Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?
Replies
-
Should everyone be forced to suspend a practice that a minority objects to on their own personal moral/ethical grounds with no other cause to do so?
That's an interesting question that I've never contemplated before. I don't believe anybody should be forced to do anything. I think, for me, when I believe so strongly in something, I have a hard time understanding how other people don't feel exactly the same way I do. I did not mean for this conversation and thread to turn hostile, but I think it went there because of how passionate I am about the subject.0 -
eating meat was usefull when we were hunters. Now we should know better and can have diffferent recourses. Eating meat is bad for the environment, you need to give those animals allot of water and food. It is just not efficient and polluting. Animals have also emotions and are mostly smarter then some people assume. Why it is any different to say it is not allright to eat dog like they do in China and it is ok to eat pig. Knowing that pigs are smarter then dogs. It is a cultural thing.
Please read about these stuff and make any conclusions after you have saw the facts. Don't just assume that it is natural to eat meat. The different between us and animals is that we have a choice.
If all china and India and sutch countries will start to eat meat like in the Western countries (which is the trend) the planet will not be able tu sustain it. Again it is perfectly posssible to replace meat by eating in a more educated and consious way.
I feel much better since I eat none to almost no meat.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Meat is tasty to many.
There are plenty who are unwilling to give it up and plenty that have no moral or ethical conflict when it comes to killing animals for food.
That is why we continue to kill animals for meat. If no one wanted it, no one would bother.
So by that logic, wee should never have ended slavery because plenty of people were unwilling to give it up and had no moral or ethical conflict with owning slaves? Just making sure I'm following your thought process.
Here's a thought. If you ever, ever, ever, remotely have the idea of comparing slavery, or humans, to animals don't. It just makes you look like you have some kind of racists view of people as subhuman that were slaves. It will never, in the eyes of anyone you're arguing with, make a decent argument that animals are on a level with people because, quiet frankly, they aren't. There are all kinds of compelling arguments for not eating animals, but denigrating other humans by even allowing the shadow of the implication that they are the same as animals, is not one of them.
If you choose to completely miss the point I was making about the flawed logic in the poster's argument, so be it. My analogy was spot on. And in no way was I comparing animals to slaves or vice versa. My point was that using the argument "people don't have a problem with it" as a reason to continue doing something is not a good argument.
I don't miss it, I ignore it because it comes off as horribly racist. A group of humans were bought and sold, and thought of as less than humans, and to add insult to injury, you're now awfully close to implying the sentiment is right because we do the same to animals.
There's a thousand other examples usable for appeal to tradition as fallacy. You had to pick the most distasteful one.
Actually YOU are the one implying the sentiment is right. I'm the one arguing that both are wrong, but you can't see through the chance at painting me as a racist to see the obvious point I'm trying to make.
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?
That's the is-ought fallacy. A lot of things happen in nature, but it doesn't morally justify them.
The difference in consuming a chicken versus a potato is in the capacity to feel pain. A chicken most certainly feels pain, not like a human does, but it feels something. A potato might have some kind of reaction, but definitely not something akin to what what a chicken or human does.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I don't understand the last part of your post. What is the "defined" Mediterranean Diet? And how do "personal" diets of people living in that region not enter into it? Sorry, but the idea of the Med diet comes from diets of the people living there--it evolved from them and their traditions. How can you exclude them? Clarify.
I would imagine it would be because just like not everyone in the US or anywhere else eats the same way, neither do all Mediterraneans. The diet itself has been defined though so it keeps it clearer. Just my opinion.0 -
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?
That's the is-ought fallacy. A lot of things happen in nature, but it doesn't morally justify them.
The difference in consuming a chicken versus a potato is in the capacity to feel pain. A chicken most certainly feels pain, not like a human does, but it feels something. A potato might have some kind of reaction, but definitely not something akin to what what a chicken or human does.
I don't think there are morals attached to eating animals. We evolved to eat meat. I didn't say it should be that way. I said it is that way.
Plants do react to being cut or eaten or harvested. It just isn't in a way that we identify with well. I feel bad for animals who suffer or are killed cruelly, but not for having fed me. I feel similar, to a lesser degree, for plants who are wasted, and damaged, but not for those I eat.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I don't understand the last part of your post. What is the "defined" Mediterranean Diet? And how do "personal" diets of people living in that region not enter into it? Sorry, but the idea of the Med diet comes from diets of the people living there--it evolved from them and their traditions. How can you exclude them? Clarify.
There's a slightly subtle dig in it because of the fact that people joke about the paleo diet not really resembling how paleolithic people actual ate.
The Mediterranean diet is a diet recommended based on a broad set of research that ended up called the Mediterranean because several of the recommendations line up with diets followed by several Mediterranean cultures.
There are a few differences between the two as ideas though. Paleo romanticizes cave-men as having better health than modern people when they didn't. It then constructs a diet it claims is based on their diet and hunts for evidence to support it. The Mediterranean diet takes dietary recommendations from actual studies of epidemiological data. Mediterranean cultures tend to be long lived, and as such, the shape of the recommendations ends up resembling a blend of several traditional Mediterranean cultures cuisine, which left the researchers with a somewhat easier name than "Compiled Epidemiological Data Advocating High Monounsaturated Fats, Whole Foods, Low Red Meat Intake" diet. The difference being that if new research showed large amounts of Mediterranean people smoked, the diet wouldn't advocate that because there isn't evidence, no matter how Mediterranean it would seem. Meanwhile, if new research uncovers cavemen fought each other with bone and flint blades more than previously thought, they would be paleo CrossFit gyms looking to have people sign waivers for knife-fight WODs.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic.
It's problematic, because people today don't think a reasonable argument can be made for slavery (I agree), and realize that some of the old arguments for slavery (that certain classes of humans aren't really the same as other humans, are inferior in some important way or not entitled to human rights or to be considered a person under the law) are not only wrong but rely on really terrible beliefs about human differences. When you suggest that the question of animal husbandry is as obvious as slavery, that is offensive, as obviously there are more differences between non-human animals and humans than between different groups of humans, such that including all humans as persons should be obvious and including animals (or certain animals) as such requires more of an argument.
It's also quite possible to distinguish between animals. I would not feel the same way about killing an ape as I would about killing a snail or a fish.
I happen to agree with the point that distinguishing between pigs and dogs (or cats) is purely cultural, of course.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?
That's the is-ought fallacy. A lot of things happen in nature, but it doesn't morally justify them.
The difference in consuming a chicken versus a potato is in the capacity to feel pain. A chicken most certainly feels pain, not like a human does, but it feels something. A potato might have some kind of reaction, but definitely not something akin to what what a chicken or human does.
I don't think there are morals attached to eating animals. We evolved to eat meat. I didn't say it should be that way. I said it is that way.
Plants do react to being cut or eaten or harvested. It just isn't in a way that we identify with well. I feel bad for animals who suffer or are killed cruelly, but not for having fed me. I feel similar, to a lesser degree, for plants who are wasted, and damaged, but not for those I eat.
Yeah... It is that way - people do eat meat and have done so. You're trying to use that to justify that it ought to be that way. That is exactly why it is called the is-ought problem. You can't justify who the world, morally / ethically, ought to be based on how the world is. Otherwise, you have problems like saying nothing should ever change from how it is now because how it is now is also how it ought to be.
Taken to its extreme, the comparison would be the natural laws. Gravity is an is, but that doesn't mean we justify falling and getting hurt as okay, even if it is a natural occurrence.
As for plants reacting, yes, some. Some plants do seem to react. It isn't purely that it is alien to our experience. There are also plant based foods that wouldn't involve a reaction. Some plant-based food does come from things that plants intentionally (well to the extent you can apply intentional to a plant
) produce things like fruits with seeds in them. I've sometimes wondered if that is part of why the frugivore / 80-10-10 people started - some ideal that eating fruit is more ethical than eating a vegetable or grain where you aren't eating just the part the plant grows for animals to eat, both of which are less ethical than eating an animal. 0 -
I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.0 -
Personally, I'd rather get as many nutrients as I can from food without supplementing (except in the case of vitamin D).janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
I think that's a much better argument than "We can" and "we've always done it." Which nutrients are you thinking of? I can't think of anything that I can't easily obtain from food and cheap, easy-to-source supplements. For me, that means I have no compelling reason to end an animal's life for meat for the "better source" rationale.
If someone is unable to meet their dietary needs from food and supplements without meat, this rationale would apply for them.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Well, I'm glad I stuck a nerve. For many vegetarians, this is a moral issue. This needs to be brought home before the nutritional fluff disguises it again.
The goat farmer I talked to who was raising meat had come to a moral certainty in his line of work, and he took great pride in not causing any unnecessary suffering to the creatures in his care.
We don't ask a cheetah, wolf, or lion to put aside their natural urges in sympathy of their chosen food source. And the ruminants in turn don't offer themselves, in sympathy, as easy meat. In the brutal cycle that is nature, the youngest, oldest, and weakest are taken, which in the long run of things, strengthens the herd.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?
That's the is-ought fallacy. A lot of things happen in nature, but it doesn't morally justify them.
The difference in consuming a chicken versus a potato is in the capacity to feel pain. A chicken most certainly feels pain, not like a human does, but it feels something. A potato might have some kind of reaction, but definitely not something akin to what what a chicken or human does.
I don't think there are morals attached to eating animals. We evolved to eat meat. I didn't say it should be that way. I said it is that way.
Plants do react to being cut or eaten or harvested. It just isn't in a way that we identify with well. I feel bad for animals who suffer or are killed cruelly, but not for having fed me. I feel similar, to a lesser degree, for plants who are wasted, and damaged, but not for those I eat.
Yeah... It is that way - people do eat meat and have done so. You're trying to use that to justify that it ought to be that way. That is exactly why it is called the is-ought problem. You can't justify who the world, morally / ethically, ought to be based on how the world is. Otherwise, you have problems like saying nothing should ever change from how it is now because how it is now is also how it ought to be.
Taken to its extreme, the comparison would be the natural laws. Gravity is an is, but that doesn't mean we justify falling and getting hurt as okay, even if it is a natural occurrence.
As for plants reacting, yes, some. Some plants do seem to react. It isn't purely that it is alien to our experience. There are also plant based foods that wouldn't involve a reaction. Some plant-based food does come from things that plants intentionally (well to the extent you can apply intentional to a plant ) produce things like fruits with seeds in them. I've sometimes wondered if that is part of why the frugivore / 80-10-10 people started - some ideal that eating fruit is more ethical than eating a vegetable or grain where you aren't eating just the part the plant grows for animals to eat, both of which are less ethical than eating an animal.
I don't believe I am. We evolved to eat meat and most do. I don't think there is a should or ought in there. It seems like more of an observation than a fallacy. Perhaps I am wrong.
I think the ethical side of it may well be where some frugivores are coming from. Fruit consumption seems to help plants whereas digging up a potato plant not only kills the plant but removes most of its chances for reproducing.
0 -
Currently pescatarian, and slowly transitioning vege. I eat vegan when I can. A weird mix.0
-
eating meat was usefull when we were hunters. Now we should know better and can have diffferent recourses. Eating meat is bad for the environment, you need to give those animals allot of water and food. It is just not efficient and polluting. Animals have also emotions and are mostly smarter then some people assume. Why it is any different to say it is not allright to eat dog like they do in China and it is ok to eat pig. Knowing that pigs are smarter then dogs. It is a cultural thing.
Please read about these stuff and make any conclusions after you have saw the facts. Don't just assume that it is natural to eat meat. The different between us and animals is that we have a choice.
If all china and India and sutch countries will start to eat meat like in the Western countries (which is the trend) the planet will not be able tu sustain it. Again it is perfectly posssible to replace meat by eating in a more educated and consious way.
I feel much better since I eat none to almost no meat.
I agree with your points that eating meat is bad for the environment and hurtful for animals but I'd like to point out that people in china don't really eat dogs anymore - especially in big cities so I find your generalization a bit inappropriate.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
Exactly. The heart of the notion of humane, which is rooted in the Latin humanus, is the alleviation of suffering, as well as incorporating the finer human qualities of kindness, gentleness and mercy. Neither live evisceration and consumption (as by a predator or parasites) or many of the horrors of factory farming are humane. We support a local farmer, who is also a Lutheran pastor, and his animals are raised with admirable kindness and gentleness, and their deaths, though sad, are conducted with the utmost kindness as well.
Is this a joke? What is kind about killing animal because you prefer how it tastes? I don't understand the logic behind calling the voluntary killing of an animal that you raised and earned it's trust "kind", when you could easily choose not to kill/eat it. Is that the best example of "utmost kindness" you can come up with?
It is interesting that you are aggressively berating someone who goes to ***great*** lengths and inconvenience to support farms with animals raised and processed under the most humane of conditions. Just the other day I was reading a thread where some of the long-time vegans with thousands of posts on this site were expressing how embarrassed they were by new vegans who go around picking fights and attacking people, because it reflects poorly on the whole group. So far this thread has had scores of posts with people from all perspectives politely sharing their thoughts with each other. Are you trying to get it shut down?
No, I apologize for expressing my sincere opinion that I thought "their deaths... are conducted with the utmost kindness" was a joke. Not sure how everybody doesn't see the irony in that statement.
If you want to apply a literary analysis to what I wrote, might I suggest the primary definition of paradox: a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement that expresses a possible truth. I know you are passionate about the topic, as am I, but there is more than absolute black and white, seeing a steer as a chattel slave analogous to an adolescent boy vs. blindly accepting/supporting the horrors of industrial slaughter, when it comes to the moral treatment of animals.0 -
I've tried a lot of them , and feel the most healthy consuming meat , I did the vegetarian for about a year gained a ton of weight & felt terrible. I'm on a ketogentic diet & feel awesome tons of energy never bloated , but everyone's body is different. It's taken about 15 years to figure out what is best for mine0
-
This content has been removed.
-
buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
Do rape, murder and 'stealing' not happen in the animal kingdom? Did they not happen in uncivilized societies? That is what I mean by natural. I think it is unacceptable for animals to be eaten in a situation that is not life or death. If we can choose other options which overall cause less suffering in the world, then I think we are morally obligated to choose those options. I am specifically talking about humans who have the capabilities of making those types of higher-thinking decisions of what food choices to make. I'm not saying non-human animals should not kill and eat each other.
Omnivores don't share you morals. So we kill and eat animals. Simple as that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?
Personality?0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I don't understand the last part of your post. What is the "defined" Mediterranean Diet? And how do "personal" diets of people living in that region not enter into it? Sorry, but the idea of the Med diet comes from diets of the people living there--it evolved from them and their traditions. How can you exclude them? Clarify.
It's not about excluding anyone. It's about a diet that is well established and well documented. And was established before a good many people living in the Med region today were born. It's based on foods that are found in the Mediterranean region and were historically eaten there.
Here are some resources if you are not familiar with it.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801
http://www.epicurious.com/archive/healthy/news/diet_mediterranean
http://oldwayspt.org/resources/heritage-pyramids/mediterranean-diet-pyramid
A quick internet search will get you plenty more information. It's one of the most touted and studied diets around.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
People can have a healthy diet being an omnivore, vegetarian, or vegan. People can have an unhealthy diet being an omnivore, vegetarian, or vegan. The more restrictions you place on your diet (whether for medical, moral, or other reasons), the more work it will take to ensure you are getting all of you appropriate macros and micros.
/thread0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Meat is tasty to many.
There are plenty who are unwilling to give it up and plenty that have no moral or ethical conflict when it comes to killing animals for food.
That is why we continue to kill animals for meat. If no one wanted it, no one would bother.
So by that logic, wee should never have ended slavery because plenty of people were unwilling to give it up and had no moral or ethical conflict with owning slaves? Just making sure I'm following your thought process.
Regardless of how you feel about comparing animals to humans held in chattel slavery (and believe me, I have strong opinions on it), I don't think it's ever a productive way to take the conversation. People tend to have a really strong reaction to it, a reaction which means they're going to heed little of what you have to say.
As I said above, in no way was I comparing human slaves to animals. I was comparing people's mindsets about two different situations, using an analogy. I can't help if people see the word "slave" and then instantly jump to the conclusion that there is some sort of thinly veiled racism involved and completely disregard the point I was making.
We're absolutely responsible for what we communicate. If you were unaware that using the slavery analogy would be potentially offensive or keep people from hearing what you're trying to actually communicate, now you know. And you can consider choosing differently in the future. If you were aware that using the slavery analogy would be potentially offensive or keep people from hearing what you're actually trying to communicate and you chose it anyway . . . well, it makes me wonder what your motivation truly is.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
You don't think they're natural? Do you think humans in their "natural state" (whatever that is) aren't violent?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
You don't think they're natural? Do you think humans in their "natural state" (whatever that is) aren't violent?
I would like to think not.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions