who has been preaching?

I was debating whether or not it's fine to eat meat, I was asking meat eaters to justify it. I'm not the one who felt the need to insult someone, nor am I trying to force anyone to stop eating meat, I'm just trying to get The Doctor to explain why he thinks it's reasonable to kill animals for food.

 

I thought that this thread was set up to debate animal rights, but the majority of you clearly don't want a thread like that. You want a thread where you can post pictures of animal carcasses without having a proper debate about animal rights. Shame.

[Finnegan]

You're free to express your opinion and I welcome that you can do so with more civility than Al but your argument is still just a statement of an opinion, "I personally don't think we should kill animals" isn't explaining why we shouldn't kill livestock any more than Al saying "yes we should, its tasty" is justifying why it's fine.

[The People's Hero]

Do you think a lion would think twice about eating one of us if it was hungry?

Ill explain about evolution and the food chain when I can be bothered to teach basics to someone who doesn't want to hear them. Possibly never.

[OzFox]

I compare murdering humans and murdering animals, but that's not the justification for not eating meat. The justification is that I think it's wrong to kill any sentient being, which isn't an unreasonable belief. You might not agree with it, but surely we should all be free to post our opinions on an internet forum in a thread set up for people to do just that?

 

I also don't think it's unfair to expect someone who has asked for a serious discussion about the morality of eating meat, to explain why it's morally okay to eat meat. I think it's fair to say that being capable of doing something is no moral justification for doing it.

 

 

 

Who has been preaching?

I was debating whether or not it's fine to eat meat, I was asking meat eaters to justify it. I'm not the one who felt the need to insult someone, nor am I trying to force anyone to stop eating meat, I'm just trying to get The Doctor to explain why he thinks it's reasonable to kill animals for food.

 

I thought that this thread was set up to debate animal rights, but the majority of you clearly don't want a thread like that. You want a thread where you can post pictures of animal carcasses without having a proper debate about animal rights. Shame.

 

    Wasn't it you who described this thread as "MattP's food diary"? That still makes me laugh

 

I'm not sure who has been "preaching" either. ozleicester's been passionate and persistent with his argument, but he's hardly ramming his message down down anyone's throat. Nobody is forced to read the thread after all.

 

Must say I'm puzzled by the "we're top of the food chain therefore we have the right to kill stuff" argument. I hear it all the time, with both wild and domesticated animals. It's an argument devoid of compassion for living things that feel pain and fear the same as we do.

[Captain...]

Do you think a lion would think twice about eating one of us if it was hungry?

Ill explain about evolution and the food chain when I can be bothered to teach basics to someone who doesn't want to hear them. Possibly never.

 

No a lion wouldn't, because it can't, it is not capable of abstract thought and the concept of suffering, it is driven by instinct, we aren't really driven by our instincts any more, we have broken out of our innate programming and are able to take an objective view of the world, that is why we are able to justify our actions and make  informed decisions on how we live our lives. Lions don't have the option of a protein rich soy antelope, nor the capability to digest plant. For them it is eat meat or die.

 

Now I do eat meat, but I understand the reasons not to, and I try not to eat too much and ensure my meat is ethically sourced and not from battery farms, I disagree with many things in the meat industry, but I won't deny anyone's right to eat meat, I just wish people would be more aware of where their meat comes from, the true cost of it, and pay extra for well sourced quality meat and not eat the cheap crap.

[Darkon84]

I doubt that somehow. I only know half a dozen "veggies" but they're all motivated by the poor treatment of animals in factory farms and/or the way they are slaughtered. Plus I know one guy who just doesn't like the taste of meat.

 

All this seems reasonable enough to me. What I find really weird is the people who say they're going to carry on eating meat because they're being "preached at". Sounds like a cop out to me.

 

 

I guess it's down to personal experience then. I have met and had run in's with dozens of vegetarians and vegans, and I have to say, probably about 10% have been happy to just get on with it. All the rest cause a fuss when eating out, or turn their nose up if you have meat, or preach. My Uncle has been vegan his entire life, but not once has he ever tried to convert anyone, or moan that there isn't enough vegan/vegetarian stuff on a menu etc. He is happy in his ways and happy that everyone has their own preference, and believes that if people want to try it, they will find it their own way, rather than being talked in to it, or guilt tripped in to it. 

 

I have tried plenty of meat alternatives, but for me, I'll never stop eating meat, and it's not because I'm preached to, or as a cop out.

 

If the veggies you know, knew their meat was coming from somewhere where the treatment of the animals was paramount and the way the animals lives were ended was as humane as possible (please don't just say that there is no humane way), would they consider eating meat again? I'm only asking, because there ARE laws on animal treatment, welfare, and correct slaughter procedures, which many, and MOST places adhere to. Though this thread would have you believe that all farmers producing meat are evil, cackling, rusty axe wielding nutcases, intent on causing as much harm as possible to the animals .

[Darkon84]

It may invalidate his right to preach on the subject but it doesn't change the facts on eating meat, and how it is inefficient and wastes a huge amount of resources and kills sentient beings. That was my problem, Oz posted facts about gross mistreatment of animals, his argument got countered with, "yeah but you've got a cat", or a picture of a steak.

 

 

In fact, I actually posted official laws and acts stating how animals should be treated whilst being reared for slaughter, along with exactly how they should be slaughtered as humanely as possible and to cause absolute minimal distress. This was going waaaaaaaaaaaay back in this thread though. However, as usual, when a case like that is put forward, it was completely ignored and instead another one-off case of a sicko farmer was posted and passed off as how all farmers work.

[Mark_w]

I guess it's down to personal experience then. I have met and had run in's with dozens of vegetarians and vegans, and I have to say, probably about 10% have been happy to just get on with it. All the rest cause a fuss when eating out, or turn their nose up if you have meat, or preach. My Uncle has been vegan his entire life, but not once has he ever tried to convert anyone, or moan that there isn't enough vegan/vegetarian stuff on a menu etc. He is happy in his ways and happy that everyone has their own preference, and believes that if people want to try it, they will find it their own way, rather than being talked in to it, or guilt tripped in to it. 

 

I have tried plenty of meat alternatives, but for me, I'll never stop eating meat, and it's not because I'm preached to, or as a cop out.

 

If the veggies you know, knew their meat was coming from somewhere where the treatment of the animals was paramount and the way the animals lives were ended was as humane as possible (please don't just say that there is no humane way), would they consider eating meat again? I'm only asking, because there ARE laws on animal treatment, welfare, and correct slaughter procedures, which many, and MOST places adhere to. Though this thread would have you believe that all farmers producing meat are evil, cackling, rusty axe wielding nutcases, intent on causing as much harm as possible to the animals .

 

Why can't he say that?

 

Murder is murder regardless of how it's done and for people (like me) who think that any other animal has as much right to life as a human does then killing it kindly isn't good enough.

 

I also find it very difficult to believe you could find a single example of a place, where animals are killed (for food), with the treatment of the animals being 'paramount'. Making money is paramount to those people, if their biggest concern was looking after the animals then they wouldn't be killing them, it's as simple as that. Sure they may kill the animals humanely but it's ridiculous to think that treating animals properly is the purpose of these places.

[Finnegan]

There's a lot of empty speculation there, Mark.

[Mark_w]

I'm not saying it's not important to some of them. But to say that it's of 'paramount' importance suggests that it's the most important thing to people who are providing meat by killing animals. If they cared more about the treatment of the animal than anything else, then would they really be killing them?

[OzFox]

I guess it's down to personal experience then. I have met and had run in's with dozens of vegetarians and vegans, and I have to say, probably about 10% have been happy to just get on with it. All the rest cause a fuss when eating out, or turn their nose up if you have meat, or preach. My Uncle has been vegan his entire life, but not once has he ever tried to convert anyone, or moan that there isn't enough vegan/vegetarian stuff on a menu etc. He is happy in his ways and happy that everyone has their own preference, and believes that if people want to try it, they will find it their own way, rather than being talked in to it, or guilt tripped in to it. 

 

I have tried plenty of meat alternatives, but for me, I'll never stop eating meat, and it's not because I'm preached to, or as a cop out.

 

If the veggies you know, knew their meat was coming from somewhere where the treatment of the animals was paramount and the way the animals lives were ended was as humane as possible (please don't just say that there is no humane way), would they consider eating meat again? I'm only asking, because there ARE laws on animal treatment, welfare, and correct slaughter procedures, which many, and MOST places adhere to. Though this thread would have you believe that all farmers producing meat are evil, cackling, rusty axe wielding nutcases, intent on causing as much harm as possible to the animals .

 

No my veggies definitely don't preach. A few of them moan because they miss eating bacon sarnies. It's always bacon for some reason.

 

I think we're a long way off from "humane" treatment as a very high percentage of our meat still comes from piss poor factory farms. And when an animal goes off to the slaughterhouse, they're intelligent enough to know whats coming so I can't see how the killing will ever be humane either. Roll on lab meat, but I think we've discussed that already

[Captain...]

I was at uni with what I would refer to as a political vegan, he objected to how animals were treated, but said he would have no problem with roadkill and liked eating meat.

@Mark I disagree with the murder argument, you are misusing a very specific and well defined word for emotive reasons. Murder can only be applied to humans deliberately and illegally killing humans. It is arguments like that, that get people's backs up. Murder is very clearly defined and meat production is not murder. You can call it the wanton, unnecessary mistreatment of animals, bordering on the sadistic and cruel. You can call it inefficient and wasteful and destructive to the planet, you can call it many things, but murder it ain't.

[The Doctor]

I compare murdering humans and murdering animals, but that's not the justification for not eating meat. The justification is that I think it's wrong to kill any sentient being, which isn't an unreasonable belief. You might not agree with it, but surely we should all be free to post our opinions on an internet forum in a thread set up for people to do just that?

 

I also don't think it's unfair to expect someone who has asked for a serious discussion about the morality of eating meat, to explain why it's morally okay to eat meat. I think it's fair to say that being capable of doing something is no moral justification for doing it.

 

 

 

Who has been preaching?

I was debating whether or not it's fine to eat meat, I was asking meat eaters to justify it. I'm not the one who felt the need to insult someone, nor am I trying to force anyone to stop eating meat, I'm just trying to get The Doctor to explain why he thinks it's reasonable to kill animals for food.

 

I thought that this thread was set up to debate animal rights, but the majority of you clearly don't want a thread like that. You want a thread where you can post pictures of animal carcasses without having a proper debate about animal rights. Shame.

 

 

And I've told you - because humans are meant to eat animals for food, hence why we've got the digestive system to be able to do so.

[Captain...]

And I've told you - because humans are meant to eat animals for food, hence why we've got the digestive system to be able to do so.

If we were 'meant' to eat meat, why do we have to cook it before we can eat it? Why don't we have the digestive system to process raw untreated food.

I don't get this we are meant to eat meat argument, almost like saying we are designed to, but then you are a Darwinist, and we aren't. We are capable of eating meat, but often we need to cook it or at least prepare it first. If we are meant to eat chicken, for example, why will it make is really ill if we don't cook it first?

[Mark_w]

And I've told you - because humans are meant to eat animals for food, hence why we've got the digestive system to be able to do so.

 

But you said you wanted a discussion about the morality of eating meat. Do you really think that having a digestive system that allows it, justifies doing it?

[leicesterlad1989]

To save me from reading all 42 pages can someone please tell me if animals now have the right to vote?

[OzFox]

And I've told you - because humans are meant to eat animals for food, hence why we've got the digestive system to be able to do so.

 

I don't think we are actually. We have to cook our meat to be able to digest it. I can't think of any other carnivore that does that. They rely on having an acidic stomach to digest their meat, whereas ours is better at digesting carbs and cellulose. We also don't have the teeth and claws of a carnivore, and eating meat gives us a higher risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I honestly can't quite believe I just read that.

 

I'm not saying keeping an animal is perfectly fine, but to imply that keeping an animal and killing an animal are remotely similar is just ****ing ridiculous. One can result in a perfectly content animal living for years, the other always results in the death of an innocent animal.

I am 100% with you on this one Mark.   

[The Doctor]

If we were 'meant' to eat meat, why do we have to cook it before we can eat it? Why don't we have the digestive system to process raw untreated food.

I don't get this we are meant to eat meat argument, almost like saying we are designed to, but then you are a Darwinist, and we aren't. We are capable of eating meat, but often we need to cook it or at least prepare it first. If we are meant to eat chicken, for example, why will it make is really ill if we don't cook it first?

 

Not entirely true - we are capable of eating raw meat and many tribes do so; the issue with raw food we have is the way it's been raised: grain-fed animals tend to have a higher prevalence of harmful bacteria such as e-coli than the grass-fed counter-parts.

 

But you said you wanted a discussion about the morality of eating meat. Do you really think that having a digestive system that allows it, justifies doing it?

 

I would say that it being part of our natural diet justifies eating it yes, morality means nothing really: A shark doesn't have sympathy for a seal, a lion for an antelope etc. There is no place for morality in the food chain.

 

I don't think we are actually. We have to cook our meat to be able to digest it. I can't think of any other carnivore that does that. They rely on having an acidic stomach to digest their meat, whereas ours is better at digesting carbs and cellulose. We also don't have the teeth and claws of a carnivore, and eating meat gives us a higher risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc

 

Not true - we do it for taste, but we can eat meat raw: the eskimos do so regularly.

[OzFox]

Not true - we do it for taste, but we can eat meat raw: the eskimos do so regularly.

 

We mainly do it to kill bacteria and parasites. The eskimos get away with it because of the cold temperatures and the high salt content of their meat (whale, seal, fish, bear etc) which kills bacteria and parasites

 

Amazing what you can find on the internet

 

Edit: I did enjoy this comment:

 

Why are the vast majority of meat eaters shocked to hear that some people eat it raw? - that's they way YOU should be doing it. If you cook your meat first to make it palatable, well, you're a pussy and the Eskimo's are hardcore mofos.