From: Emporer_Kazbar | #047 How is me eating meat any different?
The best vegetarian logic I've heard is that the energy required to "grow" a cow is so much more than the energy required to create pasta that if we switched gears and switched our entire meat industry into pasta industry we'd have so much more food we could feed everyone on the planet. Food would be pretty ****ing boring, but there would be enough of it for everyone solving world hunger.
Or something. I don't know how much of that holds up though. But I guess they think if they converted everyone there would be no demand for meat and more demand for the 'simpler' foods that eventually it would work itself out.
What they don't realize is that even if the US went 100% vegetarian and we stopped the meat industry cold and switched to 'pasta industry' we'd probably have just enough industry to create enough pasta to feed ourselves and that's it.
So we're just getting revenge on all those ******* animals. Once we feel that we're even again we'll stop eating them.
Shouldn't we, as a "civilized" society, be better than this?
Great, so I don't care how ****ty my life is because I'm not sentient
Let's just torture animals all day! Who cares, they are not sentient!
How is me eating meat any different?
You have a choice. A lion does not. Lions have to eat meat, as they are pure carnivores. You can eat meat, but you can also eat fruits, vegetables, grains, etc.
If your arguments are sound, you have nothing to fear :p
Aren't you supposed to fear God?
The best vegetarian logic I've heard is that the energy required to "grow" a cow is so much more than the energy required to create pasta that if we switched gears and switched our entire meat industry into pasta industry we'd have so much more food we could feed everyone on the planet. Food would be pretty ****ing boring, but there would be enough of it for everyone solving world hunger.
Or something. I don't know how much of that holds up though. But I guess they think if they converted everyone there would be no demand for meat and more demand for the 'simpler' foods that eventually it would work itself out.
That argument is right. I forget the term, but this is a thing in biology. I wish I could remember what it is called. But to raise a cow, you do need to give it a lot of food. For the meat provided, you get a lot less calories than what was put in. Animals are very inefficient for food sources, and therefore, I think they should be a luxury rather than being something that should be sold cheaply.
What they don't realize is that even if the US went 100% vegetarian and we stopped the meat industry cold and switched to 'pasta industry' we'd probably have just enough industry to create enough pasta to feed ourselves and that's it.
Explain yourself.
--
Save the animals, go vegan. I am a proud female furry American. http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/696/ntisunitedwskn5.gif
From: LameJokeAlt | #053 You have a choice. A lion does not. Lions have to eat meat, as they are pure carnivores. You can eat meat, but you can also eat fruits, vegetables, grains, etc.
OK, replace lions with baboons (Which also eat meat; small birds, lizards, and even young gazelle).
What's the excuse now?
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) http://kazbarmusic.blogspot.com/
From: LameJokeAlt | #053 That argument is right. I forget the term, but this is a thing in biology. I wish I could remember what it is called. But to raise a cow, you do need to give it a lot of food. For the meat provided, you get a lot less calories than what was put in. Animals are very inefficient for food sources, and therefore, I think they should be a luxury rather than being something that should be sold cheaply.
I understand this, but the argument used puts numbers to things. They go into 'units of energy' and that sort of thing to compare the relative efficiency of meat vs pasta. But with that said who is to say that the land used to raise cows is going to be suitable for growing the types of grains needed for pasta.
And sure the pasta would still be a more efficient use of 'energy units', but it would be exceedingly boring.
Tbh if this is this 'solution' for world hunger then the United Nations should just target countries that have severe issues of hunger and force THEM to switch to a no-meat pasta only diet.
Explain yourself.
You think we're going to grow enough food to feed the entire world just because we might potentially have the available space?
OK, replace lions with baboons (Which also eat meat; small birds, lizards, and even young gazelle).
What's the excuse now?
You have more options to eat other things. They do not. Also, you have more of an ability to think rationally.
Now look, I am not completely against eating meat. It is like how lots of people are not completely against cannibalism. Both are things that should only happen as a last resort, though.
My family hunts our food.
WE KILL WHAT WE EAT.
This would be an example of eating meat because there is nothing else.
Or go to KFC.
And this is not.
--
Save the animals, go vegan. I am a proud female furry American. http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/696/ntisunitedwskn5.gif
LameJokeAlt posted... Know what else is not sentient? Human babies. Why not eat them, if we are going with that logic?
biolizardfan posted... Now you're getting it
--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE] http://img.imgcake.com/wesker.gif
Annnyways your primary argument in post 1 seems to be "treat the animals better" rather than "do not eat them".
This is something I think we would all pretty much have no problem with. We don't really want to be "cruel" to the animals before we slaughter them.
I do have a hypothetical question though. What if the animals were sedated such that they did not realize the conditions they were being raised in were terrible?
I'm not saying I would prefer blissfully sedated cattle, I just wonder how that effects your perception of their situation since they would not really be under any duress.
Forceful_Dragon posted... FFD is Jonthan Swift confirmed.
Hey, just going down the God checklist -- Do babies live? Yep. Do they move? Yep. Sounds like dinnertime to me!
--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE] http://img.imgcake.com/wesker.gif
From: FFDragon | #067 Hey, just going down the God checklist -- Do babies live? Yep. Do they move? Yep. Sounds like dinnertime to me!
ahem:
From: Forceful_Dragon | #041 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. Genesis 9:1-4
Context indicates animals only, but nice try. ^_^
Edit: Also this would violate the firm 'Thou Shall Not Commit Murder' rule as well. Since feeding on human babies would constitute murder.
I understand this, but the argument used puts numbers to things. They go into 'units of energy' and that sort of thing to compare the relative efficiency of meat vs pasta. But with that said who is to say that the land used to raise cows is going to be suitable for growing the types of grains needed for pasta.
It doesn't need to be. We grow a lot of crops for the purpose of feeding cows. Now, imagine if those crops to given to humans, instead. Think of it like this. Every day, cows need to eat a lot more than humans to support their size. Their food does not come out of thin air, it has to be grown somewhere. That food is also consumable by humans, although the only challenge might be additional processing required to meet stricter guidelines for human consumption. Still, it would be more efficient than eating meat.
Tbh if this is this 'solution' for world hunger then the United Nations should just target countries that have severe issues of hunger and force THEM to switch to a no-meat pasta only diet.
Human rights organizations would have a field day with this one.
You think we're going to grow enough food to feed the entire world just because we might potentially have the available space?
We're certainly going to be able to feed more people by diverting the food meant for cows to people. Don't think of things in such binary ways. It's worth it to feed several million more people, even if you don't end up feeding everyone in the world.
If I were a pig, I would be ashamed of myself, because clearly I was not strong enough to survive in my environment as Darwin intended.
Are you implying that Darwin is some type of god?
I do have a hypothetical question though. What if the animals were sedated such that they did not realize the conditions they were being raised in were terrible?
I feel that animals should have some type of life they can actually experience. At least let them roam around an area, you know?
--
Save the animals, go vegan. I am a proud female furry American. http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/696/ntisunitedwskn5.gif
Everything that lives implies everything that lives tbqh. Had he said 'every beast that lives' or something, I'd say you were right.
--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE] http://img.imgcake.com/wesker.gif
From: LameJokeAlt | #059 You have more options to eat other things. They do not. Also, you have more of an ability to think rationally.
The first reason is acceptable, though the second one insinuates every creature on the planet would be vegetarian if they were intelligent, which is just silly.
Look, humans are apex predators. We've earned that position through incredible intelligence as a species; learning how to make up for our relatively weak bodies and become the Earth's dominant species. We've earned the right to make the choice of what we want to eat, yes; while that also includes not eating any other living beings (Except plants, which are also living and non-sentient, so...), it also allows us to eat whatever damn animal we want. If they want to stop being eaten, they can evolve to avoid that.
It's one thing to not want to eat meat. That's your deal, not anyone else's. It's another thing to wish death upon every person who eats meat (Basically ~95% of the Earth's population). That's what's incredibly dumb about this thread.
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) http://kazbarmusic.blogspot.com/
From: LameJokeAlt | #069 Human rights organizations would have a field day with this one.
Well they are the ones with the serious hunger issues. If they were serious about solving the problem they would take drastic measures.
We're certainly going to be able to feed more people by diverting the food meant for cows to people. Don't think of things in such binary ways. It's worth it to feed several million more people, even if you don't end up feeding everyone in the world.
I didn't say that we couldn't feed a lot more people, just that it wouldn't be in our nature to divert more food processing than we needed to.
I feel that animals should have some type of life they can actually experience. At least let them roam around an area, you know?
Even if the sedation gave them a greater sense of pleasure than 'frolicking' in a 10x20 patch of grass?
From: SovietOmega | #310 Hey, God says to kill other people all the time, what does it matter that some might be babies? >_>
This was more for punishment, etc, being ungodly and so on. I'm not an expert in this area, but one of the big things about killing children here was that they would grow up with vengence in their hearts. There is actually an incident in the Bible where this happens, and it caused a huge problem, but I'm not sure on the details.
From: FFDragon | #072 Everything that lives implies everything that lives tbqh. Had he said 'every beast that lives' or something, I'd say you were right.
Context is implied by the previous sentence. You can't just take 1 sentence in a verse by itself. Doesn't work like that ^_^
From: SovietOmega | #074 So, it is ok to kill babies as long as you don't murder them and feast on their succulent meat?
I am pretty sure that any instance of baby-killing would count as 'murder'.
But you're a clever guy so try and come up with a situation in which you can kill a baby without calling it murder...
Look, humans are apex predators. We've earned that position through incredible intelligence as a species; learning how to make up for our relatively weak bodies and become the Earth's dominant species.
Insects, particularly ants, exist.
If they want to stop being eaten, they can evolve to avoid that.
Oh yeah, if I were that pig, I could totally just say "this is BS, I am going to evolve and eat those humans TO AVENGE MY FAMILY!" It doesn't work like that.
It's one thing to not want to eat meat. That's your deal, not anyone else's. It's another thing to wish death upon every person who eats meat (Basically ~95% of the Earth's population). That's what's incredibly dumb about this thread.
I do not wish death on anyone. I am just saying "an eye for an eye" or in this case, "flesh for flesh."
--
Save the animals, go vegan. I am a proud female furry American. http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/696/ntisunitedwskn5.gif
Sure you can. He goes from talking about beast and then ramps it up to state that we can eat everything that moves. If he meant to still be talking about just beasts, he'd have said as much. He clearly said 'everything that moves' and that means exactly what it looks like it means.
--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE] http://img.imgcake.com/wesker.gif
Well they are the ones with the serious hunger issues. If they were serious about solving the problem they would take drastic measures.
Like people are all that accepting of not eating meat for the greater good.
I didn't say that we couldn't feed a lot more people, just that it wouldn't be in our nature to divert more food processing than we needed to.
And why not? Why not do that, if it can solve some of our food problems?
Even if the sedation gave them a greater sense of pleasure than 'frolicking' in a 10x20 patch of grass?
Some people say that humans have rather tough lives, with tons of stress and all that. Why not sedate ourselves our whole lives? Think of it like the movie Click, except replace the fast forward thing with sedation. If you have not seen it, go see it.
--
Save the animals, go vegan. I am a proud female furry American. http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/696/ntisunitedwskn5.gif
Remember when ants defeated humans and started raising animals on farms and having much larger animals run away in fear of being eaten/killed? Me neither. Population =/= power.
From: LameJokeAlt | #080Oh yeah, if I were that pig, I could totally just say "this is BS, I am going to evolve and eat those humans TO AVENGE MY FAMILY!" It doesn't work like that.
You know, I originally was going to put in parenthesis in the middle of that sentence "(Not immediately, obviously)", but then I didn't because any person with a brain should know that's what I meant. I guess not.
I do not wish death on anyone. I am just saying "an eye for an eye" or in this case, "flesh for flesh."
So let them try it. I'm sure there are some carnivores out there that would love to take a bite out of me. But it's not like I'd take it sitting down. Not our fault the animals we eat do.
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) http://kazbarmusic.blogspot.com/
The baby-killing argument is funny. Do I want to live in a society where eating babies is condoned? Nope: I value human life, and in the trade-off between baby meat and baby life, I gladly side with the second choice. However, do I want to live in a society where eating animals is condoned? You bet your ass: they're delicious, non-sentient, and the cheap production of meat benefits human society at large. Once again, I value *human* life, so the suffering of animals for our own benefit is only natural.
Of course, this doesn't apply to pets, as pets are a type of property. Nor does it apply to certain stray animals, as studies have shown that people who personally abuse ownerless animals tend to become violent in adulthood- and we don't want that.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp I watch Planet Chasers Starlight Excellent all day, every day.
So let them try it. I'm sure there are some carnivores out there that would love to take a bite out of me. But it's not like I'd take it sitting down. Not our fault the animals we eat do.
wait are you saying "not my fault animals let me kill them in vast quantities"
really
let me see if I can find a comparison
"not my fault that chick let me rape her. if anyone tried raping me it'd be pretty tough."
Did you see the way those cows were dressed? They were clearing asking to be turned into hamburgers.
--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE] http://img.imgcake.com/wesker.gif
From: FFDragon | #081 Sure you can. He goes from talking about beast and then ramps it up to state that we can eat everything that moves. If he meant to still be talking about just beasts, he'd have said as much. He clearly said 'everything that moves' and that means exactly what it looks like it means.
You extrapolate the meaning with context to the entire verse as a whole. Otherwise the bible would be full of large verses that "translate" into some pretty stupid s***.
From: SovietOmega | #082 You're the one that suggested there was a difference between killing and murdering, I was just following your argument to a logical conclusion.
And logically there is no baby "killing" situation that exists. Only baby "murder" which is wrong.
From: LameJokeAlt | #083 Some people say that humans have rather tough lives, with tons of stress and all that. Why not sedate ourselves our whole lives? Think of it like the movie Click, except replace the fast forward thing with sedation. If you have not seen it, go see it.
We would be the only ones who knew that the animal was in a cramped cage. As far as it would be concerned it's feeling as good as it ever has.
I'm not saying that's what I support, but I just wanted to know your take on that considering the original purpose of this topic was 'give animals better conditions'.
well unless I'm reading it wrong you're arguing something like "I'm part of the strongest species, and can do anything they can't stop me from doing. and feel guiltless!" like for real that is why we have empathy.
maybe I'll compare to something less inflammatory.
"hey man I'm like this really big jock, beat the crap out of this nerd earlier. not my fault he's so weak and pathetic!"
Chrono1219 posted... Kill = Ending life in self defense, war, capital punishment, by will of DNR, etc.
Murder = Premeditated killing, killing out of rage, etc.
Do you not premeditate killing when you go out to specifically kill people of other nations? To kill and to murder are synonymous. You are depriving an organism of life either willfully or unwillfully.
And if you do find distinction, then you can kill babies without murdering them. And then eat them. Om nom nom.
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
I did take the context of the entire verse as a whole into consideration. God was all 'Hey yo, I'm giving you all these beasts to go with your plants. And bee tee dubs, if that isn't enough you can eat everything that moves if you're down for some human baby meat.'
--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE] http://img.imgcake.com/wesker.gif
From: SovietOmega | #452 Do you not premeditate killing when you go out to specifically kill people of other nations? To kill and to murder are synonymous. You are depriving an organism of life either willfully or unwillfully.
And if you do find distinction, then you can kill babies without murdering them. And then eat them. Om nom nom.
No because it is in self defense. It's killed or be killed.
There is no self defense against babies, you can not kill them without murdering (life support issues, etc aside)
Remember when ants defeated humans and started raising animals on farms and having much larger animals run away in fear of being eaten? Me neither.
I don't know, it seems like there are billions more of them than there are of us, and they do wage war for our resources (food). Have you ever had an ant invasion, with those ants that bite you?
You know, I originally was going to put in parenthesis in the middle of that sentence "(Not immediately, obviously)", but then I didn't because any person with a brain should know that's what I meant. I guess not.
Still, animals can't really evolve their way out of any situation very quickly. Know what happens when an animal under our control has a weird mutation? They are killed for science, or just for being different. And hey, it looks like we control DNA now. Animals do not have a fair chance, and that's just not fair.
So let them try it. I'm sure there are some carnivores out there that would love to take a bite out of me. But it's not like I'd take it sitting down. Not our fault the animals we eat do.
Do you think that the pig in my story took it sitting down? She would have struggled. Animals in cages on corporate farms do not have a choice.
The baby-killing argument is funny. Do I want to live in a society where eating babies is condoned? Nope: I value human life, and in the trade-off between baby meat and baby life, I gladly side with the second choice. However, do I want to live in a society where eating animals is condoned? You bet your ass: they're delicious, non-sentient, and the cheap production of meat benefits human society at large. Once again, I value *human* life, so the suffering of animals for our own benefit is only natural.
I would say something, but it might be deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator.
Of course, this doesn't apply to pets, as pets are a type of property. Nor does it apply to certain stray animals, as studies have shown that people who personally abuse ownerless animals tend to become violent in adulthood- and we don't want that.
Okay, pets are not property. "Pets" should not be considered "pets." They are companion animals, not pets. And honestly, I am surprised that so many meat eaters are willing to eat meat, but not if they would do something like kill an animal themselves. Why not kill and eat a kitten if you like meat so much? Oh, and they eat cats in other countries, so don't try saying "because it is a domesticated animal."
--
Save the animals, go vegan. I am a proud female furry American. http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/696/ntisunitedwskn5.gif
Okay, pets are not property. "Pets" should not be considered "pets." They are companion animals, not pets.
I meant that they're legally recognized as property.
And honestly, I am surprised that so many meat eaters are willing to eat meat, but not if they would do something like kill an animal themselves. Why not kill and eat a kitten if you like meat so much? Oh, and they eat cats in other countries, so don't try saying "because it is a domesticated animal."
If I had to for survival, I'd probably eat a cat, yeah. Then again, certain animals are also great as companions: whether it's a fish, snake, or whatever, so long as the person decides to make it his pet, then he deserves a legal right to own that animal without someone else using/eating it. Works just like any other type of private property.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp I watch Planet Chasers Starlight Excellent all day, every day.
