That’s your choice and I am not going to get on my high horse about it. I went through the rite of passage of hunting with my father as well when I was a child, but I didn’t know any better at that age. Now I feel like I would have to kill something inside myself to embrace killing other animals, no matter how much I would enjoy the meat afterward. I respect that hunters like their hunting activities, but I think that however much part of you enjoys killing, at least some part of you must dislike it to be considered human.
It’s amoral to eat meat and kill animals for our enjoyment.
I meant moral, I got lost in my rant. I need a stiff drink and a smoke.
Have you found that link to Dr. Williams’ published study yet? Or a link to the institute that he’s from?
BTW - better not drink, millions upon millions of yeast cells died for that. 
I think you already know the answer to that one friend.
From tobacco that’s fallen to the ground? Or was it harvested?
I wasn’t referring to tobacco 
…
What if, what if, what if.
“If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.”
Tobacco. That’s cute. I’m thinking … something other than tobacco. Something a bit … wackier.
Still has to be harvested. And all that snack food is made from grain.
What? Not even french fries?
My God, OP, you are right. It’s impossible to live without killing living things, therefore morality doesn’t exist and killing and eating babies or our neoghbours is completely OK! I’m going to do that right away!
Pretty much. Except without the spelling errors.
If we don’t kill and eat the Deer, how does it die? Starvation, disease, predation by other animals, accidents, etc. Which is more cruel?
I’m not saying we’re doing it to be less cruel. I’m pointing out that it is no less cruel than nature.
Everything dies.
Everything that lives kills over things to live.
And again (as above), the Universe doesn’t give a fuck that you worry about it.
This post originally contained the following quote as an attempt at a “reputable scientific cite”. (There was another paragraph, but I only have the first paragraph in my search history. I thought it might have originated from The Onion.)
He immediately edited his post to delete the quote after I pointed out that it’s a fucking joke, not real science.
Clearly the OP is either completely incapable of an honest argument, or he’s yanking our chains. I know what I’m betting on.
Won’t someone think of the chillum?
Personally, I’m of a mind malnutrition and starvation are overrated.
I was trying to find an article and this crap plus others is what came up in a google search on a news website, but I didn’t read it until after I quoted it and realized it was fake. But well spotted.
There’s a lot of issues here with your reasoning…
The biggest issue here is that you are using murder and killing as synonyms; they are not synonyms. Murder is immoral, but it’s just a subset of killing. Killing, without any context, is neither moral nor immoral because death is a natural and absolute consequence of being alive. There immoral killing, which we call murder, but there is also justified killing, like in a case of self-defense. Killing an animal in order to survive is the same sort of morality. In that way, compare murder to a poacher, killing an elephant in whatever way he can just to get it’s ivory to a classical American Indian example where they kill a buffalo humanely, thank it, eat all the meat, make clothes from it’s skin and tools from it’s bones.
The idea that death is avoidable is, frankly, naive. An intelligent person realizes that death is an inevitability and, rather than avoid it, will embrace it as such, honor the life by ensuring it is dying for good purpose and as humanely as possible, and maximizing the utility of the death in order to necessitate as few deaths as possible.
Further, to describe an absolute necessity of survival, eating, as selfish is to essentially make the word meaningless. With that sort of definition, by simply living, I’m being selfish; thus, all life that is not photosynthetic is selfish.
And here, you’re helping to make my point for me. A lot of people have a false sense that eating vegetarian saves animals from suffering, but harvesting techniques kill countless field animals. Cultivating farmland to grow our crops means more and more encroaching on other habitats like marshes and forests, which means animals that depend on those habitats suffer and die as a result. Once you actually draw out all of the impact that our food supply has, there’s all sorts of suffering no matter what you eat, so how can we reasonably claim that eating meat or plants are really particularly morally differentiable?
As far as veal and murder… that’s a strawman. I specifically said that I think animals should be treated well while alive and slaughtered humanely. That someone eats meat does not mean they are in favor of keeping calves immobile in small cages and otherwise treating them poorly.
Again, this is a strawman. I am not in favor of this sort of treatment of chickens. Not all chickens are raised this way. I am happy to pay more money to eat chicken that was raise free-range, not because I think that it tastes better or is better for me, but simply because I think it is the moral way to raise them. Sure, there are plenty of people that don’t know or don’t care about how some of these creatures are treated, but it’s intellectually dishonest to paint all people who eat meat as being okay with those practices.
Really, it sounds to me like you’ve watched a few too many anti-meat propaganda videos where they find the worse possible offenses of humane treatment, slaughter, and health code, and have drawn the incorrect conclusion that it is the standard practice and that all meat eaters accept it just fine. Sure, if all meat were obtained in such ways, I would have moral issues with it, but it isn’t so I don’t. Yes, I’d like to see more of the humane practices spread out, but the answer to that isn’t this sort of knee-jerk “OMG eating meat is bad”, but rather, again, realizing that death is inevitible and necessary and focusing on methods to minimize the suffering associated with it.
I’m not giving in to anything. I refusing to be to so utterly and profoundly ignorant that I fail to recognize that’s the way life works.
Does the OP know that a large number of plants and animals had to die for him or her to make the posts they have done in this thread? Every post represents deaths either front loaded or backloaded. The clothes the OP is weari g a
So constitutes deaths for plants and animals. Even if the OP is living in a cave he or she is killing plants and animals in every act they do, but especially in every single use of technology they use.
Really the only answer is to come to grips with that and strive to have the least harmful impact you can, if you feel that way. You might want to stop using technology as a first step.
I would think serious vegetarians accept it. If you either can’t handle the ethics of eating plants or killing bacteria, I don’t think you can call yourself a serious vegetarian (or a serious anything).
This is being worked on. Lab grown meat might be on the market pretty soon, but it’s going to be years and years before it’s widely accepted and even longer before it’s really competitive for anyone other than people with disposable cash who want to make an attention-getting statement about their views on animals and econology.
And most people do eat both.
I was going to ask if you were proposing lab-grown vegetables as well as meat, but even if it’s genetically engineered it still needs to be protected from pests. What is your idea here?
As they are supposed to. Please don’t ask me to feel more pity for locusts and beetles than I do for other human beings.
[quote]
I think it’s a little late to say you won’t get on your high horse about it. Also your metaphor is cruel. Do you realize how many metaphorical horses suffered in your rhetorical statement?
Are you going to find a real one at some point?