Fair enough. I’m human and not entirely logical. I feel a sense of kinship with other humans that prevents me from targeting them as a food option. This is what separates us from say pigs, who will happily eat their own litters. There is a world of difference between a human and a cow born solely for the purpose of food and you know it. I feel no sort of irrational emotional obligation to cows or pigs.
You don’t HAVE to eat cows, you could go hunting and eat whatever you kill. Cows are just easier since we raise them for food. Most people would rather get their meat from cattle and pigs because they do not have the option of hunting. Even if they did, most probably wouldn’t elect that option. People are lazy.
Ah, but somehow you still feel entitled to tell others that their food choices are “illogical” and “emotional” because they won’t use a “valuable resource”? When in fact, you are just as illogical and emotional and won’t use “valuable resources” yourself?
That makes perfect sense.
Ah, I see. So, if I were to take you on face value, then I could assume that you’d think it was okay to “utilize” the “valuable resources” from dead human’s skin, hair, teeth, bones, etc. Interesting to know.
But of course, if you are not serious, then, once again, this is a non-answer from you.
And yet another non-answer. There’s a pattern starting to develop here…
And we get right back to this point: people are lazy - and I’ll add to that “turn a blind eye” to where their dinner comes from. If you took this one step further, one could surmise that the vast majority of the earth’s population doesn’t give a good goddamn what dies (and under what conditions) so they can have their next Happy Meal. I certainly hope that’s not the case.
No it’s a matter of taste. I find the idea of eating mammalian fetal tissue disgusting, regardless of the species.
Again no, it’s based of society’s status quo. In my culture it’s fine to eat animals and taboo to eat people. I suspect that if we commonly consumed human flesh, i’d not have any problem with it at all. It’s really no different than any other cultural or religious taboo on a food. Is that illogical? yes. It would appear that disregarding a resource for illogical reasons is a human trait. I have stated over and over that I don’t find fault with your choice, only with smug condescending replies that refuse to acknowledge their own lack of logic. It’s the smart-ass, smarmy “Vegetarians are WAY healthier and smarter and you are all barbarians” attitude that gets me annoyed. That and the forced need to impose that view on others.
[/QUOTE]
If I were to take you on face value, then I could assume that you’d think it was okay to “utilize” the “valuable resources” from dead human’s skin, hair, teeth, bones, etc. Interesting to know.
But of course, if you are not serious, then, once again, this is a non-answer from you.
[/QUOTE]
Totally serious. With the volume of dead that we produce, it’s a shame that we don’t use the bodies in some sort of non food fashion, or at least mandate a green burial or cremation. Just like the fetal question though, it won’t happen because of cultural taboos.
[/QUOTE]
And yet another non-answer. There’s a pattern starting to develop here… **
[/QUOTE]
It’s a trick question. I’m not going to provide an answer so that you can continue nitpicking over my logic. A logic which I proposed only as an extreme example and has gone way to far already.
Exactly right. Allow me to propose a question then? Assuming that people will continue to eat meat, and at current consumption level, How would you have them continue their diet? Hunting is right out as metropolis populations would quickly decimate the game. Would you be allright with cattle grown from clones without brains? If just the tissue was able to be cultured in mass? Or would that be alive and have feelings too?
I just have to bring up a very important point that everyone has so far overlooked:
Being vegetarian kills at least as many animals as eating meat.
Deaths associated with vegetarian diets are far more painful than anything described in the PETA propaganda in the OP.
Seriously people, think about it for a second. Where does all the food that vegetarians eat come from? It sure isn’t mana from heaven. There are over 6 billion people on this planet, and the only way we can feed them all is by the use of monocultures. Ceasing to eat meat won’t end that necessity.
Monocultures almost always have problems with pests, and non-animal protein sources are most afflicted of all crops. The only way in which pulses can be produced is by poisoning countless billions of animals every year. The death from poisoning is not nice. The poisons act as nerve agents. The victims first become disoriented then lose control their own movements. They and eventually die of either fatigue or dehydration. It’s a death far nastier than anything so far described in meat production.
But perhaps the vegetarians think that it’s acceptable to kill insects slowly but not mammals. That’s speciesist rubbish IMO, but lets accept that it’s true. Vegetarian diets also require the killing of vertebrates and even mammals. And the deaths are again far nastier than that ascribed to meat production. Rats and mice are the biggest victim. Every year many billion of rats and mice are poisoned to protect vegetarian food supplies. Mostly they are eliminated by anticoagulant poisons. These substances prevent the blood form clotting. He animal bleeds into their own joints and gut, while squeezing through small spaces causes the bruising of the skin to grow into massive bloated lumps, extremely tender to the touch. As fluid is lost the animal becomes desperately thirsty, but joint pain makes attempts to find water a nightmare that can only be imagined by severe arthritis sufferers. Usually a rodent takes about a week to die from anticoagulant poisoning, most of it not very pleasant at all.
But lest the vegetarians believe that it’s only nasty rats and mice that have to die agonising deaths and not cute little piglets and calves, I must also mention that the death toll also includes an annual death toll of some 5 million birds in the US alone.
To put things in perspective the US produces about 12 million head of cattle each year. While no one has figures on the number of rodents killed in agricultural production and storage 10 million would be very conservative. The number of vertebrates killed in plant production in this country outweighs the total number of cattle produced in toto. And every one of those 15 million deaths attributed to vegetable production was slow and painful while all except a very few of the beef related deaths were painless.
So, ** sadnil** you can ask your wife what it is she is objecting to. Is it the painful deaths associated with her food? If so then it is preferable for her to eat only free-range meat. This is available in the US an almost any butcher will order it if you specifically request it. Free range beef does not require grain, so the only death I that of the animal you are eating. A far more morally sound option if one considers killing animals for food to be immoral.
Blake, you should provide links supporting your position.
Your quote: Being vegetarian kills at least as many animals as eating meat.
There’s no “snapshot” I can provide as to what the environment would look like after the cessation of breeding cattle for the express purpose of slaughter. However, I can show you what it would look like after we’ve killed off hundreds of species. Just look outside.
And most of those species have been killed off as a result of plant agriculture, urban development and introduced pests. Very few are attributable to animal agriculture.
Are you sayoing that you can see how bad plant agriculture is compared to animal?
Yes, I would actually. I believe there is only one tiger species and it is still extant. If you have evidence of other species that were exterminated for fur then I would be very interested in seeing it.
This is correct, hence the reason why I said “most of those species”. The tiger fur trade is not a product of animal agriculture either. However most species are lost due to habitat destruction, and plant agriculture is far more damaging to natural habitat than animal agriculture, and hence has removed more species.
Blonde, you’ve just strayed from the point. The argument at present is whether or not one should eat food that results in the deaths of animals. Killing for pelts is a different matter.
IMO Blake is correct concerning his logic regarding plant agriculture and the clearing of land for said purpose. It’s common sense that the amount of land necessary to raise crops is greater than that necessary for beef/animals.
I live in Western Australia where we have an area called the ‘Wheatbelt’. Here are some details:
“Wheatbelt Profile
The Wheatbelt region of Western Australia consists of 44 municipalities and covers 154,862 square kilometres; extending from the Indian Ocean in the north west to the western edge of the Goldfields, to the Darling Scarp. The area encompasses some of the most productive wheat fields in Australia, in an area twice the size of Tasmania and six per cent of the State’s total area.”
For the record there is no ‘beefbelt’ in australia, though it sounds mighty tasty.
I find it helps to adress one point at a time before moving on.
Thanks for the information, Comatoast. Clearly, you haven’t read the entire thread, or you’d understand that I only strive to make 2 points: Here we go again:
Vegetarianism is generally a more healthy lifestyle
Animals feel pain, and we don’t have to kill them to survive.
Any sidebars I may have participated in were due to others straying off course from those 2 points. For the record (look it up, y’all) - animals feel pain upon death, and carrots do not).
Very observant of you. Funny, that’s kind of what I was saying before, when I mentioned the cultures who did eat people and thought it was okay. But that’s not the point.
Yes it is! We have a winner here!
You are illogical and emotional in your eating choices.
My dear, you are the one who brought up the comments “emotional,” “illogical,” “valuable resource” and so forth. And I don’t think you were talking about your own choices, now were you?
And it’s the “it’s an emotional and illogical response” and “why not use a valuable resource” smug BS that got some of the rest of us annoyed.
Ah, I see. So you want to tell everyone that you think that grandma’s teeth, hair and bones should be “utilized”? You’re all heart.
It’s not a “trick question,” it’s taking your reasoning and your supplied logic to its extreme. Sorry if your own “reasoning” doesn’t hold up.
What part of skinning tigers for their pelts relates to point 2? I think "do what i say, not what i do"applies in your case. You raised it after all. I was merely elaborating how the survival of small animals relates to the amout of land cleared for plant agriculture and the fact that that land is less than is needed for beef/animal farming.
I’m demonstrating that you’re still killing animals to survive (in the form of clearing/cultivating land filled with animals) and you’re telling me this has nothing to do with your point? Bah!
More healthy than what? A balanced diet including a small portion of meat? Or a #3 SuperSized Value Meal every day at lunch? I get the impression you think omnivore=glutton. That’s simply not the case.
But we do kill them. We choose to kill and eat animals, not for survival, but for nourishment. We are humans, they are animals, and we are not equal. We have a responsibility to treat them humanely, but we do not share a common right to live in freedom. Animals are not furry little people, they are animals.
Choosing not to eat the flesh of animals is commendable. In doing so, you are proving to be, in this respect, a better of steward of the world around you, and a peaceful soul.
But those of us who do eat meat are not doing anything wrong. We are not eating pets or retarded people or embryos or any other nutty analogy you want to dream up. We simply don’t hold the life of an animal sacred, and we see no reason to do so.
I see a lot of arguing is being done over points that were invalidly presented.
I am wondering if anyone cares to argue against my wonderment regarding the value of man and animals future; especially as it being a sound vegetarian basis for not eating meat.
As far as I can tell, that is the root issue at the base of vegetarianism.
