Vegetarianism - Page 2

On May 29 2009 04:31 Aegraen wrote:


Do you realize the whole point of the animals existence is to die and for us to eat them? This is called nature.

Food is, yes a business. Do I want to spend 1.50$ for that LB. of meat, or do I want to spend 1.35$ for that LB. of meat. Is it feasible for small businesses (farmers), to increase costs?

Pets and wild animals that aren't being hunted should be treated fairly and justly. Animals bred to be food, or those that are hunted, are fair game for the rules of conducting business.

On May 29 2009 04:31 Aegraen wrote:

Do you realize the whole point of the animals existence is to die and for us to eat them? This is called nature.

Food is, yes a business. Do I want to spend 1.50$ for that LB. of meat, or do I want to spend 1.35$ for that LB. of meat. Is it feasible for small businesses (farmers), to increase costs?

Pets and wild animals that aren't being hunted should be treated fairly and justly. Animals bred to be food, or those that are hunted, are fair game for the rules of conducting business.

On May 29 2009 04:55 Piy wrote:



Oh goody I've been waiting for a vegetarian topic for a long time. I'm a vegan, so let me disect these arguments a little

Alright, a couple of ways of coming at this argument:

a) Animals were made by god for people to eat. This is a religious argument, so unless you're deeply religious (so religious that you take all the sciptures literally) it's VERY hard to justify eating meat or intensively farming animals for the purpose of profit. I'd rather not get into it here but I'll PM you it later if you're interested.

b) We breed the animals to eat them. Therefore they fulfill their purpose. I don't see how this magically justifies it, as a paedophile could easily have a child and then abuse it, fulfilling the purpose of the child, and yet that doesn't seem to morally justify it.

c) Animals don't know any different. Well, maybe, but any sentient being prefers not being in pain to being in pain. Even then, is it ok to keep a small child locked in a box for its entire life since it doesn't know any different?

Since when is intensive farming called nature? Why is something that's natural causing so many health problems? Why is something that's natural so massively inefficient? Why is something being natural even remotely important?

Want to have a look at your other statement. Is it better to buy meat for 15 cents cheaper...Well for a number of reasons I think this is a pretty horrific way of looking at things, but whatever. But lets have a quick look at this. Animals are a very inefficient way of eating. A cow produces I believe 1:52 the nutrition of it's feed (or what could comparatively been grown on the land that the feed was grown on). Meat is expensive.

But this has a few knock on problems. In order to maximise the amount of profit the farmer must ensure that the animal grows as quickly as possible. They cut corners in their maintenence of the animals well being in order to increase profits. I take it almost everyone abhors battery farming and intensive farming. If you don't...well...

But here is the problem. Because meat is so inefficient and because there are so many people in the world, if you want to continue eating meat these intensive farming methods must be utilised. Otherwise not enough can be produced. Because of this, I think it's pretty difficult to justify eating any kind of animal product.

Obviously this is just scratching the surface of a huge debate, but any questions?

On May 29 2009 04:31 Aegraen wrote:


Do you realize the whole point of the animals existence is to die and for us to eat them? This is called nature.

Food is, yes a business. Do I want to spend 1.50$ for that LB. of meat, or do I want to spend 1.35$ for that LB. of meat. Is it feasible for small businesses (farmers), to increase costs?

Pets and wild animals that aren't being hunted should be treated fairly and justly. Animals bred to be food, or those that are hunted, are fair game for the rules of conducting business.

On May 29 2009 04:55 baal wrote:
}

Last time i read the TL.net commandments stupidity was a bannable offense, how come this retard isnt banned? or its because he is the moron keeping discussions alive with his stupid posts?

Seriously tlnet mods wtf are you doing.

On May 29 2009 05:06 Xusneb wrote:


Yes, I agree. Please ban him. There is absolutely nothing worthwhile coming from him. It's like he's purposely posting to incite a flame war. Even I, a lowly lurker, was tempted to enter it!

On May 29 2009 05:06 ProdT wrote:
Honestly animals only get this much attention because they can express pain and emotion, BUT WHO'S THINKING ABOUT THE PLANTS? Isn't farming them wrong too since they are living things? I don't see a PETP around defending their right to live.

In all seriousness, if lions were smart and could farm zebras, they would do it too. Why? Because its basic instinct to want to eat meat, and if there is an efficient way to get a steady supply of food, what kind of moron wouldn't take advantage of this? The world would be a different place if every time I wanted to eat something I'd have to go out and hunt wild animals (Who are seen being oh so happy at the end of the video, despite the end result being the same, death. (xcept im still hungry.)).

On May 29 2009 05:05 Xusneb wrote:


First line: Wow, I'm speechless. I never knew the sole purpose of an animal's existence was to feed us. Now I'm sure the slaughtered pig feels great for donating his body to the noble cause that is feeding us.

Animals are living beings and the mammals we eat can suffer and feel a great deal of pain. If you believe humans transcend these animals then I suppose you can believe that we can do whatever the fuck we want with our food. However, I think living creatures deserve some mercy and should be spared the pain if possible.

This egocentric view placing humans above everything else in nature is why we're facing overpopulation, famine, global warming, rainforest deforestation etc. etc. We keep this up and we're doomed so I sincerely hope the moral Zeitgeist of our time is changing.

a) Animals were made by god for people to eat. This is a religious argument, so unless you're deeply religious (so religious that you take all the sciptures literally) it's VERY hard to justify eating meat

On May 29 2009 05:12 Aegraen wrote:


Do you realize that the costlier food is, the number of people starving increases? Whatever increases production, efficiency, and is generally called business practices, shouldn't be demonized unless of course you hold us as on equal grounds as the animals that populate the eco-systems around the globe.

a) Animals were made by god for people to eat. This is a religious argument, so unless you're deeply religious (so religious that you take all the sciptures literally) it's VERY hard to justify eating meat or intensively farming animals for the purpose of profit. I'd rather not get into it here but I'll PM you it later if you're interested.

b) We breed the animals to eat them. Therefore they fulfill their purpose. I don't see how this magically justifies it, as a paedophile could easily have a child and then abuse it, fulfilling the purpose of the child, and yet that doesn't seem to morally justify it.

c) Animals don't know any different. Well, maybe, but any sentient being prefers not being in pain to being in pain. Even then, is it ok to keep a small child locked in a box for its entire life since it doesn't know any different?

Since when is intensive farming called nature? Why is something that's natural causing so many health problems? Why is something that's natural so massively inefficient? Why is something being natural even remotely important?

Want to have a look at your other statement. Is it better to buy meat for 15 cents cheaper...Well for a number of reasons I think this is a pretty horrific way of looking at things, but whatever. But lets have a quick look at this. Animals are a very inefficient way of eating. A cow produces I believe 1:52 the nutrition of it's feed (or what could comparatively been grown on the land that the feed was grown on). Meat is expensive.

But this has a few knock on problems. In order to maximise the amount of profit the farmer must ensure that the animal grows as quickly as possible. They cut corners in their maintenence of the animals well being in order to increase profits. I take it almost everyone abhors battery farming and intensive farming. If you don't...well...

But here is the problem. Because meat is so inefficient and because there are so many people in the world, if you want to continue eating meat these intensive farming methods must be utilised. Otherwise not enough can be produced. Because of this, I think it's pretty difficult to justify eating any kind of animal product.

Obviously this is just scratching the surface of a huge debate, but any questions?

On May 29 2009 05:11 Piy wrote:


Eating meat isn't an efficient way to get a steady supply of food. It's massively inefficient. You've really just put forward a confused argument for vegetarianism. Is animals dieing eventually really a justification for farming them and killing them 20 years sooner than they need to die. And people always say "People are above animals" but then they cite arguments like, well Lions kill zebras, so that means we can kill animals too.

Confused fuzzy logic that people build around themselves to make themselves feel better.