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.
You really don't have to hold people on equal grounds to animals to think this is retarded. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but whatever, I guess this is some peoples opinion.
So using your logic it's prefectly justifiable for me to buy a dog and kick it around because it's fun? Because you seem to place absolutely no worth on animal suffering whatsoever. I don't consider humanity equal with animals, but they're certainly close enough to be worthy of consideration. I just don't see any other way of looking at this argument rationally.
Did you read my second post in this thread? I urge to go back and re-read it then come back with something relevant to try and sling at me.
K, fair enough I'll respond to this. You say that animals shouldn't be treated badly outside of food production?
Well I think that you're being selective with your definition of suffering then. So we shouldn't treat animals poorly, but if we can treat them badly and make a profit thats fine. Wait, wut?
What if I was to rent out my dog and allow other people to kick it? thats giving me a profit, shame about the dog though.
But I can already see what you're thinking :p Thats not providing food for humanity. Of course I forgot we "need" to eat meat or we'll die of massive defficiencies. That explains how dead I am, and how dead my vegan friends are. Wait, wut?
Since you seem to appreciate that animals can suffer and that we should try and prevent their suffering in most cases, how can you justify intensively farming/killing animals when we don't need to? That just seems counter intuitive and baffles me.
Here, I'll explain this as simply as I can.
Food production needs to be streamlined, cost efficient, and ultimately whatever drives down the price of meat, is a good thing for humanity. The cheaper it is, the more available it becomes to a greater sect of humanity. I'm not sure you know this, but charities also buy food.
You also contradicted what I said in your first two paragraphs. You explicitly at least, in the first paragraph comprehended that I was talking about food production. Then in the next paragraph you somehow jump to dog kicking and profits, when I specifically laid out 'food production', IE not pets, nor wild animals that aren't being hunted. So, I'm confused if you understand what I'm saying or not.
It is in the best interest of humanity, to make food cheaper. Do you agree? If you arbitrarily raise food prices by regulation, and cut off unfortunate people from food, they otherwise could have afforded, how in any sense of morality do you justify yourself over me. You see, I'll say this again. I put humanity above animals. If an animals death causes its suffering, yet, the end product being cheaper than if we were to, say, minimize their pain at death which would increase the price, but in the process that increase of food caused one person to starve to death somewhere in the world because of the increased costs to say The Red Cross so they couldn't purchase as much do you still feel morally justified?
So, demonize me all you want. Feel superior. Fine and dandy. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
To your last point. I don't place totalitarian restrictions on what people can, and cannot eat. If you want to do that, I would wager North Korea would be more suitable if you can wiggle your way into government?
Heres the thing though. You talk about the need to streamline food production for the good of humanity, yet meat is such a massively ineffeicient type of food. Once again it looks as though you've presented an argument for not eating it.
I really don't appreciate the attempt to bring charities in there either, since it has nothing to do with anything anyway. But I can agree with you on one point. Driving down the cost of food is a good thing. But a good way to do that would be to increase the price of meat. Then more of that land could be used to grow other crops that would be able to feed more people.
So here's my problem spelled out more clearly:
Meat is inefficient. If we don't eat it we can still be perfectly healthy. You tip-toe around this point by constantly talking about the meat industry as though it's necessary to the survival of mankind and there's no point in imagining it didn't exist.
So I'd conclude that you just like eating meat and are trying to find a justification for doing so.
I am very much against the slaying of animals for food (especially today when we can easily get a sufficiently nutritious diet without any killings of animals), but I eat meat all the time. I am a walking contradiction :<
Vegetarians are the way they are for one of these reasons, some believe it is more healthy, some are just pro life, blah blah.
I am not 'pro life'. Yet I am a vegetarian. Do you really thing that if you ask a vegetarian "If you were a tiger, what would you do?" they will mostly answer "starve."
How much does the average western human eat per day in grams of protein?
What is the average, or normal consumption amount of protein per day for a human?
On May 29 2009 05:17 King K. Rool wrote: Bolded is exactly why I'm not swayed at all from your arguments. I like to eat meat hence I endorse these methods.
You can like to do something while not supporting the harmful effects of it, you know. Liking the way meat tastes does not justify animal cruelty and ecological degradation.
Unless you can get me a better rate with a better method, I'll be supporting this.
If you're honest about the fact that you don't give a shit where your food comes from as long as it's 'efficient,' then go ahead and keep eating it i guess? One might say such a view point is morally questionable, but you don't seem to care
As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals.
Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. Humans behave differently than other animals, but I don't believe that this places us on some different 'level.' There is no arbitrary ladder of life with humans at the top.
On May 29 2009 05:17 King K. Rool wrote: Bolded is exactly why I'm not swayed at all from your arguments. I like to eat meat hence I endorse these methods.
You can like to do something while not supporting the harmful effects of it, you know. Liking the way meat tastes does not justify animal cruelty and ecological degradation.
Unless you can get me a better rate with a better method, I'll be supporting this.
If you're honest about the fact that you don't give a shit where your food comes from as long as it's 'efficient,' then go ahead and keep eating it i guess? One might say such a view point is morally questionable, but you don't seem to care
As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals.
Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. Humans behave differently than other animals, but I don't believe that this places us on some different 'level.' There is no arbitrary ladder of life with humans at the top.
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.
You really don't have to hold people on equal grounds to animals to think this is retarded. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but whatever, I guess this is some peoples opinion.
So using your logic it's prefectly justifiable for me to buy a dog and kick it around because it's fun? Because you seem to place absolutely no worth on animal suffering whatsoever. I don't consider humanity equal with animals, but they're certainly close enough to be worthy of consideration. I just don't see any other way of looking at this argument rationally.
Did you read my second post in this thread? I urge to go back and re-read it then come back with something relevant to try and sling at me.
K, fair enough I'll respond to this. You say that animals shouldn't be treated badly outside of food production?
Well I think that you're being selective with your definition of suffering then. So we shouldn't treat animals poorly, but if we can treat them badly and make a profit thats fine. Wait, wut?
What if I was to rent out my dog and allow other people to kick it? thats giving me a profit, shame about the dog though.
But I can already see what you're thinking :p Thats not providing food for humanity. Of course I forgot we "need" to eat meat or we'll die of massive defficiencies. That explains how dead I am, and how dead my vegan friends are. Wait, wut?
Since you seem to appreciate that animals can suffer and that we should try and prevent their suffering in most cases, how can you justify intensively farming/killing animals when we don't need to? That just seems counter intuitive and baffles me.
Here, I'll explain this as simply as I can.
Food production needs to be streamlined, cost efficient, and ultimately whatever drives down the price of meat, is a good thing for humanity. The cheaper it is, the more available it becomes to a greater sect of humanity. I'm not sure you know this, but charities also buy food.
You also contradicted what I said in your first two paragraphs. You explicitly at least, in the first paragraph comprehended that I was talking about food production. Then in the next paragraph you somehow jump to dog kicking and profits, when I specifically laid out 'food production', IE not pets, nor wild animals that aren't being hunted. So, I'm confused if you understand what I'm saying or not.
It is in the best interest of humanity, to make food cheaper. Do you agree? If you arbitrarily raise food prices by regulation, and cut off unfortunate people from food, they otherwise could have afforded, how in any sense of morality do you justify yourself over me. You see, I'll say this again. I put humanity above animals. If an animals death causes its suffering, yet, the end product being cheaper than if we were to, say, minimize their pain at death which would increase the price, but in the process that increase of food caused one person to starve to death somewhere in the world because of the increased costs to say The Red Cross so they couldn't purchase as much do you still feel morally justified?
So, demonize me all you want. Feel superior. Fine and dandy. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
To your last point. I don't place totalitarian restrictions on what people can, and cannot eat. If you want to do that, I would wager North Korea would be more suitable if you can wiggle your way into government?
Heres the thing though. You talk about the need to streamline food production for the good of humanity, yet meat is such a massively ineffeicient type of food. Once again it looks as though you've presented an argument for not eating it.
I really don't appreciate the attempt to bring charities in there either, since it has nothing to do with anything anyway. But I can agree with you on one point. Driving down the cost of food is a good thing. But a good way to do that would be to increase the price of meat. Then more of that land could be used to grow other crops that would be able to feed more people.
So here's my problem spelled out more clearly:
Meat is inefficient. If we don't eat it we can still be perfectly healthy. You tip-toe around this point by constantly talking about the meat industry as though it's necessary to the survival of mankind and there's no point in imagining it didn't exist.
So I'd conclude that you just like eating meat and are trying to find a justification for doing so.
I'll let out a collective /sigh first, then explain.
Meat is not inefficient. I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion. On what basis do you propose this?
Cattle ranches are very, very, small in comparison to huge swaths of land for 'vegetable' production. A cow, which can feed huge quantities of people takes up the space that 15 or so potatoes does, or 10 or so heads of lettuce, etc. In actuality, crops are inefficient when you compare SQ. Milage per quantity of food produced. Have you ever lived in farmland? I'm from the South, I have.
I've been on ranches, inside cow barns, small town dairy production facilities, etc. The land it takes up is extremely small compared to the corn crops.
The price of food has everything to do with everything that goes along with food. Open your viewpoint. Do charities purchase food? Do food kitchens not serve meat? Does the Red Cross not transport food overseas? Is this food free? Do you think if the food was cheaper they could supply more? What ramifications does increase food prices have? Seriously, you need to think about all the possible angles.
I need no justification for eating meat. I like the way it tastes, and it supplies much needed nutrients and minerals. That, and humanity, was born as omnivores. Anyways, it seems you need a justification for the way you eat. I don't.
I try and select the dairy I purchase based on the company.. in Oregon we have lots of options to buy from places that do not treat their animals like that. That is the extent of my activism on the matter though.. I do not condone what they do there but I am not "up-in-arms" about it either.
I eat meat because it tastes delicious and provides healthy benefits. Sure I could get it from something else but I wouldn't be getting that taste.
I don't eat a lot of meat, I don't seek it out really.. but I don't really want to limit my options either.
On May 29 2009 05:59 Diomedes wrote: Aegraen, make a ghost account if you want to trick me into answering your questions.
I'm not tricking you at all. If you propose that we eat too much, then you can tell us how much it is we need to eat. If you can't answer that, then why do you think we should believe what you say?
On May 29 2009 05:17 King K. Rool wrote: Bolded is exactly why I'm not swayed at all from your arguments. I like to eat meat hence I endorse these methods.
You can like to do something while not supporting the harmful effects of it, you know. Liking the way meat tastes does not justify animal cruelty and ecological degradation.
Unless you can get me a better rate with a better method, I'll be supporting this.
If you're honest about the fact that you don't give a shit where your food comes from as long as it's 'efficient,' then go ahead and keep eating it i guess? One might say such a view point is morally questionable, but you don't seem to care
As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals.
Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. Humans behave differently than other animals, but I don't believe that this places us on some different 'level.' There is no arbitrary ladder of life with humans at the top.
Then I ask you. If you had to choose between a person living, or an animal living, where if you picked one or the other, the other would die. Which would you choose and why?
On May 29 2009 05:43 CharlieMurphy wrote: PETA are hypocritical terrorist supporters. I am not joking. OP video is completely biased. Notice how all the footage is old and crappy? Because its not standard practice to abuse animals like that. A lot of that shit people went down for. And as far as the neck slicing and blood draining, that is the standard kosher (or jewish way) to kill animals. So blame the jews for that, lol. The more humane method is with things like a cattle prod which kills them instantly via electric shock.
I've got nothing wrong with vegetarians in general, but when they try to convert people they are just as bad as any other group. Most of them are just as uninformed or disinformed as anyone else because they only see these out of context old videos and base everything on that.
I am proud to eat meat, If suddenly the world died and reverted to the old hunter gatherer ways I would stay alive while you dumb vegetarians can turn pale-yellow and get more retarded from lack of proper nutrients in a human OMNIVORE diet.
I wanted to respond to this in my own way. I've been a vegan for the last 5 years, and I'm not a fan of PETA in particular, but I'd first like to note that the video footage is normally crappy and old looking not because it is old video, but because it was taken with crappy surveillance cameras. These cameras are known for bad images. It's not as if one of these factories is going to let you in there or act as they normally do with a full sized news or movie quality camera.
I also know that most of this treatment still occurs because I personally know people who have taken video like this at pig and chicken farms in the last several years. The way that we treat our food animals is horrific, and there are more than a few reasons that you should be concerned about this, and more than a few reasons that individuals work to convert others (I am not among these, I am definitely not active in the 'conversion' community, you could say).
First, I might note that when treated badly, animals produce specific hormones that are not good for their body, and probably also not good for ours. It is unknown to what extent these travel into our bodies. Plus, their cramped existence promotes disease and antibiotic use. These actually create stronger bacterial infections and increase the risk to the human population in general.
Further, the environmental impact of factory farming is huge. There was an excellent article on it a few years ago in the Rolling Stone. Pink sewage pits at the pig farm, friggin' disgusting.
There are health reasons for it as well, but I tend to focus on the environmental (antibiotics and superstrains of bacteria I consider environmental). I could personally give a rats ass about someones health, it is generally accepted that less meat consumption is probably optimal for health. The environmental issue is enough for me in trying to encourage conversion by any means possible. Toss in that 75% of all grain production in the US goes to feeding livestock (and the return calorie wise of grain to meat is negative), and that uses up lots of water and oil (oil for transportation & fertilizer, add in that most water in the US is used for agriculture), you have a major issue on your hands and lots of good reason to change habits and encourage others to do so.
The last and a very important reason to reduce meat consumption is the ethical one. I believe that it is important not to cause pain to other creatures - basically the golden rule, I don't want to experience pain, so I would do well to prevent causing pain to other beings. From what I understand of nervous systems, and biology in general, we are far more similar to animals than we are not, and therefore I find it necessary to include them as a subject of my ethical discussion. Of course, animals eat each other, but they do not have our mental capability, and lack the capacity toward logical, ethical discussion. Therefore, they have exemption. We, on the other hand, do not.
On May 29 2009 05:17 King K. Rool wrote: Bolded is exactly why I'm not swayed at all from your arguments. I like to eat meat hence I endorse these methods.
You can like to do something while not supporting the harmful effects of it, you know. Liking the way meat tastes does not justify animal cruelty and ecological degradation.
Unless you can get me a better rate with a better method, I'll be supporting this.
If you're honest about the fact that you don't give a shit where your food comes from as long as it's 'efficient,' then go ahead and keep eating it i guess? One might say such a view point is morally questionable, but you don't seem to care
As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals.
Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. Humans behave differently than other animals, but I don't believe that this places us on some different 'level.' There is no arbitrary ladder of life with humans at the top.
Then I ask you. If you had to choose between a person living, or an animal living, where if you picked one or the other, the other would die. Which would you choose and why?
I would choose the animal to live, simply due to environmental reasons. Animals generally support and are an important part of the environment, where as humans are generally detrimental to that environment.
If I had a real choice, I would choose neither, or I would give my own life.
tens of millions of people are suffering from hunger around the world. I wonder how many of these people suffering from lack of food are also vegetarian. My hypothesis is 0
I also wonder this: are the majority of vegetarians from wealthy country and a stable income who never have to worry about not enough food in their daily lives? So they have enough time to worry about if it is moral to eat animals. My hypothesis is yes.
Like grinq said, I eat meat but not proud of it. If we were to stop killing animals for meat alltogether I would not object at all.
On the other hand I did cook an incredible steak this week which was just soooo good, I would definately miss that since steak is probably my favorite food in the world by far. At least it was a brand that lets cows wander outside on the plains in Ireland somewhere so I suppose it could be worse.
EPT
