Forums → WEPR → Animal Slaughter
| 588 | 143604 |
I my self am a proud veg and im a guy i dont see any thing wrong with that, however my peers constantly put me down for it. I question others about it and some say that animals are kiled to keep the population under control, then shouldnt we do that to humans? are there any other vegetarians on armor? if you are a caravor responding to this please try not to be insultive i get enough from my freinds and family
- 588 Replies
I'd have to make the statement that whatever product we eat has taken an organism's life or another organism's labor. Just tell me one food product that does not contain products/byproducts from an organism or its labor.
It's either eat food or eat some "food" made in a lab.
Prolly not, seeing as how they aren't the same thing at all. Nazis commonly used the argument that everyone else was doing it, so they were pressured into doing it themselves, but this isn't the same thing.
No, I mean people who supported the Nazis but weren't directly involved with burning Jews. They were only removed by one degree. Its the same thing, we know its happening and we're supporting them. We're only removed by one degree. Thank god people don't taste as good as cows.
But I'm not mistreating them, I'm eating them. Is this still unethical?
Well, you paid for the meat, yes? Then, really, you are paying people to torture animals. By purchasing meat, you are creating the market for which meat can be sold. So, yes, it is just as unethical as mistreating the animals in the first place.
Surely eating less meat and only the one coming from ethically treated animals is a sensible thing to do,
Yep. We don't need to stop eating meat all together, but cutting down significantly would be a good idea. I try to only eat meat at no more than six meals a week. Cheaper and healthier.
I also agree that banning meat would just be stupid. If we want to cut down on meat consumption, we should start by educating people and creating incentives to eat less meat.
Well, you paid for the meat, yes? Then, really, you are paying people to torture animals. By purchasing meat, you are creating the market for which meat can be sold. So, yes, it is just as unethical as mistreating the animals in the first place.
"Tortured Animals"? I don't know how you city folk handle ya'lls meat, but over here we have a ton of land that is used for cattle. You can even see people driving cattle threw the less-used streets, and occasionally lawns. I haven't seen a single cow that has been mistreated, and I have seen a ton of cows. Why should I feel guilty about eating them?
Yep. We don't need to stop eating meat all together, but cutting down significantly would be a good idea. I try to only eat meat at no more than six meals a week. Cheaper and healthier.
Why would that be a good idea? It is always a good idea to have more food. It is also a good source of protein, which is healthy in it's own right. And some can be lean and cheap as well, for example hunting venison ends up being cheap and having almost no fat.
I also agree that banning meat would just be stupid. If we want to cut down on meat consumption, we should start by educating people and creating incentives to eat less meat.
Why would eating meat be a good thing? There should not be any incentives, as there is no reason to cut down.
"Tortured Animals"? I don't know how you city folk handle ya'lls meat, but over here we have a ton of land that is used for cattle.
City people tend to have meat that's been massed produced and injected with lots of nummy hormones and steroids. Or something like that. It's usally the chicken comes from a place where they breed like, 300 chickens at once in a small pen. And these chickens are overfeed and I believe given a drug that makes them fat. Many can't even move much. Later they're shipped to factories to go through some odd process that strips them of their feathers and heads and such. Then they're sold to us. I think there are documentaries about it. It really shouldn't be hard to find. Though I'm not sure whether these are exaggerated a little or not.
"Tortured Animals"? I don't know how you city folk handle ya'lls meat, but over here we have a ton of land that is used for cattle.
I was responding to Moegreche's post, where we were using the assumption that animals ARE tortured. In reality, the mistreatment of animals probably only exists due to the insanely high demand for meat. I recognize that it is possible to raise animals in more or less the same conditions they would exist in naturally.
It is always a good idea to have more food
It is physically impossible to get more calories per acre* from meat than from vegetation. So, replacing grazing land with farm land would actually result in more food.
*here, acre refers to the amount of land needed to feed the animals versus the amount of land needed to grow the crops.
Though I'm not sure whether these are exaggerated a little or not.
Most of the stories are bias. For example, the chicken mcnugget explanation in Supersize Me claimed that a bunch of stuff happened to the chicken and the meat was ground up and formed into nugget shapes. I paused on the list of mcnugget ingredients: NO CHICKEN. It contained chicken broth powder for flavoring, but no actual meat, mostly water and salt. Pause on the list and see for yourself.
Disregard the above. I didn't notice the 'in addition to chicken' disclaimer above the list.
No, I mean people who supported the Nazis but weren't directly involved with burning Jews. They were only removed by one degree. Its the same thing, we know its happening and we're supporting them. We're only removed by one degree. Thank god people don't taste as good as cows.
Nobody supported the Nazi unless they wanted to be a part of what they were doing.
Nobody supported the Nazi unless they wanted to be a part of what they were doing.
Did you really think Hitler campaigned on killing Jews? He did campaign based on hatred for them, but I'm pretty sure he didn't state massacring as one of his goals in a public speech. He hid the concentration camps from the people.
Did you really think Hitler campaigned on killing Jews? He did campaign based on hatred for them, but I'm pretty sure he didn't state massacring as one of his goals in a public speech. He hid the concentration camps from the people.
Well, in that case you're obviously not supporting the killing of the jews, seeing as how you don't know this is even happening.
It is always a good idea to have more food.
and what do you do with the food after you are not longer hungry? throwing it away like you have enough money?
and what do you do with the food after you are not longer hungry? throwing it away like you have enough money?
Ha! You think I have money. I usually put it in the fridge and eat it later, or assuming that it is somehow not good enough for me to eat any more, it usually ends up as dog food.
What do you think the companies do with their surplus of food? I would assume they use it as dogfood at least, throwing it away would force you to lose money, and things that lose money tend to be avoided.
What do you think the companies do with their surplus of food? I would assume they use it as dogfood at least, throwing it away would force you to lose money, and things that lose money tend to be avoided.
I don't see why compaines would use surplus food as dog food. If we are talking about cerealand the company made to much of it making a surplus food then they would just put it back with the rest of the cereal being made.
Dog food compainies make dog food from raw materials not a bunch of left over food for humans. I guess you don't have a dog or else you would know this. It really is commonsense.
Seems like the conversation is degrading. I'll inject another dose of philosophy to maybe get things rolling.
We know that animal brains are very different from ours. In particular, animals aren't capable of ratiocination - or logical reasoning. And presumably, they're also not capable of thinking about thought. So, let the following be a given:
Animals are not able to appreciate experiences like humans are.
By 'appreciate' I mean experience the fullness of a particular emotion, like happiness or pain. If you've ever stubbed your toe, you know that it sucks. You have pain, but you also have the experience of feeling pain - you appreciate it on a different level than an animal would.
Now, if we grant this, is there an argument for the conclusion that it is okay to treat animals inhumanely? It seems like we don't want animals to suffer because we know what it is to suffer and we wouldn't wish that upon any other creature. But an animal's suffering is not the same as ours - it is phenomenologically different.
So, put aside how you feel about the topic. After all, a good debater can argue for or against pretty much anything - whether or not they actually agree with the conclusion they're arguing for. I'd like to see if we, as a community, can come up with an argument from the granted premise to the suggested conclusion.
So from here:
P: Animal experience is very different from our own.
To here:
C: There is no ethical obligation to treat animals humanely.
You must be logged in to post a reply!