|
On September 21 2012 06:53 Acritter wrote:
Consider this.
What use would there be for dairy cows and slaughterhouse cows if we did not eat meat or drink milk? Answer: none. What is the likelihood of those cows being able to survive and thrive in the wild if we set them loose? Answer: none. So if we stop drinking milk and eating meat, we are going to send all of these cows to extinction.
Is it crueler to milk and cull a few cows, or wipe them from the face of the Earth?
I can understand vegetarianism. It's just fine to say "hey, I don't want to get my food from killing animals." I don't personally subscribe to that logic, but I see where those guys are coming from. But to say that even milking cows that were BRED for producing far more milk than their calves could ever drink is CRUELTY? Well, you've got to be an absolute idiot to think that for a second. Same with considering it cruel to eat unfertilized eggs. Veganism for health reasons is one thing. Veganism for moral reasons is ignorant as hell.
There are some places where those animals are forced to live in conditions so deplorable that the animals won't even eat because they lose their will to live and so they are force fed nutrients to keep them alive and producing milk/eggs/growing until they are ready to be harvested.
|
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Yet the study showed the opposite affect, so i don't understand what your trying to say here.
Vegan here, just makes the most sense when you realize what factory farms are, what animal products do to your body, and the fact that vegan food rocks. I live in Portland though, and there are tons of vegan only places too eat, and shop from, so it's super easy, I would probably only be vegetarian in other cities. I know when I go to Kentucky I can't eat out, since half the people there don't understand what a vegan is. Factory farming is also horrible for the environment.
This thread probably won't go anywhere, some of the responses already..... TL is very anti vegan for some reason.
|
On September 21 2012 07:00 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote:On September 21 2012 06:08 stevarius wrote:On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote:
I might actually try it, thanks :D That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc. There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight. *This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.* This is grossly untrue. Literally every vegan I have had contact with (4) was overweight.
True, vegans come in all shapes and sizes. I put on 25 pounds since going vegan a year ago!
|
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Can I also point out that I think your view of "morality" is a little sparse(honestly I can't think of an appropriate word)? Cutting a plant in half or yanking it out of the ground without anesthesia, is literally the same thing except you don't hear it scream. In what way is that more "moral" than killing an animal?
I joke to people using your logic but in reality plants don't feel anything. They don't have brains.
|
On September 21 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Can I also point out that I think your view of "morality" is a little sparse(honestly I can't think of an appropriate word)? Cutting a plant in half or yanking it out of the ground without anesthesia, is literally the same thing except you don't hear it scream. In what way is that more "moral" than killing an animal? I joke to people using your logic but in reality plants don't feel anything. They don't have brains.
Totally forgot plants don't have nerves, my bad lol.
|
There shouldn't be a discussion about health. As omnivores there is no known negative side effect to eating wild game. Now in the United States we tend to manufacture our meat to contain more salts and be more fatty for the benefit of flavor and over a long period of time can contribute to an unhealthy diet.
Scientifically, it's all sugar to your cells. The discussion should be limited to ethics. What we do to entire species of animals for our personal gain.
Personally I'm ok with eating meat up to a point where we don't adversely effect the natural structure of their species.
|
On September 21 2012 06:53 Acritter wrote:
Consider this.
What use would there be for dairy cows and slaughterhouse cows if we did not eat meat or drink milk? Answer: none. What is the likelihood of those cows being able to survive and thrive in the wild if we set them loose? Answer: none. So if we stop drinking milk and eating meat, we are going to send all of these cows to extinction.
Is it crueler to milk and cull a few cows, or wipe them from the face of the Earth?
Oh, I get it... NOW you care about animals! Silly me...
|
On September 21 2012 07:03 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:48 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:46 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:36 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:32 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:26 JinDesu wrote:On September 21 2012 06:25 kingcoyote wrote:On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote:
I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much.
Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude. As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff. Gotta justify the change, after all. I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation. I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs. I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines. For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme? It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society. Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant. Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different. eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns. Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant. It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it. No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination. Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex. No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct. Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives. It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat. The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans.
And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
|
I could go vegetarian for a couple of days as long as its spicy or dressed in sauce. Vegan is beyond my ability.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
|
On September 21 2012 06:53 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:46 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:36 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:32 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:26 JinDesu wrote:On September 21 2012 06:25 kingcoyote wrote:On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote:
I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much.
Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude. As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff. Gotta justify the change, after all. I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation. I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs. I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines. For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme? It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society. Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant. Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different. If you want to speak strictly biology and evolution, we were meant to have a mixed diet. There are very few naturally herbivorous human cultures because meat is an amazing source of nutrients and energy. Consumption of meat probably provided much needed energy to help homosapiens diverge from apes and develop more complex nervous systems. Sure, in this day and age it is completely possible and viable to live a vegetarian lifestyle if you live in a 1st world country. But that doesn't make it natural. Show nested quote +Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex. Ty. Wei2cool you just won the thread xD
I am not vegan for health reasons and I don't care what our ancestors did. We can make the ethical choice to not eat animals.
Again, the abstaining from sex is a horrible example because abstaining doesn't affect anyone else. Eating animals affects animals.
|
On September 21 2012 06:53 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:44 frantic.cactus wrote:Well, humans cannot get essential long-chain fatty acids from ANY plant products. We have evolved to eat meat, because unlike our prime ape counterparts, we don't have the digestive system to turn short-chain fatty acids we get from plant matter into long chain fatty acids we need for development. Do you know why gorillas have huge abdomens? It's because they have a much more complex digestive system than us. Which is why it's unwise to compare us. http://player.vimeo.com/video/10533993Biologically were not made to eat just plant matter, it results in deficiencies. Ethically, well that depends on your values. You are wrong. It is entirely possible to get all the essential amino acids from a vegan diet. Like any diet, one needs to take care and eat a balanced diet. There are 3 perfectly healthy vegan kids living across the street from me that haven't had an animal product a day in their life!
Can you support your statement with sources?
Also this is a book I read recently that deals with the ethical side of veganism/vegeterianism http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegetarian-myth-review/#axzz273B9zLlj
|
On September 21 2012 07:08 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:03 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:48 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:46 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:36 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:32 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:26 JinDesu wrote:On September 21 2012 06:25 kingcoyote wrote:
[quote]
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff. Gotta justify the change, after all. I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation. I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs. I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines. For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme? It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society. Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant. Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different. eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns. Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant. It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it. No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination. Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex. No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct. Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives. It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat. The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals. No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured. This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand. You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
I invite you to visit the places where your food actually comes from, and not where you think it comes from. Anyone who thinks a factory farm is in anyway ethical is someone I can't have a reasonable discussion with,
If we went back to small family farms, with a few cows or what not, I would still have a problem eating meat, but then we could have an actual discussion that would be civil. If you defend the current meat on the market, which is all from factory farms and all the animals are treated unethically, then I don't really think much of your opinion. We would not be able to eat meat the way we do as a society without factory farms, meat would be much more expensive and very rare.
|
Implying I haven't. My parents use to run a small grocery story, dad was a butcher. Use to do weekly runs to Farmer John w/ father as a kid to where they did the killing of da cows. Yeah, I know where meat comes from. Also, my dad came from a small farm in Taiwan, where it was common to kill chicken, cows, etc etc, with your own hands.
So yeah, I'd say have a pretty fucking good idea.
Seriously, why do people assume so much?
|
On September 21 2012 07:03 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:00 Kich wrote:On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote:On September 21 2012 06:08 stevarius wrote:On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote:
I might actually try it, thanks :D That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc. There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight. *This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.* This is grossly untrue. Literally every vegan I have had contact with (4) was overweight. True, vegans come in all shapes and sizes. I put on 25 pounds since going vegan a year ago!
To make up for not eating animal products vegans have to eat high carb diets to get their nutritional requirements form grains etc. This makes you fat if you don't exercise.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegan-island/#axzz273CYcO81
|
On September 21 2012 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:36 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:32 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:26 JinDesu wrote:On September 21 2012 06:25 kingcoyote wrote:On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote:
I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much.
Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude. As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff. Gotta justify the change, after all. I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation. I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs. I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines. For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme? It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat industry.
I just want to preface this by saying that I don't give a damn what you choose to eat. Don't whine at me for being some vege-fascist, I just enjoy this topic.
There are many activities which animals partake in which we would find abhorent and disturbing. Hell, if we look at your lion example, when was the last time you saw someone ripping a cow apart with the hands and teeth so it could eat its fill of meat? I feel that would likely fall under the guise of animal cruelty, as it constitutes a completely unneccesary infliction of suffering.
Stating that canivores exist in nature as justification of massive industrialised factory farming makes no sense to me. I mean look at some of the shit animals get up to. Would you like to justify any of the actions outlined in those last four subheadings?
Factory farming is rife with horrible practices which exist simply predominantly because humanity can distance itself from every aspect of the process except the pleasure of consumption. Hell maybe that's not even true, maybe they just don't care remotely about any animal suffering and just want to be satisfied. This kind of viewpoint is commonly espoused in these kind of threads and it scares the shit out of me.
If I served you up a premium cut of meat from a healthy 30 year old man who died completely unavoidably from a stroke, would you eat it? Assume familial consent. Its a creepy question, but in what manner is it unethical? Now lets say you refuse to eat it, would you condemn me for doing so? Why?
|
On September 21 2012 07:14 wei2coolman wrote:
Implying I haven't. My parents use to run a small grocery story, dad was a butcher. Use to do weekly runs to Farmer John w/ father as a kid to where they did the killing of da cows. Yeah, I know where meat comes from. Also, my dad came from a small farm in Taiwan, where it was common to kill chicken, cows, etc etc, with your own hands.
So yeah, I'd say have a pretty fucking good idea.
Seriously, why do people assume so much?
You know when I was a kid implies the past... Factory farms have evolved since then, and they aren't your Farmer John's little farm. I assume you are a decent human being and would not defend current methods of raising animals for slaughter. I assume since you are defending eating meat in today's world, you don't understand where today's meat comes from.
|
I often have two questions I pose to vegans regarding the environmental & ethical cost of meat.
First, the disclaimers: yes, factory farms are terrible for the environment, animals, and people. No argument there. Yes, animals given feed use up considerable more resources for they calories they provide as compared to the crops used to feed them and thus most meat consumption can be considered quite inefficient (with all the problems that entails).
Acknowledging these facts does not, however, lead me to be vegan. Why?
Well there is meat production that occurs in an economical manner. I'm speaking here in part of the large western desert ranches. In these ranches there isn't enough irrigation available to grow human-feed crops. The plants that do grow are pretty tough and unpalatable. One of the few economically viable uses of the land (that benefits humans) is to graze animals on them. Particularly in the more southern regions where year-round grazing is possible, meat produced from these lands is not an inefficient supply of calories compared to other options (eating vegan). Sure, a relatively small percentage of our meat comes from these farms rather than factory-style operations. But it is an example that eating meat itself does not need to be a food-supply issue. Building a sustainable world demands less meat that is more carefully sourced, to be sure. But not necessarily vegetarianism/veganism.
As for the ethical consideration, I consider that up in the air. Sure, keeping a creature for the sole intent of killing and consuming it troubles some people. It does not trouble me, in particular with domesticated animals not part of factory farms.
Frankly, if no one ate beef the modern cow would exist only in zoos or go extinct. That does not seem to be a superior outcome for cows in general than a short life span spent\t in (here presumed loose) captivity and ending in a quick and violent demise. I understand there are good reasons to not share this view. But by and large, I think it persuasive.
I usually find vegans responses to these positions interesting.
|
I don't think anyone is condemning veganism. Most of the condemning is from vegans to meat-eaters.
Like I said, no one likes it when a virgin is hating on people for having sex.
|
On September 21 2012 07:11 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:08 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 07:03 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:48 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:46 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:36 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:32 wei2coolman wrote:On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote:On September 21 2012 06:26 JinDesu wrote:
[quote]
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation. I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs. I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines. For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme? It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society. Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant. Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different. eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns. Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant. It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it. No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination. Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex. No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct. Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives. It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat. The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals. No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured. This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand. You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me. I invite you to visit the places where your food actually comes from, and not where you think it comes from. Anyone who thinks a factory farm is in anyway ethical is someone I can't have a reasonable discussion with, If we went back to small family farms, with a few cows or what not, I would still have a problem eating meat, but then we could have an actual discussion that would be civil. If you defend the current meat on the market, which is all from factory farms and all the animals are treated unethically, then I don't really think much of your opinion. We would not be able to eat meat the way we do as a society without factory farms, meat would be much more expensive and very rare.
The people of Argentina and Uruguay would like to have a word. Both consume some of the highest amounts of beef per capita (I believe Uruguay is #1), and are almost totally bereft of factory farming. Furthermore, there are many large scale cow and chicken farms in the US that are not "factory" in design, and yet still produce huge amounts of food. My point is that your indictment of scale of consumption is a fantasy, and you are too quick to simply assume that every major producer is a corporate, earth-raping demon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
