View Full Version : Vegetarianism for moral and ethical reasons
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 07:07 PM
There are three reasons to choose a vegetarian diet. They are:
moral, ethical, religious or animal rights
health
environmental
My reason for becoming a vegetarian is based on the first in the list -- moral and ethical reasons, and, therefore, in this thread I will mostly discuss those, while at times the discussion may briefly touch on the others or animal rights -- all deserving of separate threads of their own.
Animals suffer greatly in how they are treated by us and raised for our consumption. Prodded, branded, confined, tethered, mutilated, shipped, and slaughtered, theirs is a world of pain and misery created out of choice for our pleasure -- not one of need.
With a world population of 6 billion people, higher standards of living coming about in developed nations, and economic growth in China and India, the demand for animal food products can only realistically be provided by resorting to factory farming i.e. cramming as many animals in as small place as possible and forcing them to grow at high rates by pumping them full of hormones and antibiotic drugs.
This creates an enormous amount of suffering endured by animals as they live a life where they cannot even satisfy their basic natural urges, such as turning around, standing up, stretching, socializing, providing maternal care, breathing fresh air, feeling the sun, etc...
By choosing a vegetarian diet, one lessens the amount of animal suffering in the world. Unecessary suffering in all its forms is a thing we should care about and strive to lessen as much as possible. To choose the opposite, or ignore times when one can reduce the net suffering in the world, is not the ethical choice.
Courtesy Warning: Do not activate video if you are sensitive to the reality of food production.
YouTube - Meet your Meat
P_chan
07-13-2007, 08:00 PM
It's true animals shouldn't be treated horribly but I still won't stop eating meat. Humans need to eat too, and if that means some animals have to suffer for it, so be it. That is just a nasty side effect of having to survive. At least these animals are raised to be eaten, not pulled out of their habitats to be treated like this. Nature is just as brutal to animals as humans are. So were all not supposed to eat meat so we don't cause animals any suffering? Well what about when someone runs over a rabbit? I bet if we got rid of cars no one would run over animals anymore. So we should all stop driving cars to end animal suffering!
Nothing personal but I hate how vegetarian claim that the don't eat meat because it's cruel. Then they look down on those who eat meat like they are less then humans. NEWSFLASH!!! Humans have been eating meat since the beginning of time! What about all those animals living in fields that get crushed by grain harvesting equipment so you can eat a soy burger?
Check this out: http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
Vegetarians aren't as 'guiltless' as they think they are.
Very interesting link. Thanks. :)
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 08:27 PM
P_C, you put a lot of points there that should be addressed. I'll try to address all of them over time in separate posts (since some can stand alone from the others and no one likes to read 10,000 word replies), but don't wait for me to finish addressing all of them before you jump back in against any points I bring up as we go along.
It's true animals shouldn't be treated horribly but I still won't stop eating meat.
I am glad to see that we both agree that they should not be treated horribly. We stand together there. And to let you know, as for "won't stop eating meat," I, too, used to say the same.
Humans need to eat too, and if that means some animals have to suffer for it, so be it. That is just a nasty side effect of having to survive.
Humans do not need to eat meat. Humans can survive optimally on a modern vegetarian diet, and in choosing a vegetarian diet, benefit against protection of some diseases more so than those who consume flesh.
The issue of survival is more of a health aspect of vegetarianism or meat consumption, and if you want, we can go into a little of that. I don't mind. But, it is a fact, today's humans in this modern world of ours do NOT need meat to survive. Therefore, there is no need for animals to suffer for our suvival.
Btw, since you did say that "it is true animals shouldn't be treated horribly," would you accept corrections and overhauls to the meat production industry if it could end animal suffering in the raising and slaughtering processes -- even if that meant considerable increases in meat product prices?
Humans do not need meat.
Humans do not need the internet.
Humans do not need electrical appliances.
Do not need.
Do not need.
Want!
There's a lot of things that we do not need but we still consume/use. Prove to me that we NEED to move to a vegetarian diet.
I am glad to see that we both agree that they should not be treated horribly. We stand together there. And to let you know, as for "won't stop eating meat," I, too, used to say the same.
This is the part that cracks me up. You're basically saying "Great, we agree on one point. You're almost at my level". You made a personal choice to go vegetarian. Good for you. That's all it is.
Humans don't even need teeth if we move to a vegetarian diet.
Just gum your food to bits.
Final edit: If you can get the rest of the world to stop using cows for beef and to stop being "cruel" to animals, I will give up meat. Forever. But as long as it's in the grocery store, I'm going to buy it. Turning vegetarian is a personal choice and it's not going to have any global impact whatsoever. You may end up saving some chicken's cousin. Good for you. That's about all you can expect.
P_chan
07-13-2007, 08:50 PM
No I don't think the meat industry needs corrections, especially if it causes increases on my favorite food, beef.
What about the fact that millions of animals are killed by grain harvesting every year? I'm still waiting for a reply to that.
It's true that animals suffer for me to eat meat but thats just too bad. I think what happens is people watch videos like your PETA propaganda video you just posted and feel sorry for those animals. They apply human emotions to something that is very non human. They then preach up and down about how they will never eat meat again and you shouldn't either. But animals still suffer for their food which makes them murderers just like me. The only major difference is I'm not cramming my agenda down your throat and you are.
Do you think we should teach lions and gators to go vegetarian? Because out in the wild, it's not pretty. There's plenty of suffering out in the wild. The only difference is we mass produce it.
This topic is making me freakin hungry... :mad:
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 09:10 PM
It seems inevitable that this topic would cause a member to customize his quote and another to create a tribute to meat. lol. Oh well.
Getting back to the discussion...
No I don't think the meat industry needs corrections, especially if it causes increases on my favorite food, beef.
Then you really do not believe your own words, "it is true animals should not be treated horribly," for for you to have your cheap prices, they must be treated as units of production without any concern for their welfare. You are being inconsistent.
What about the fact that millions of animals are killed by grain harvesting every year? I'm still waiting for a reply to that.
P_C, I told you I would answer all the points you brought up. No need to get too ancy, since that was one of your points towards the end of your post. Was just going to take a while to get there. Though, if after a page or two and you think I am avoiding one of your posts, then please feel free to post it again or PM me, and I will get to it. But just after a few posts, I would hope that you could afford me a little time.
Ok, about your link from OSU -- the one dk thanked you for providing. I have seen it long ago. That 'dog' won't hunt!
I don't think vegetarianism can eliminate all animal suffering in the world, and it doesn't claim to be able to. Choosing a vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is about lessening animal suffering as much as possible.
Your link and you make the inference or conclusion that since animals get caught and killed in crop production that vegetarians are no less guilty in causing suffering than flesh eaters. Yes, it is true that vegetarian demand for crop products results in field kills, but it is also true that it takes more grain and crops to produce meat because of the law of diminishing returns and value added, that more fields must be put into crop production, and therefore there is more killing of field animals with meat production than there would be without it.
Get a new 'dog.'
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 09:29 PM
Do you think we should teach lions and gators to go vegetarian?
No, because they do not have the mental capacity for chosing a code of ethics that seeks to avoid unecessary sufffering, and their biology demands that they consume meat in their worlds in order to survive.
Because out in the wild, it's not pretty. There's plenty of suffering out in the wild.
Yes, but we are not in the wild. Humans have stepped out of the wild i.e. we've evolved physically, ethicaly, and socialy.
The only difference is we mass produce it.
Yes, we do choose to do that. But that is the thing with "choice" -- there is another way we could opt for. It is merely a decision to us.
Funny you should bring up mass production, for Henry Ford who perfected mass production admitted he came up with his assembly line after visiting and viewing slaughterhouses.
Oh, Henry. That great business man that helped put American on wheels and industrialize us even further. And all that wealth he got did not make him derelict in funneling that into an anti-semite magazine he published in Germany where he became revered for his views and invention. And, his perfect concepts of assembly line productions were simply reversed back into slaughtering for disassembly by the people who admired him -- The Nazis. Very efficient all this killing and killing perfected.
P_chan
07-13-2007, 09:32 PM
No what I mean by not seeing animals suffer is along the lines of some random kids torturing an animal. Animals made for slaughter are just that, made for slaughter.
I'd have to agree with Maddox on this issue: Vegetarians are hypocrites
Exactly vegetarians are no less guilty then a meat eater. At least I'm not ignoring that my eating habits are causing animals to suffer. I'm also not stuffing my beliefs about my eating habit down your throat. You have pointed out that the amount of grain grown to feed animals for slaughter every year is greater than the amount of grain grown for humans. So I guess the amount of grain grown for human consumption suddenly becomes negligible and we can conveniently ignore the fact that animals are still ruthlessly murdered either way because of your diet, right?
So Mr. random vegan is trying to 'limit' the suffering. So I'm more guilty because my eating habits cause more animals to suffer, while your eating habits are doing just the same. Even if the amount of combine deaths doesn't reach into the millions, even if it's just one, isn't one baby rabbit worth saving? Why Mr random vegan are you putting a value on life?
Enjoy your tofu murders.
(Maddox)
Sorry, I choose meat. If it's a choice thing, that's my choice. I'm not concerned with cows, chickens and pigs. They can suffer for all I care. They're not people.
If you want to be a herbivore, be a herbivore. It doesn't make you any more advanced than anyone else though.
And who's to say that vegetables don't value their life?
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 09:52 PM
No what I mean by not seeing animals suffer is along the lines of some random kids torturing an animal. Animals made for slaughter are just that, made for slaughter.
I don't think humans are capable of making anything. We sure can put things together though. Tell me, though, if we do, or can "make" something like a cow, why can't we make one that doesn't fear, feel stress, fight for its life, doesn't suffer. I would think if we were going to make something and suffering and pain are things we want to eliminate we'd make those things so that those inherent traits were not present. Seems like we are overmaking something, huh?
An animal being tormented with his life in a factory farm or kill pit floor fears just as much for its life as the animal being tortured by a kid. In the end, the only thing both have in common is pleasure. That is the common denominator both share.
Exactly vegetarians are no less guilty then a meat eater.
Yes, they are less guilty, for animal deaths in combines are not the target, they unfortunate victims. They also have known freedom without confinement, have experienced wind, sun, rain, thier senses used for their biology. Factory farmed animals on the other hand are the target since birth whose natural urges not bred out of them are frustrated as they are prevented and often never see the sun, feel the wind, socialize etc...
And besides all that, numbers do count when the tally is added up. We grimace often about numbers. They weigh down on us when they get quite high. You'd think a child were more ethically challenged if you found out he had tortured a hundred animals over the past year in comparison to a kid who did it just once 11 months ago. I know I sure would and most parents would.
That is why we have proportionate penalties to fit to different crimes of murder. All murder is not the same. All diets are not the same on the scale of ethics.
I'm also not stuffing my beliefs about my eating habit down your throat.
Neither am I you? What is your point with this comment?
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 10:06 PM
No what I mean by not seeing animals suffer is along the lines of some random kids torturing an animal.
Reading this again, I have to ask, why even say that then since the topic of this thread is not about kids torturing animals. Since that point is moot here, I see no reason for it. I think your more detailed explanation with the kid and murder thing is just to try and make it so that you can say you don't want to see animals suffer.
Perhaps a more accurate wording for you would be:
"It is true that some animals should be treated horribly so that I get cheap prices for MY pleasures. The other pleasures people get from animals are not as important as mine are to me so their pleasures through treating animals horrible should not be indulged."
You may want to consider this discussion (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=442) for some self examination.
Or you could just jump over to my thread and praise beef. XD
Let me fix this as it should be.
"It is true that many animals should be killed so that I get cheap prices for MY dining preferences.
The other pleasures people get from animals are not as important as mine are to me so their pleasures through treating animals horrible should not be indulged."
The what? What pleasures? I thought you hated zoos and keeping animals in captivity. I still can't even understand why you have dogs.
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 10:11 PM
Or you could just jump over to my thread and praise beef. XD
Why? I haven't brought up a moot point or said anything inconsistant that your thread would clear up. Unless you can give me a good argument that is consistent as to why I should retract my thoughts on vegetarianism and reverse my decision to be a vegetarian. If so, I will.
Why? Because beef is better than salad.
I'm not going to try to change you back to a meat eater. As I already said multiple times before, it's a personal choice.
You, on the other hand, are going out of your way to try to make us feel bad about eating meat.
People's views are different. You put a lot more value on animal life than I do.
So I'll say this. When I eat a steak or a chicken wing, the thought that it hurt when they died didn't even cross my mind once. The thought that they may have had family didn't cross my mind once. You can have your salad and tofu sandwich. I won't condemn you for it. But like it or not, humans have been eating meat for thousands of years and moving to a vegetarian diet is not evolution. It's just a different choice.
Us meat eaters don't put value on cows' lives. That's probably the first thing you should attack in your debate. Get us to actually feel sorry for the stupid herbivores and maybe we'll eat something else.
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 10:21 PM
The what? What pleasures? I thought you hated zoos and keeping animals in captivity. I still can't even understand why you have dogs.
Going off on zoos and having dogs would be far from trying to focus on vegetarianism as an ethical choice for a diet, but if you'd like to discuss those now, perhaps making a separate thread for them by you would be nice, and I would try to post in them to address your views on my views about them.
Or, you could wait until I get around to making those threads myself in the future. Either way is fine by me.
I'll wait. It wasn't off topic as it was related to this quote in your post:
The other pleasures people get from animals are not as important as mine are to me so their pleasures through treating animals horrible should not be indulged."
P_chan
07-13-2007, 10:37 PM
There you go trying to make me feel guilty and stuffing what you belief is right down my throat. You are no less guilty then someone who does eat meat. So your saying that since the animals killed by combines for YOUR pleasures are less then the animals killed for mine it's ok?
Ah there it is the classic vegetarian response I was waiting for! So your less guilty then me huh? Your a saint and I'm a sinner is what I'm getting from that. That makes you more of a murder then me! The animals killed for your food were unintentional so that makes you innocent and you can ignore it? At least the slaughterhouse animals are eaten, while yours just rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just a guilty as a meat eater. It doesn't matter how many you kill, your still killing. Besides how is it UN intentional anyways? You know it's happening right? :sniff sniff: I smell a hypocrite.
Shhhh quite little bunny rabbit! Try not to make so much noise once your skull is being crushed, we wouldn't want the self-righteous vegetarians to find out the eating habits aren't so innocent.
stuff
Oh come now. It's just a discussion. Don't get your panties in a bunch. :)
P_chan
07-13-2007, 10:41 PM
I know once I get into it with vegetrians I get angry because most of them act like they are so much better then me and they are helping out so many animals. I'll edit that part out.
I know once I get into it with vegetrians I get angry because most of them act like they are so much better then me and they are helping out so many animals. I'll edit that part out.
Don't feel too bad.
Just accept yourself the way you are and then go get some ribs with me some weekend. :D
We like meat. We don't have to appologize for that. :D
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 11:26 PM
Oh come now. It's just a discussion. Don't get your panties in a bunch. :)
lol. Exactly, dk. Something must have been said and edited out while I was gone.
Really, there is no reason for hostility here. I think I am a rather nice guy, and P_chan, you may just enjoy my company despite our different beliefs on many things. I consider lots of flesh eaters to be my friend and they, me, theirs. I don't think friendships could continue if one viewed the other as self righteous.
Often, all it takes is a beer to bring meat eaters and vegetarians together for a good time. And beer is agreeable to both groups. <smile>
I think you're a little too nice TP. I mean come on now. At least murder one cow! Jeez man!
DoctorP
07-13-2007, 11:42 PM
Give him a break! He is entitled to his opinion, and besides...maybe he just gets a little too emotional when it comes to putting Thumper in the oven!
Dude, cows and chickens are fine. But rabbits? Come on now! Those are pets dude!
/sarcasm
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 11:44 PM
I think you're a little too nice TP. I mean come on now. At least murder one cow! Jeez man!
lol. Naah. That is behind me. I'm done with killing and violence.
I prefer a consistent moral philosophy to live by.
But I won't lie...I really enjoyed the flavor of flesh when I ate it (I remember you and I sharing a pepporoni pizza once or twice). It is just now, the thought of suffering leaves a horrible after taste in me I would prefer to not be a part of.
DoctorP
07-13-2007, 11:47 PM
I really enjoyed the flavor of flesh when I ate it (I remember you and I sharing a pepporoni pizza once or twice). It is just now, the thought of suffering leaves a horrible after taste in me I would prefer to not be a part of.
How dare you kill all those innocent pepporoni's Poor peperonis will learn how to fly!
How dare you kill all those innocent pepporoni's Poor peperonis will learn how to fly!
LMAO @ the mental image of pepporonis learning how to fly. :D
TheNoNamedOne
07-13-2007, 11:57 PM
Before getting back to some unanswered comments by P_chan and dk, I just want to point out that when I was a meat eater I was still very concerned about animal suffering. I thought I was an animal rightist, but in actuality I was an animal welfarist.
After visiting sights and reading more and more on the topic and joining in other discussion groups where vegetarianism or AR was a topic, I soon saw the inconsistency in my thoughts about treatment towards animals. I think I parroted the same thing P_chan or even dk has put toward me.
Some people can live with their inconsistencies, however, they bother me and I spend a great deal of time trying to think through them. You will often here someone say, "you can't change people,' and in the end that is true. People have to change themselves. But one may have an affect on a person and that can lead those people to change themselves. That is what happened with me (and did during the period that the old forums went dead when dk pulled the plug).
Comments and arguments on other boards affected me, and I changed. So, in a sense you can change people through affecting them. It happened to me, and I don't think I am anything so special that my experiences can't happen similarly to others.
I guess I am putting this out here because the argument for vegetarianism usually runs into someone who will say you can't change people. I am proof that people can be changed by others. I sure was.
P_chan
07-14-2007, 11:27 AM
It wasn't really hostility, more like irritability. I had a lot of vegetrians try to make me feel bad for eating meat in the past. Just kinda irritates me.
TheNoNamedOne
07-14-2007, 12:36 PM
Just kinda irritates me.
I understand about irritability. Sometimes we wonder if that is the main purpose for someone to do something -- just to irritate us. I assure you, my argument for vegetarianism is much bigger than just you and is not meant to irritate you. However, I do have to wonder in all honesty if your signature hasn't come about as an attempt to irritate me.
It doesn't irritate me, and you may imagine that by now I have already been exposed to that kind of reaction. I guess what I find interesting, or confusing is, why use your signature space to try and irritate when you could be using it to express an important philosophy of your life that you focus on or a quote that you feel you'd like to share with others because of a meaning you think is important? <sorry, a little off topic, but felt your irritability about vegetarians, and it seems particularly with me here, should be addressed briefly>
P_chan
07-14-2007, 12:48 PM
it's not meant to irritate. It was just a funny saying I heard that this topic made me remember. It's important because I love meat and now-a-days people think eating meat is bad. Once in fact people have been eating meat since the beginning of man. So no being a vegetarian IS NOT natural. It's a choice, just like I choose not to be a vegetarian.
TheNoNamedOne
07-14-2007, 01:26 PM
it's not meant to irritate. It was just a funny saying I heard that this topic made me remember. It's important because I love meat and now-a-days people think eating meat is bad.
Fair enough on the sig, P_C. Though I do wonder why you feel a need to scream it with a larger than default setting font -- and ALL in red at that.
Once in fact people have been eating meat since the beginning of man. So no being a vegetarian IS NOT natural.
Man does many things that are not natural. Therefore, the natural argument just can't hold water. In the beginning man defacated outside. I guess that toilets in our homes IS NOT natural. But, I don't think you are going to tear out your comode and do the natural thing in the streets of Okinawa, are you? But, basing your habits to do on what is natural is the argument you are putting forth. Your life isn't consistent with your reasoning.
It's a choice, just like I choose not to be a vegetarian.
Yes, that has been established.
At one time people could choose to own other humans, after all, it seems like since the beginning of man, man has been enslaving his fellow homosapiens. I geuss it is natural that the strong, even within their own species, imposes their might upon the weak.
But, with time and change, that "choice" through social evolution has been regarded as not ethical. Therefore, choice in the present does not speak to whether something is inherently ethical and ok to continue. It could be that social evolution has just not caught up to what is ethical on that point through law codification.
TheNoNamedOne
07-16-2007, 11:50 AM
NEWSFLASH!!! Humans have been eating meat since the beginning of time!
Humans have not been around since the beginning of time, hence we have not been eating meat since then, hence your statement is wrong just as much as it is hyperbol.
You're reaching. It took you two days to point that out lol. And I'm sure you know what he meant to say.
TheNoNamedOne
07-16-2007, 03:11 PM
You're reaching. It took you two days to point that out lol. And I'm sure you know what he meant to say.
Nah, I could have pointed it out then, but rather than go into a marathon non-stop posting flurry on just one thread, I decided to let a few days past before I did.
Kinda, but it still may not be accurate. Perhaps he meant to say since the beginning of man. In that case there is some controversy amongst scholars as to what was the original diet of man.
TheNoNamedOne
07-17-2007, 01:32 AM
But like it or not, humans have been eating meat for thousands of years and moving to a vegetarian diet is not evolution.
It would be social evollution in the form of dietary customs.
Us meat eaters don't put value on cows' lives.
Sorry, but some sure do. Some eventhough they are meat eaters go out of their way to lobby for better treatment of cows during their life. And many who were once flesh eaters wrestled with the thought and act of becoming vegetarians because of that value they do put on their lives.
That's probably the first thing you should attack in your debate.
It never ceases to amaze me that wherever one jumps into the debate on vegetarianism someone will say that is the wrong place to start at. If one starts at the emotional argument, people will say start with logic devoid of emotion. If one starts at the ethical part, they will say start with health. IF one starts with health, they will counter with start with the environment ... ad nausium. And here is just another example of that.
Therefore, I just start the discussion where I prefer to because with a number of different people looking on with their own opinion on where it would be most effective to start, no matter where I choose to start it will be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Get us to actually feel sorry for the stupid herbivores and maybe we'll eat something else.
Well, I can see you won't be teaching any sense of gratitude and respect for the life of an animal that was taken to nourish you to youngins in your family. What a callous statement.
In any event, it is given up for a rather unintelligent statement for a couple reasons.
First, animals are not expected to be on our scale of cognitive ability and are therefore not measured as a stupid human, and for it to be a stupid cow we'd have to have a scale for measuring what a smart cow is according to their ability.
Second, we do know that there are stupid humans, but stupidity is not, and has never been a measurement for eating them or not, or any other animal for that point.
Tempestuous
07-17-2007, 10:59 AM
TP- are your dogs on pure vegetarian diets as well?
I have repetitively been told dogs should follow the BARF diet for optimum health and was just curious on what you have found is the best way to provide the needed nutrition to your pets and align your animal concerns with your personal diet beliefs.
TheNoNamedOne
07-17-2007, 12:35 PM
TP- are your dogs on pure vegetarian diets as well?
I have repetitively been told dogs should follow the BRAF diet for optimum health and was just curious on what you have found is the best way to provide the needed nutrition to your pets and align your animal concerns with your personal diet beliefs.
Good point, Temp, and I geuss this also falls in with dk's comments about me having dogs. Then I told him I would create a new thread to discuss that, but I guess I am going to take a moment to discuss your point here anyway, and if dk still wants me to address his point here briefly I will. If it goes past more than a few posts though, I would then like to move it to a new thread.
BARF, right -- not BRAF. BARF is the best diet for dogs and our dogs were on that prior to us becoming vegetarians. But us becoming vegetarians is not the reason why we stopped them on that diet. The costs were just too high! We were spending $500/mo. on meat here in Okinawa to feed them. That went on for 2 years and we decided that that exhorborant amount of money would do them better by saving it for their old age when vet care could become quite expensive. It was a simple question of cost analysis and applying recourses where they would do best.
We feed our dogs imported dry dog food from Australia. Yes, it is beef. Now, what am I going to hear, but a bunch of howling, some of you guys hanging your argument on that.
I see no reason to force a diet on an animal whose natural diet is carnivorous and one they cannot choose to evolve socially from. All my dogs are pick ups, which means I am cleaning up the mess of responsible owners and breeders from the pet trade. I am the first to say that the state of pet ownership should be abolished, but until it is adoption of those pets who have had irresponsible owners is the compassionate thing to do.
Boost
07-17-2007, 12:49 PM
We were spending $500/mo. on meat here in Okinawa to feed them.
Holy smokes! That is probably about what we spend to feed our entire family in a month! Ok, I will now stop complaining about the almost $40 bag of dry dog food we purchase for our dog.
Yes, it is beef. Now, what am I going to hear, but a bunch of howling, some of you guys hanging your argument on that.
Sometimes you gotta do what is best even if goes against your personal beliefs and convictions.
TheNoNamedOne
07-17-2007, 09:16 PM
Humans don't even need teeth if we move to a vegetarian diet.
Just gum your food to bits.
Teeth, particularly the back rounded ones have evolved to grind fibrous plant material. That aides in releasing the enzymes and starts the process of degestion. For efficiency we are better off with them.
Besides, I would hate to have to gum almonds -- which I really like a lot.
Final edit: If you can get the rest of the world to stop using cows for beef and to stop being "cruel" to animals, I will give up meat. Forever.
I know. It is hard to give up pleasures when those pleasures are not necessary to one's life -- other than enjoyment -- like a habit. But, I am pretty sure there will always be those who eat meat no matter how taboo or whatever law forbidding it would ever come about in the far future. Look at slavery or murder. There have been lots of laws on the book prohibiting those things but people still do them and derive pleasure from them.
okinawapaul
07-17-2007, 09:51 PM
I know. It is hard to give up pleasures when those pleasures are not necessary to one's life -- other than enjoyment -- like a habit. But, I am pretty sure there will always be those who eat meat no matter how taboo or whatever law forbidding it would ever come about in the far future. Look at slavery or murder. There have been lots of laws on the book prohibiting those things but people still do them and derive pleasure from them.
What is next on your list? To give up sex? I mean it is a pleasure that is not necessary to one's life right?
While it is possible to survive without eating meat, meat is also good for ones body. The ADA quote that you provided was interesting, particularly since my sister is/has been a registered dietician for years. If meat and meat products are so bad for ones health, then why are dairy products and meat often prescribed as part of a healthy diet for infants by registered dieticians all over the nation?
P_chan
07-17-2007, 09:55 PM
Law forbidding eating meat? Damn I don't want to know what your ideal world would be like. Reminds me of Demolition Man for some reason.
I'm sorry I don't see eating meat ever going away. It's not like there is really anything wrong with it where they would ban it all together. Sure a vegetarian diet may be healthier for you but eating meat is far too acceptable to ever go away. Seems like most vegetarians ditch meat for ethical reasons because they don't want to harm animals. Well what if it was free range animals that lived a good life and then were killed for food? Would they have jumped on the vegan bandwagon? Or did it take the piece of s*** that is PETA (don't even want to think about those PETA hypocrites) propaganda to make them see the 'truth'? If anything I think vegetarianism will become less popular in the future. But then again in the future after that it will probably rise in popularity again. Seems kinda of like a fad diet to me but hey you never know what will happen. But meat eating will defiantly never vanish or be banned.
Sorry but on the evil scale slavery/murder > eating meat. Your not just gaining pleasure from eating meat, your gaining essential vitamins and nutrients that you need to survive. (please don't tell me you can get those from veggies, I already know that).
If you ask me the best diet is one of balance between vegetables and meat products. Heh too bad I tend to lean towards the meat side of that diet. I need to start eating better. Pretty soon my metabolism will slow down and I'll get fat.
I know. It is hard to give up pleasures when those pleasures are not necessary to one's life -- other than enjoyment -- like a habit. But, I am pretty sure there will always be those who eat meat no matter how taboo or whatever law forbidding it would ever come about in the far future. Look at slavery or murder. There have been lots of laws on the book prohibiting those things but people still do them and derive pleasure from them.
Like I said, it's your choice. I'll be hanging out with the other carnivores come dinner time.
And you spent $500 a month on your dogs? There are countries in the world where kids don't eat that good. There are probably people on Okinawa that don't eat that good. And you want to talk about suffering?
I just think you value animal life far more than human life. And like you said, the dead don't suffer. I'm not worried about living conditions for cows and chickens.
Well, I can see you won't be teaching any sense of gratitude and respect for the life of an animal that was taken to nourish you to youngins in your family. What a callous statement.
What, do you want me to give grace? When my daughter is old enough to ask where her food comes from, this is what I will tell her. I'll tell her exactly what my parents did.
Beef comes from cows. We kill them and then we eat them.
Pork comes from pigs. We kill them and then we eat them.
Chicken comes from... you get the picture.
I'm not concerned with how these animals die. I'm all out of care for livestock. Just as I'm all out of care for how animals die in the wild.
Call it harsh. Call it callous. Go for it. You made your choices and I've made mine.
DoctorP
07-17-2007, 10:24 PM
Let me make sure I am clear on this:
You don't eat eggs, milk, cheese, butter, chocolate, seafood (fish, shrimp, oysters), beef, chicken, pork, pancakes, ice cream(regular), etc...???
You eat only nuts, berries, fruit, vegatables...is that right?
Artificial milk. Soy milk. I'm sure there are creative ways to make ice cream and pancakes.
TheNoNamedOne
07-17-2007, 10:28 PM
Let me make sure I am clear on this:
You don't eat eggs, milk, cheese, butter, chocolate, seafood (fish, shrimp, oysters), beef, chicken, pork, pancakes, ice cream(regular), etc...???
You eat only nuts, berries, fruit, vegatables...is that right?
Yes, and seeds and grains.
DoctorP
07-17-2007, 10:29 PM
hmmm....not even chocolate huh?? ........not sure what else to say to that?
TheNoNamedOne
07-17-2007, 10:37 PM
What is next on your list? To give up sex? I mean it is a pleasure that is not necessary to one's life right?
Would giving up sex prevent cruelty to some already living thing? I don't see how it would, and therefore your analogy does not fit.
While it is possible to survive without eating meat, meat is also good for ones body. The ADA quote that you provided was interesting, particularly since my sister is/has been a registered dietician for years. If meat and meat products are so bad for ones health, then why are dairy products and meat often prescribed as part of a healthy diet for infants by registered dieticians all over the nation?
Where have I in this thread said meat was unhealthy for us? The ADA clearly states that a vegetarian diet can meets all the requirements for nourishment for all lifecycles AND in addition provide benefits in preventing certain diseases that a meat based diet does not offer.
I am glad you found the ADA material interesting. Is your sister a member of the ADA? Do you know of any reputable org that has reputiated or dismissed the ADA's position paper as wrong? That paper is not just based on a bunch of nutritionists sitting around and giving their opinions. It is backed up with nearly 150 referenced sources from nearly every respected journal in the U.S. Canada, some in Europe with studies conducted and sponsored by a number of national health orgs.
okinawapaul
07-17-2007, 10:57 PM
Would giving up sex prevent cruelty to some already living thing? I don't see how it would, and therefore your analogy does not fit.
Not sure. I do not know your wife, and I suppose not too many people watch, so I guess you are correct here.
Where have I in this thread said meat was unhealthy for us? The ADA clearly states that a vegetarian diet can meets all the requirements for nourishment for all lifecycles AND in addition provide benefits in preventing certain diseases that a meat based diet does not offer.
When you mention meat and diseases in the same sentence as you just did, that usually leads one to think something is not particularly healthy! Am I wrong or do you just talk in circles a lot?
I am glad you found the ADA material interesting. Is your sister a member of the ADA? Do you know of any reputable org that has reputiated or dismissed the ADA's position paper as wrong? That paper is not just based on a bunch of nutritionists sitting around and giving their opinions. It is backed up with nearly 150 referenced sources from nearly every respected journal in the U.S. Canada, some in Europe with studies conducted and sponsored by a number of national health orgs.
Yes she is.
http://www.wellnessletter.com/html/fw/fwNut01HealthyDiet.html
Secondly, fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes—foods high in complex carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, low in fat, and free of cholesterol—should make up the bulk of the calories you consume. The rest should come from low-fat dairy products, lean meat and poultry, and fish.
Even the Mayo clinic doesn't say not to eat meat:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-diet/NU00200
Protein is found in many plant foods. It comes from animal sources as well. Legumes, poultry, seafood, meat, dairy products, nuts and seeds are your richest sources of protein.
and here is a link that I know you will enjoy:
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm
I won't provide quotes from it because it is all just so damn good!
and one last link before I go:
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/leanbeefdiet%20051107
Honestly, for every link you provide, I can provide another. Thus is the nature of the web. Funny how that works out. I'm not saying your lifestyle is bad, I'm just saying quit dogging me about mine!:D
Isaak Brodsky
07-17-2007, 11:27 PM
I can certainly respect those who would have no hand whatever in the continued mass slaughter of livestock for the sake of sustainence. Taking the life of a living creature is an exceedingly solemn act and yet has become in our post-industrial world as easy as exhaling - or inhaling.
The corporatization of animal life is an appalling byproduct capitalism run amok. While I'm not a vege per se, I do feel that we should all be much more thoughtful of the life that had to be sacrificed for our continued existence, or our continued dining delight. When flesh of swines or cattle is seen as a commodity whose futures can be gambled on at, say, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, then something has really gone wrong.
I wouldn't begrudge the carnivores among us their daily bread, or beef steak, but I feel that the over-consumption of meat has really gotten our culture into a serious health pickle.
Tempestuous
07-18-2007, 02:16 AM
Would giving up sex prevent cruelty to some already living thing? I don't see how it would, and therefore your analogy does not fit.
.
You could make a connection between the two by saying:
Sex is not a need but a want, a desire. It is not necessary to survive and sex is not always an enjoyable act for all participants. Many girls & women are viciously abused sexually (even some boys and men) every day around the world. The abuse and cruelty that takes place in relation to sexual desires is rampant.
SO he poses the question to you....are you going to take a stand for stopping sexual abuse & cruelty by abstaining from sex and making others aware of the fact that sex is not a necessary act in order to survive and enjoy life.
In abstaining from sex & encouraging others to do so as well you can bring awareness to the sexual cruelty and abuse that abounds around us.
TheNoNamedOne
07-18-2007, 02:21 AM
SO he poses the question to you....are you going to take a stand for stopping sexual abuse & cruelty by abstaining from sex and making others aware of the fact that sex is not a necessary act in order to survive and enjoy life.
In abstaining from sex & encouraging others to do so as well you can bring awareness to the sexual cruelty and abuse that abounds around us.
It is still not analogical, Temp, simply being because meat consumption creates the demand that causes animal cruelty.
Anyone giving up sex would not stem demand of sexual abuse -- unless they were the ones actually doing the abuse. YOu are not suggesting I am abusing my wife or that my sex with her creates demand for cruelty to women, are you? If so, explain how it does.
Until then, like I have already pointed out, the example is not analogical.
Tempestuous
07-18-2007, 06:58 AM
hmmm....not even chocolate huh?? ........not sure what else to say to that?
I know!!! A totally wasted existence....life void of chocolate. No thank you!!!
:D
TheNoNamedOne
07-18-2007, 03:53 PM
I know!!! A totally wasted existence....life void of chocolate. No thank you!!!
:D
Why don't you and Dr.P know that chocolate comes from seeds? How is that an animal product? Btw, where DO you think it comes from?
Yes, there is milk chocolate, but dark chocolate without milk is the most healthy kind.
Asshat
07-18-2007, 04:21 PM
Having been on party mode for the duretion of this thread, I haven't had a chance to comment. Nothing earth-shattering. It seems a bit of a stretch to talk about vegetanarians as "advanced" in any way possible. For sure, it is now "envouge" but early man ate a lot less meat than modern man does. It is now so easy to raise, fatten, slaughter. No more hiding in the bushes and attacking a field mouse for dinner.
One could take up the pesticide argument, but the run-off from hog farms for instance is much worse than a little bit of DDT et al.
I don't see it as anything other than a choice. There is no morality in it other than cruelty to animals. Not to trivialize, but I have met few people who love animals more than I do, or who do more to conserve nature.
It comes down to my personal relationships with cows and pigs and chickens I suppose. None of them have stellar personalities, and I would never eat a dog. I do process my own meats- everything but the slaughter. I make sausages and bacons, grind my own, etc.
I sure as hell don't feel morally inferior because of it. I eat a wide variety of vegetables all of them grown locally.
We modern humans are addicted to fat. Perhaps there is the morality; having the will to get off of it. But let me get off the booze, nicotine, and weird personal habits before I become an exhaulted vegimatarian!
DoctorP
07-18-2007, 04:34 PM
Why don't you and Dr.P know that chocolate comes from seeds? How is that an animal product? Btw, where DO you think it comes from?
Yes, there is milk chocolate, but dark chocolate without milk is the most healthy kind.
Most people don't eat dark chocolate as it is bitter and not sweet by nature. You even said that you do not eat chocolate. Why would you bring this up now?
TheNoNamedOne
07-18-2007, 07:20 PM
Most people don't eat dark chocolate as it is bitter and not sweet by nature.
You asked me a personal question about MY diet -- particularly adding a comment about chocolate directed to ME -- not most other peoples' diets.
You even said that you do not eat chocolate.
Quote, please.
Why would you bring this up now?
Sometimes my time allotted to posting is limited, or I get interrupted and forget to come back to the exact place and pick up. Because of that there may be lags between questions, comments, and my replies to them. Nothing odd about that, and you will see that on all forums.
Like look at OkinawaPaul's post above. It has not been replied by me yet because I have not had the time (along with some other posts throughout the thread). But, soon I will.
That is a great thing about bulletin board like forums. The posts are always there to be replied to at anytime throughout the thread by anyone who jumps in at anytime as their schedule permits.
Again, chocolate is derived from seeds. I eat dark chocolate. You and Temp just simply made a mistake in generalizing. That is all. Don't take offense for me pointing that out to you.
DoctorP
07-18-2007, 07:30 PM
You asked me a personal question about MY diet -- particularly adding a comment about chocolate directed to ME -- not most other peoples' diets.
Don't get defensive. It is merely a question. I directed the initial question to you, then you answered no, then you rebutted with another answer about different types of chocolate. Leads me to believe that at times you are not totally truthful about your lifestyle and perhaps you were caught up in a, faux pax?
Sometimes my time allotted to posting is limited, or I get interrupted and forget to come back to the exact place and pick up. Because of that there may be lags between questions, comments, and my replies to them. Nothing odd about that, and you will see that on all forums.
:rolleyes:
DoctorP
07-18-2007, 07:32 PM
Sometimes my time allotted to posting is limited, or I get interrupted and forget to come back to the exact place and pick up. Because of that there may be lags between questions, comments, and my replies to them. Nothing odd about that, and you will see that on all forums.
Like look at OkinawaPaul's post above. It has not been replied by me yet because I have not had the time (along with some other posts throughout the thread). But, soon I will.
Another faux pax. You've had the time, but chose to use it in other ways.
That is a great thing about bulletin board like forums. The posts are always there to be replied to at anytime throughout the thread by anyone who jumps in at anytime as their schedule permits.
You are all too perceptive aren't you! Just as I replied, you went in and modified your post. Wonderful thing these boards!
Again, chocolate is derived from seeds. I eat dark chocolate. You and Temp just simply made a mistake in generalizing. That is all. Don't take offense for me pointing that out to you.
But that is not how you answered is it! Again, don't get defensive, just accept yourself for who you are!
TheNoNamedOne
07-18-2007, 07:36 PM
sigh......
Ok, DrP. You got me. I purposely waited a half day to answer for whatever my ulterior motives are in doing so. <shrugs>
Tempestuous
07-19-2007, 01:29 AM
Why don't you and Dr.P know that chocolate comes from seeds? How is that an animal product? Btw, where DO you think it comes from?
Yes, there is milk chocolate, but dark chocolate without milk is the most healthy kind.
Dark chocolate is usually on the bitter side to my taste buds.
I like the additives. *smile*
There is one dark chocolate cake I like, but it has a milk chocolate frosting. Very rich, but worth skipping dinner for ;)
TheNoNamedOne
07-19-2007, 06:37 PM
Sorry for the delay in answering your post, OkiP.
When you mention meat and diseases in the same sentence as you just did, that usually leads one to think something is not particularly healthy! Am I wrong or do you just talk in circles a lot?
You are wrong. Go back and read what I wrote.
In that writing I did not write that meat was unhealthy (though I may in the future). What I did write, and paraphrased at that in quoting the ADA, is that a vegetarian diet offers some ADVANTAGES in preventing some diseases that a meat diet does not do. I did not write there that a meat diet is unhealthy or caused those diseases. The key word here is "advantages."
Yes she is [i.e. OkinawaPaul's sister is a member of the ADA -- edited insert].
Does she reject her own association's position paper on vegetarian diets?
http://www.wellnessletter.com/html/fw/fwNut01HealthyDiet.html
Even the Mayo clinic doesn't say not to eat meat:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-diet/NU00200
Yes, that is right. Those recomendations in those lists you provided are speaking to the general public who are flesh eaters. They do not also tell vegetarians to violate their vegetarian diet and accept these guidelines. They undoubtedly have and are aware of proper guidelines for those who are vegetarians, and that they are confidant vegetarian dietary guidelines meet all their nutritional needs.
and here is a link that I know you will enjoy:
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm
If in this modern world, anywhere in the top 7 industrialized countries, where you may find yourself at any given moment, you think you have the desire to eat, or the genetic makeup, to survive on meat only without fear of it wrecking your body, then I bid you good luck in doing that, and out of scientific curiosity, you would aid to the knowledge of science if you were to contact a university and tell them of your plan so that they may follow your progress -- or deterioration.
For the most part man is not in a tight survivor situation with genetics evoloved to eat like Eskimos for life -- and in case you haven't noticed, we are not Eskimos. Eskimos however would have no physiological problem at all in adopting our diets, or one of a vegetarian diet provided geography allowed for suitable plant life.
I won't provide quotes from it because it is all just so damn good!
Yeah, particularly the disclaimer at the bottom. But, please do call your doctor and ask them if it is ok for you to eat only seal meat for the rest of your life. I bet they will try to discourage you from doing so.
and one last link before I go:
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/leanbeefdiet%20051107
I don't dispute that moderate amounts of lean meat are ok. But, does it provide any protection from certain diseases that a vegetarian diet shows signs of preventing?
Honestly, for every link you provide, I can provide another. Thus is the nature of the web. Funny how that works out.
Yes, you can. The question is though, whether your links and the group backing it carries as much or more weight in prestige and respect. The ADA position paper, supported by the largest association of professional nutritionists with citations from over 150 well respected sources pulled together in an aggregate study, over shadows the ones you have provided.
However, we have gone pretty far off on to the health issue for vegetarianism -- away from the ethical point, which this thread is for. I will soon create a thread targeting the health issues and we can continue this line of discussion there then.
I'm not saying your lifestyle is bad, I'm just saying quit dogging me about mine!:D
I am not dogging you personally. I am dogging the diet which is chosen by you. The diet is an unethical one, and I will go further later in explaining why eventhough you do choose an unethical diet, you can still be an ethical person after all things considered.
P_chan
07-19-2007, 09:09 PM
it's not an unethical diet. Just because you love animals more then people and don't like to eat their meat doesn't make our diet unethical. You know plants are alive too. Since they are alive don't they feel pain once you pick their fruit and eat it? Since your causing pain for a living being I guess that makes your diet unethical too.
TheNoNamedOne
07-19-2007, 10:08 PM
it's not an unethical diet.
It entails unecessary death. Even worse, today's factory farmed animals are raised in ways that cause them to suffer and thwarts virtually every urge they may have, depriving them of the use of their biology.
Just because you love animals more then people and don't like to eat their meat doesn't make our diet unethical.
You are right about the second part. Whether I liked meat or not would not make it unethical. It is unethical either way. But to let you know, I do like to eat meat. I find it delicious. But hedenism is something I do not subscribe to as a philosophy to guide my acts and I am consistent with applying that when suffering is part of the question as to what my choice should be.
Why do you think I love animals more than people? Where have I intimated such? Besides, high school biology will tell you people, too, are animals. We are mammals, and like all mammals our females have teats.
To add though, if I were driving on a busy street with oncoming traffic and crowds of pedestrians on either side, and a cat or squirel jumped out into the road, I would not swerve and choose to kill a pedestrian in lieu of the cat. Now, why do you think I love animals more than people?
What I do love is justice, reason, kindness, compassion, mercy, consistency, nonprejudice, numbers, and all that wrapped together with scrutiny that cuts across all spectrums.
You know plants are alive too.
Yes, they are. But are they sentient? No. Unless you are going to show some inconvertible evidence and studies published in well respected peer reviewed journals that explicitly state so. Well?
I will save you the time and tell you that you won't. You will find a few assertions or studies here and there, but none that has been taken seriously by any large academic or scholarly group.
Since they are alive don't they feel pain once you pick their fruit and eat it?
No. Pain requires nerve endings. Plants do not have those. They also do not have a central processing unit to translate that. Pain has evolved for a purpose with evolution that forces the animal to decide to fight or flight. Plants are imoble and have not evolved pain to make them moble to escape their threat.
In other words, the plant structure is the hardware, there is no software to run the application of pain, and there is no need for it and lack of mobility away from a threat shows us that plants have not evolved it. The hardware needs the software if it is going to run the program.
TheNoNamedOne
08-06-2007, 11:40 PM
Why do pre-schools and elementary schools take trips to orange tree orchards or potato fields for kids to see where some of their food comes from? One reason is because it is fun stretching and picking and digging and rooting. Teachers and parents like it, too, because the kids are in the outdoors surrounded by aspects of nature.
Why don't they usher them into a slaughterhouse so that they have a good view of the kill pit? No reason to choose digging for potatos for a field trip over watching a cow get chopped up alive and hear its panicing screams of death if both are natural. After all, why should something natural be hidden from children? Just animals. Just food.
Well, obviously the the horrors of animal butchery is not something most parents and school officials want children to witness. And good reason -- because it is an assault on our senses, something we know to be unethical that confronts us in the slaughterhouse and killing of animals.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60798-2001Apr9) -- ...For 20 years, his post was "second-legger," a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.
The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren't.
"They blink. They make noises," he said softly. "The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around."
Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. "They die," said Moreno, "piece by piece."
Well, obviously the the horrors of animal butchery is not something most parents and school officials want children to witness. And good reason -- because it is an assault on our senses
Yes
, something we know to be unethical that confronts us in the slaughterhouse and killing of animals.
Nope. This is where you attempt to turn this towards your side, but it's just not true. The reason we don't show young children violence is because they're not prepared to deal with it, not because it's immoral. Same reason we don't show clockwork orange on the cartoon network. Young children aren't prepared for this level of gore. Not sure if you knew this, but some killing is justified. You don't have to agree, we can agree to disagree, but the way I see it, these deaths are justified because I'll be damned if I'm to eat salad and beans for the rest of my life just so animal rights activists around the world can be a little relieved that a few extra cows survived my appetite for beef.
But you'd probably be all for showing blood and guts just to scare the kids to your side, amirite? It's that whole fire and brimstone effect preachers use. Let's scare the ____ out of them while they're gullible! Go for it.
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 12:50 AM
The reason we don't show young children violence is because they're not prepared to deal with it, not because it's immoral.
Would it be wrong/immoral/unethical to show kids something they are not prepared to deal with?
Which choice of words requires a "yes" and what is the difference?
Why aren't kids prepared to deal with what is natural? Little boys down on the farm 200 years ago watched their papa slaughter animals. It was considered natural. Indigenous peoples' and other children of nomads as well.Why not now? Why their children but not ours. Just a maliable mind with no preconceived notions. Or are there?
Are you suggesting some sort of social or even evolution of the mind and sensibilities has occurred since then that makes children of today "not prepared", compared to the kids of then who were "prepared"?
Same reason we don't show clockwork orange on the cartoon network.
But when in the past have children of young age ever been exposed to clockwork orange on the cartoon network and then a move away from that tradition?
Young children aren't prepared for this level of gore.
Why do you think that is now, but wasn't in the past?
Not sure if you knew this, but some killing is justified.
Yes, in survival type situations, or perhaps when the consequences of that killing is the lesser wrong of not killing where more lives are at stake.
Not for pleasure. And the only way you can justify it for pleasure is to make it rest on prejudice or might makes right -- both kinds of reasoning that have been and continue to be pushed back, marginalized, and whittled away at in society. Ethical obligations are doing that.
What do you think are fueling the protections from abuses that farm animals have been having won for them? It is a sense of ethical obligation, something you seem to not be aware of.
You don't have to agree, we can agree to disagree,...
Yes, we can. I have no problem with that, and neither do I take our disagreement as personal.
...but the way I see it, these deaths are justified ...
Since you are replying to my post above and I have a specific quote to highlight what most would see as unethical treatment of animals, I have to ask you if you think an animal not being fully stunned into unconciousness and being cut up alive bit by bit is an ethical practice and fully justified?
That is the quote, and you seem to not even be able to bring yourself to condemn such a thing to a sentient being that feels pain and wants to fight for its life and escape pain as surely as you would. And you base all that on your palate? Your pleasure? To deny condemnation of such a process in order to protect your perceived threats to your tastebuds? What a small gesture it would be on your part if you could just say:
"Hey, that style of death sucks, and that does not define my view of being for meat consumption or against animal rightists. And still keeping my view, I can condemn those killings of that style, and if that means slowing down the slaugherhouse line speed to make sure that the stunner can do his job properly, and if that costs me an extra 25 cents on a pound of beef, I can live by that and accept the small increase in price for extending a small pittance of a quick death."
But you can't even bare to bring yourself to cede to a small kindness, and instead are just blind at the thread and outrage that you think your slab of beef is going to be denied you.
...because I'll be damned if I'm to eat salad and beans for the rest of my life just so animal rights activists around the world can be a little relieved that a few extra cows survived my appetite for beef.
We have a lot more than just salad and beans. You see. You have a narrow view of the situation and are captive merely to your tradition and pleasure at the expense of nonviolence.
But you'd probably be all for showing blood and guts just to scare the kids to your side, amirite? It's that whole fire and brimstone effect preachers use. Let's scare the ____ out of them while they're gullible! Go for it.
Why should truth scare them? Does truth scare? What purpose in our evolution does fear serve? Fear for truth is no threat. Fear for make believe Fairy Sky Gods is irrational and not bound to truth or reality.
Again, many children in the past grew up seeing the blood and gore down on the farm. They could handle it.
Personally, though, I would not, because I know that we have a natural ethical aversion to that before social conditioning takes over. Kids respond well to Charlottes Webb and Bambi, and if those were reinforced at home with the most ethical diet, then there really would be no need to have to convince them with any gore. I am for nurturing that natural aversion, while you are for hiding it and conditioning it away.
Boost
08-07-2007, 12:53 AM
Yes
Nope. This is where you attempt to turn this towards your side, but it's just not true. The reason we don't show young children violence is because they're not prepared to deal with it, not because it's immoral.
I completely agree with your whole post dk. There are many things we do not show our children at a young age for that very reason, they are not prepared to see, hear, and experience such things. If they were, then we could send them out into the world on their own without our guidance.
I also agree that it is not immoral. There are plenty of other animal species that kill and eat other animals. If it is immoral for us, then perhaps we should impose punishments on other animals that eat meat as well.
So, you're telling me that, throughout history, parents have always shown their 3-6 year old kids animal castrations (which happens on the farm) and killings? They didn't wait until the children were a bit older to break them in? And I'm not talking about the minority. I'm talking about the majority. You can proove this?
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 01:35 AM
Wow, dk, I would think that before asking questions, you'd show the courtesy of answering the ones put to you. Or did you think those were all rhetorical questions? They were not.
Or has your silence on those questions ceded the point that you have no answer for them?
So, you're telling me that, throughout history, parents have always shown their 3-6 year old kids animal castrations (which happens on the farm) and killings?
I don't think it was about showing. It was that the kids just grew up with it around without any thought of parents thinking they had to conciously make an effort to show it to them, other than specific instruction when they wanted them to perform the particular technique of whatever husbandry or slaughtering was to be done.
They were just naturally exposed to it, and I never remember reading anywhere that children were shielded from it. Pioneers and nomads are a tough lot. I doubt they had the luxery or even thought of caring for the ethical lives of animals when they believed that their very survival hinged on exploiting them.
It is more probable to assume that the default is that they did not. If you think they did, then show us some reference to suport that, since that is the positive, and we know positives are to be proven.
I'll answer your questions when I have time, but like you've done on a few occasions, I've taken a small bit of your post and replied to it. I'll reply to the rest of it "when i have time".
And your whole "positives are to be proven, negatives aren't" thing cracks me up because as far as I've seen, the only person on the forums who is buying into it is yourself. You can challenge us to provide proof, but as soon as we ask you to provide proof of something you've said you fall back on the same defense. It's cool though man, it's cool. I personally think it's a crock of you know what.
If you make ANY sort of statement, you should be able to at least attempt to proove it.
Tempestuous
08-07-2007, 01:42 AM
Why aren't kids prepared to deal with what is natural? Little boys down on the farm 200 years ago watched their papa slaughter animals. It was considered natural. Indigenous peoples' and other children of nomads as well.Why not now? Why their children but not ours. Just a maliable mind with no preconceived notions. Or are there?
Are you suggesting some sort of social or even evolution of the mind and sensibilities has occurred since then that makes children of today "not prepared", compared to the kids of then who were "prepared"?
This was a natural every day occurance for farm children.
They also were up every morning feeding the animals.
Participated hands on in the birth of the animals on their farm.
When the time came to prepare the animals they had raised for slaughter, the children were a part of it, they were prepared & educated of the process.
At the same time as these farm kids were doing this, there were city kids not doing these things, not being exposed to this.
So it is a part of history to have kids that were exposed to this and kids that were not.
My children however, are not IN the situation the farm kids are.
They are not exposed to that day in and day out. So I don't see that it would be appropriate to be exposed at this time to a slaughter.
Yet, they are fully aware for us to have the chicken we are eating the chicken had to die, pork comes from a pig dieing, beef products are from a cow that is now dead in order for us to eat it.
If my son catches a fish- we all experience the process before cooking it.
We aren't saying we don't tell our kids where our food comes from- we are saying we do not find it appropriate to take our city kids and make them watch the process at that proportion .
Anyhoo-
I can drive about 20-30 min from my front door to a farmers house and their kids are involved. They still run on a school schedule that corresponds to harvest because the kids are out there working right beside their Dad's. They feed, raise, help with births, as well as the slaughter of their end product.
history's process is still happening today some are exposed and others are not.
We have a lot more than just salad and beans.
No one is naive enough to really think you only eat salad & beans. You have fruits, veggies, all your faux dairy & meat products, grains, nuts, etc, etc.
Again, many children in the past grew up seeing the blood and gore down on the farm. They could handle it.
My point exactly, they grew up with it. It was common experience for farm kids. They also ate the meat they processed so seeing it isn't gonna make people stop eating meat.
I know someone who worked at a meat production facility in TX, he is more than willing to talk about, tell you the process, the details, etc and he still eats meat, and all of us he has explained it to still eat it.
So much like the fire & brimstone analogy dk brought up, you aren't gonna run people off from eating meat just cause you tell them it's icky, it's brutal, see for yourself & you will quit eating. People have seen it & people still eat it.
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 01:44 AM
And your whole "positives are to be proven, negatives aren't" thing cracks me up because the only person on the forums who is buying into it is yourself. You can challenge us to provide proof, but as soon as we ask you to provide proof of something you've said you fall back on the same defense.
dk, I am surprised that you are one who now seems to believe that negatives are to be proven. It seems like you have taken issue to it just because you have fallen into the problem of asking for proof for negatives. You never came to the defense of others about the point when I posed it before, so I can only assume you don't like being caught in it.
Wether it "cracks" you up or not is irrelevant. It stands as common knowledge and is accepted as the standard in arguments -- despite your being indignant at having been reminded of it.
So, Temp, just for my knowledge though, farmers have been castrating cattle in front of their 3 year old kids since the beginning of time? Or did they generally wait a few years?
Not that it really matters. You've worded your post far better than I can right this minute. I just wanna know. Castration in front of preschoolers was a common act on the farm?
dk, I am surprised that you are one who now seems to believe that negatives are to be proven. It seems like you have taken issue to it just because you have fallen into the problem of asking for proof for negatives. You never came to the defense of others about the point when I posed it before, so I can only assume you don't like being caught in it.
Wether it "cracks" you up or not is irrelevant. It stands as common knowledge and is accepted as the standard in arguments -- despite your being indignant at having been reminded of it.
You actually think I feel cornered? I've been ignoring the majority of the posts just due to them being long ass topics that I don't care for one way or the other and I didn't feel like getting into a match.
As far as I am concerned, if you make a claim, you'd better be able to back it. Your claim makes it a positive. My rebutal does not suddenly allow you to say, "but dude, it was a negative! you can't do that!"
Tempestuous
08-07-2007, 01:52 AM
So, Temp, just for my knowledge though, farmers have been castrating cattle in front of their 3 year old kids since the beginning of time? Or did they generally wait a few years?
Not that it really matters. You've worded your post far better than I can right this minute. I just wanna know. Castration in front of preschoolers was a common act on the farm?
3yr olds, to the best of MY knowledge, were not out with their dad's they were in the house with their mama's as they were still considered babies
Grade schoolers would be the one's out helping with chores, as they grew they became more and more involved with the processes. So yes, as you are saying, it was age appropriate exposure.
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 01:53 AM
If you make ANY sort of statement, you should be able to at least attempt to proove it.
Just outright false concerning negatives.
Some can choose to if they wish. But in no way are they under any obligation to do so.
That is why scientists (or anyone for that matter) do not have to prove, or even attempt to prove that some spaghetti monster is not flying around the atmosphere, or that magical pink unicorns do not inhabit the center of the earth.
Until they are proven, the defalt is that they do not exist and any person can state that they do not exist without having to feel they have to attempt to prove that they do not.
Okeydokey dude, but you were the one who said preschoolers and elementary children used to be around blood and gore on the farm. That's a positive. We're not talking about behind closed doors.
As far as I am concerned, if you make a claim, you'd better be able to back it. Your claim makes it a positive. My rebutal does not suddenly allow you to say, "but dude, it was a negative! you can't do that!"
Damn straight DK.
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 02:20 AM
Okeydokey dude, but you were the one who said preschoolers and elementary children used to be around blood and gore on the farm. That's a positive. We're not talking about behind closed doors.
Do I have hundreds of diaries to prove that? No. I don't need that. I don't even think you need hundreds of diaries which say, "I did not let my 3 year old go out to the shed because Jeb was going to kill the cow."
Look at the natural state of humans as they have progressed over thousands of years in their social life and customs. Without concrete proof to hold, we can reason this out quite easily.
Do you actually think the tough pioneers took the time to shield their children from the our notions of sensibilities today? How about nomads? Go back 500, 1000, 5000, years. I think you don't understand that our sensitivities are merely a result of luxuries from the modern world that we are conditioned with.
Killing and violence for no reason other than urgent survival is bad. That is why we don't see businesses sprouting up catering to a market of men who want to bring their women dates to a slaughterhouse to enjoy a good viewing of the kill pit. And they are not 3 years old.
Do I have hundreds of diaries to prove that? No. I don't need that. I don't even think you need hundreds of diaries which say, "I did not let my 3 year old go out to the shed because Jeb was going to kill the cow."
Look at the natural state of humans as they have progressed over thousands of years in their social life and customs. Without concrete proof to hold, we can reason this out quite easily.
Do you actually think the tough pioneers took the time to shield their children from the our notions of sensibilities today? How about nomads? Go back 500, 1000, 5000, years. I think you don't understand that our sensitivities are merely a result of luxuries from the modern world that we are conditioned with.
Last I checked, you were saying that it DID happen.
Yes, I think pioneers were human enough to shield their 3 year old daughters from watching a pig get castrated. 500, 1000, 5000 years, I don't have to proove that it didn't happen, right? Proove to me that it did, since you brought it up THAT far back. I'm only thinking back 300 years at most, and we really haven't evolved THAT much since then.
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 02:33 AM
I am asking what is most probable. I don't think it is most probable that humans concerned themselves with our same sensibilities.
You are the one stating a positive. Here:
Yes, I think pioneers were human enough to shield their 3 year old daughters from watching a pig get castrated. And besides, why just 300 years? Social evolution has gone on for thousands of years.
Social evolution has evolved a lot over the years.
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 02:39 AM
You actually think I feel cornered?
lol. No. I view the dialogue as ongoing. I expect you to parry, and you already have.
I've been ignoring the majority of the posts just due to them being long ass topics that I don't care for one way or the other and I didn't feel like getting into a match.
Well, you seem to have gotten yourself into one, and have cared enough on the point causing you to post more than just once.
I am asking what is most probable. I don't think it is most probable that humans concerned themselves with our same sensibilities.
You are the one stating a positive. Here:
And besides, why just 300 years? Social evolution has gone on for thousands of years.
Social evolution has evolved a lot over the years.
Why 300 years? Why not? You will never catch me saying that we have the same sensibilities today that we had even 10 years ago. Times change quickly.
But you stated that young children (preschool-elementary) had a common viewing of farm gore.
I'm still waiting on a valid response. So far, Temp has hit it. You've basically been playing dodgeball.
lol. No. I view the dialogue as ongoing. I expect you to parry, and you already have.
Well, you seem to have gotten yourself into one, and have cared enough on the point causing you to post more than just once.
This is about MEAT. That's different than having military spouses on Okinawa. lol. NOTHING gets in the way of my meat. :thumbup1:
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 01:10 PM
Why 300 years? Why not?
300 is fine. But without being arbitrary, why only at 300?
You will never catch me saying that we have the same sensibilities today that we had even 10 years ago. Times change quickly.
Yes, they do. We agree.
But you stated that young children (preschool-elementary) had a common viewing of farm gore.
I think I said it is more probable/plausible that they were exposed to it.
btw, have you taken a moment to catch up and read post #69 (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7386&postcount=69) yet? If possible, before continuing with new questions or comments, I would appreciate if you could and catch up with some of those questions and comments before accusing me of playing dodgeball. You are a little late and behind the 8 ball on that count. Or pot meet kettle. Whichever metaphor you like best.
I'm at work, so I won't have time for long posts until probably at least 8:30pm or whenever the baby decides to finally go to bed.
TheNoNamedOne
08-07-2007, 01:25 PM
Fair enough.
Would it be wrong/immoral/unethical to show kids something they are not prepared to deal with?
Which choice of words requires a "yes" and what is the difference?
Yes, I think it would be wrong to show kids something they are not prepared to deal with.
It's not your choice of words I have a problem with.
Why aren't kids prepared to deal with what is natural? Little boys down on the farm 200 years ago watched their papa slaughter animals. It was considered natural. Indigenous peoples' and other children of nomads as well.Why not now? Why their children but not ours. Just a maliable mind with no preconceived notions. Or are there?
Temp covered this quite well. It was age selective. Three year olds didn't get to castrate the cattle.
Are you suggesting some sort of social or even evolution of the mind and sensibilities has occurred since then that makes children of today "not prepared", compared to the kids of then who were "prepared"?
Little kids weren't prepared back then, and they're not prepared now. They grew into it, as people do now.
But when in the past have children of young age ever been exposed to clockwork orange on the cartoon network and then a move away from that tradition?
It was an example. I'm pretty sure everyone understood it except you, if you're questioning it.
Yes, in survival type situations, or perhaps when the consequences of that killing is the lesser wrong of not killing where more lives are at stake.
Not for pleasure. And the only way you can justify it for pleasure is to make it rest on prejudice or might makes right -- both kinds of reasoning that have been and continue to be pushed back, marginalized, and whittled away at in society. Ethical obligations are doing that.
What do you think are fueling the protections from abuses that farm animals have been having won for them? It is a sense of ethical obligation, something you seem to not be aware of.
Paragraph 1: You're basically stating when it's ok for ME to kill an animal. You're basically trying to push this on me, and I don't want it.
Paragraph 2: Same as 1, but more yada yada.
Paragraph 3: I feel no moral/ethical obbligation to a cow. I was raised to believe certain animals are killed for our consumption and to not feel bad about it, so I don't feel bad about it. Not even in the least. Maybe I'm wrong in that aspect, but it just doesn't bother me. Woah boy does it bother you though lol. :p
Since you are replying to my post above and I have a specific quote to highlight what most would see as unethical treatment of animals, I have to ask you if you think an animal not being fully stunned into unconciousness and being cut up alive bit by bit is an ethical practice and fully justified?
I think it would be a cleaner death had that animal been knocked out, but I'm not going to change my mind about eating meat because of it.
That is the quote, and you seem to not even be able to bring yourself to condemn such a thing to a sentient being that feels pain and wants to fight for its life and escape pain as surely as you would. And you base all that on your palate? Your pleasure? To deny condemnation of such a process in order to protect your perceived threats to your tastebuds? What a small gesture it would be on your part if you could just say:
"Hey, that style of death sucks, and that does not define my view of being for meat consumption or against animal rightists. And still keeping my view, I can condemn those killings of that style, and if that means slowing down the slaugherhouse line speed to make sure that the stunner can do his job properly, and if that costs me an extra 25 cents on a pound of beef, I can live by that and accept the small increase in price for extending a small pittance of a quick death."But you can't even bare to bring yourself to cede to a small kindness, and instead are just blind at the thread and outrage that you think your slab of beef is going to be denied you.
The price of beef doesn't bother me one way or the other. If it would get you to stop complaining about animals being killed, I'd positively ask them to slow down the lines and jack up the price by 25 cents per pound. I don't look at price tags when I'm out buying meat. I look at the meat. And MAN it looks good.
Why should truth scare them? Does truth scare? What purpose in our evolution does fear serve? Fear for truth is no threat. Fear for make believe Fairy Sky Gods is irrational and not bound to truth or reality.
Again, many children in the past grew up seeing the blood and gore down on the farm. They could handle it.
We've covered this already.
I had a serious question though. Do animal rights activists protest snail cruelty when they're made into escargot? Just curious. Or are you guys only concerned with bigger animals?
Aside from escargot, I think I'm probably done with the topic. I've already said all I've wanted to say regarding the post of yours that I addressed (taking preschool kids to a slaughterhouse).
DougP
08-07-2007, 09:48 PM
If I like sushi does that mean I hate animals? Thought I'd lighten up the debate a bit.
If I like sushi does that mean I hate animals? Thought I'd lighten up the debate a bit.
No, it specifically means you hate dolphins and sea turtles. :D
http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=734
P_chan
08-07-2007, 09:52 PM
if dolphins were so smart they wouldn't taste so good.
if dolphins were so smart they wouldn't taste so good.
LMAO what show is that from? Family Guy? :D
TheNoNamedOne
08-18-2007, 02:45 AM
I had a serious question though. Do animal rights activists protest snail cruelty when they're made into escargot? Just curious. Or are you guys only concerned with bigger animals?
I think most ARists give snails the benefit of the doubt and would not want them to be the target of cruelty or turned into escargot. Maybe they do not feel pain and are not sentient. Personally, I am not sure about it. But, I give them the benefit of the doubt and would not eat them.
There is no doubt about the sense of pain and suffering for larger animals, or even smaller ones such as birds, or even mice. Because there is no doubt there, ARists would be more wise to use their recourses in time and energy to protest for those animals more so than snails.
But, ARists would not criticize another ARist who would choose to spend his/her time in protest against killing snails for food. The ARist platform welcomes all those who have a desire to speak out for any animal that attracts the attention of someone who wants to help that animal.
Being small, it is not like we have the luxery of turning away support when it offers itself to us. Sure, we'd like those involved in the movement to be as consistent as possible, but perfection demanded would be hard for any of us to come by. Reductionism down to smaller and smaller life forms is usually the argument opponents of AR try to fling at animal rightists in an attempt to find inconsistency and then scream, "Aha! You don't protect the ameoba! You're inconsistent."
I think it bothers them that we don't fall for that and become entangled in a neurotic funk of non action.
P_chan
08-18-2007, 08:36 AM
I think it's funny once someone is for animal rights and refuse to use any type of animal product. Yet then they have some type of disease they use medicine for daily (like diabetics). That treatment was a direct result of animal testing, I thought they were against using things that came about from being cruel to animals? Looks like their only against it once it's convenient to them.
TheNoNamedOne
08-19-2007, 09:59 AM
That treatment was a direct result of animal testing, I thought they were against using things that came about from being cruel to animals? Looks like their only against it once it's convenient to them.
Today's insulin, if I am not mistaken, is human insulin and genetically recombinant from DNA technology.
While animal usage (which was probably not the most efficient method and probably slowed progress on a treatment) did go into the developement of initial animal insulin for human use, people of today are not using animal based insulin.
People who say they are against slavery, may still find themselves using a road in the south that was innitially constructed through slave labor or the slave economy. While convenient for them to do so, it does not make it funny that they do so. Just that they do. In the past it was beyond the responsibility of those today. While today's roads lay over the old routes, todays roads are in fact new roads.
Now, back on topic. If you want to pursue the point on animal testing and drugs P_chan, then take it to the animal testing thread you created to discuss that.
ststephen65
08-19-2007, 03:09 PM
well i figured i would chime in a bit. i dont think there is anything wrong with eating meat. for me personaly i try very hard not to eat fast food or anything else that is produced to put out volume instead of quality. personally i think everyone who eats meat should kill/skin/butcher at least one animal to become more aware of the process and to apreciate it. there is a food chain for a reason and there is a reason that we are close to the top but with it being so popular in our culture to buy pre frozen pre package, precooked meat we forget where it came from and an animal did give it slife for us to survive.
pardus
10-15-2007, 06:29 AM
personally i think everyone who eats meat should kill/skin/butcher at least one animal to become more aware of the process and to apreciate it. there is a food chain for a reason and there is a reason that we are close to the top but with it being so popular in our culture to buy pre frozen pre package, precooked meat we forget where it came from and an animal did give it slife for us to survive.
I heartily agree. Anyone who wants to justify eating meat ought to be able to kill and prepared them themselves. I can at least respect someone who is willing to do that. Similarly, anyone who wants to eat meat that was raised at a small "humane" farm should go witness how the animals are butchered, usually at a slaughterhouse. Of course, this is impossible to do, since slaughterhouses know better than to allow people in to witness the horrors inside. You might be able to visit your butcher, though.
Anyone who wants to eat factory farmed meat should be willing to witness the living conditions, transport, and slaughter of the animals. Again, this is not allowed because the industry knows that a large proportion of consumers would never eat meat again.
P_chan
10-15-2007, 07:56 AM
I heartily agree. Anyone who wants to justify eating meat ought to be able to kill and prepared them themselves. I can at least respect someone who is willing to do that. Similarly, anyone who wants to eat meat that was raised at a small "humane" farm should go witness how the animals are butchered, usually at a slaughterhouse. Of course, this is impossible to do, since slaughterhouses know better than to allow people in to witness the horrors inside. You might be able to visit your butcher, though.
Anyone who wants to eat factory farmed meat should be willing to witness the living conditions, transport, and slaughter of the animals. Again, this is not allowed because the industry knows that a large proportion of consumers would never eat meat again.
Yeah...but only a moron doesn't know that animals suffer and are butchered so we can eat them. Honestly, it's called butcher, so what would you think happens?
pardus
10-19-2007, 02:20 PM
the issue is not an absence of knowledge. it's being able to face exactly what you are causing to happen, right there in front of you as your victim screams and splatters you with blood.
A lot of people change their minds as soon as they see undercover videos. Of course they knew what was going on before. They're not "morons" either. Someone told me the other day about their uncle who went to his first day in a swine production facility, walked out, and stopped eating pork.
Clearly, he knew what he was signing up to do. But he couldn't handle the truth when he got right down to it.
It's kind of like certain politicians saying, "yes, I'd be brave in war. I know are bodies all over the place with limbs blown off, but war is necessary and it's worth it." Well I'm not likely to believe you until you actually get there and witness it yourself and come back, and say "yes, I still believe it's worth it. Keep killing 'em."
socalheart
10-19-2007, 03:06 PM
As an aside, yet somewhat related bit:
I've been watching Gordon Ramsey's The F Word (http://www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/f-word/) show. In the first season, he rasied turkeys at his home to serve in the restaurant. In the second season, he raised pigs for the same. In the third, he does the same with lambs.
He wanted his children to understand from where their dinner was coming. There are points in the show that even a die-hard carnivore like Gordon had to think twice about killing the dinner. Heh. I watched an episode that had them killing fresh eel. I don't eat eel, but that was the grossest sluaghter I'd seen. The heart was still beating after the eel had been filleted. Ew!
Anyhow, just sharing. :)
P_chan
10-19-2007, 03:28 PM
the issue is not an absence of knowledge. it's being able to face exactly what you are causing to happen, right there in front of you as your victim screams and splatters you with blood.
A lot of people change their minds as soon as they see undercover videos. Of course they knew what was going on before. They're not "morons" either. Someone told me the other day about their uncle who went to his first day in a swine production facility, walked out, and stopped eating pork.
Clearly, he knew what he was signing up to do. But he couldn't handle the truth when he got right down to it.
It's kind of like certain politicians saying, "yes, I'd be brave in war. I know are bodies all over the place with limbs blown off, but war is necessary and it's worth it." Well I'm not likely to believe you until you actually get there and witness it yourself and come back, and say "yes, I still believe it's worth it. Keep killing 'em."
To me, the more it suffers, the better it tates:D
How is it not an absense of knowledge? You either know what's going on in a slaughter house or you don't. If you didn't, then that's an absense of knowledge, don't see how you missed that.
Yeah, actually they are overly senstive morons. Honestly, how could you not know it's bloody and full of death? It's sad that people think that this world is all sunshine, farts, and cuddly teddy bears. I've see all the 'undecover' highly edited propoganda, and it doesn't change my opinion on the matter. Because I'm not overly sensitive to that kind of stuff.
How do you know I was never at a slaughter house? For the record, I have been to a slaughter house, and the only thing that bothered me was the smell. I've also seen all those edited videos people like to post on youtube. Yet I still love meat. So no, your wrong, not everyone is like that. So please, enlighten me with another one of your generalzations and/or assumptions about my life since you know me and my personality so well.:rolleyes:
So here you go, I'm saying it. Yes I believe it's still worth killing them. I'm above them on the food chain, and I choose to eat them. It's the way I choose to eat, you have no say in it. It's a good thing I eat them too, otherwise they would go to waste.:D
pardus
10-19-2007, 03:37 PM
did I miss something, like where I said that everyone changes their minds when they see these things, or where I said anything about you personally?
oh, I guess the last line in my post looks like it. I meant that "you" to be directed at the theoretical politician who was calling for war without ever having been in one.
but anyway, so you've gone & looked, that's good.
P_chan
10-19-2007, 03:44 PM
Well I'm not likely to believe you until you actually get there and witness it yourself and come back, and say "yes, I still believe it's worth it. Keep killing 'em."
Seems like 'you' is directed at me going to a slaughter house and the keep killing them was refering to slaughtered animals.
did I miss something, like where I said that everyone changes their minds when they see these things, or where I said anything about you personally?
See, this is where your wrong. Obviously they truely DIDN'T know what was really going on in there because they changed their mind once they saw it. Yet you said they knew, but changed their eating habits because of what they saw.
pardus
10-20-2007, 03:29 AM
as I said in my last post, I realize now that it does look like I was addressing you P_chan, so I take back asking why you thought I was making claims about you personally.
And I did say earlier, "a lot of people change their minds," but I didn't say that everybody does. This whole thought was in response to StStephen's thought about people needing to realize that they are taking a life in order to eat.
I think this is a good idea, and most people don't do it. StStephen has thought about it and therefore avoids factory farmed meat. Other people have seen images about it and become vegan. You saw it and continue to enjoy meat. These are all instances of people at least making an effort to acknowledge what they are paying for.
I think that much is important, and to be encouraged.
TheNoNamedOne
10-20-2007, 11:50 AM
It's kind of like certain politicians saying, "yes, I'd be brave in war. I know are bodies all over the place with limbs blown off, but war is necessary and it's worth it." Well I'm not likely to believe you until you actually get there and witness it yourself and come back, and say "yes, I still believe it's worth it. Keep killing 'em."
Excellent point!
So easy for many to say, "Yeah, I could kill someone in war," but when the time comes to it there are those who just can't do it. I think the same would happen if everyone who wanted to eat meat had to kill that kind of animal for that meat in order to be able to get a license for purchasing that particular meat. I think some would not be able to do it.
Or what if the licensing requirement entailed them having to work in a slaughterhouse on the kill pit floor for 3 months? I think there would be many people not passing the licensing requirement.
Like you said, Pardus, people know, but they don't really know. Seeing is the more knowing.
OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand
11-07-2007, 07:52 PM
You know plants are alive too. Since they are alive don't they feel pain once you pick their fruit and eat it? Since your causing pain for a living being I guess that makes your diet unethical too.
Ah, I see you are familiar with L. Ron Hubbard's experimental work, and with the E-meter. Are you merely sympathetic to the cause, or a card-carrying Scientologist? Are you friends with Tom Cruise?
P_chan
11-07-2007, 08:12 PM
Ah, I see you are familiar with L. Ron Hubbard's experimental work, and with the E-meter. Are you merely sympathetic to the cause, or a card-carrying Scientologist? Are you friends with Tom Cruise?
Ahhh are you going to start stalking and insulting me now too? I never said anything about scienctology. So what if I was a scienctologist? You sure do like to look down on people who are different then you now don't you?
Boy, you sure are an instigator today aren't you?
I was referring to an article I had read before. I made a thread about it, in case you missed that.
http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&highlight=plants
Here are some smiles in case you need them :ohmy::-|\:-):thumbdown::thumbup1::first::barf:
TheNoNamedOne
11-07-2007, 08:18 PM
After you left my post to you on plant pain here unanswered and unaddressed, Pchan, I never even noticed you had created a new thread on the topic. Did you address any of my points in that new thread of yours?
I will go and look.
OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand
11-07-2007, 08:21 PM
Hey P-chan, thanks for the link and smilies:) Actually, I like people who are different from me...the old 'opposites attract' thing:star:
P_chan
11-07-2007, 08:24 PM
After you left my post to you on plant pain here unanswered and unaddressed, Pchan, I never even noticed you had created a new thread on the topic. Did you address any of my points in that new thread of yours?
I will go and look.
Nope, you made a valid point and you were right, plants don't have nerves. I didn't say anything because there was nothing else to say about it. The plants having feelings too comment is just a train of thought I was having at the time that I brought to the discussion. I had heard of someone doing research on the subject so I went and looked it up at a later date after finding a news article that reminded me of it. Turns out the guy was kinda crazy, so I shared the idea of his studies, but didn't say that they were right or prove anything.
Just interesting information.:thumbup:
TheNoNamedOne
11-07-2007, 08:29 PM
Nope, you made a valid point and you were right, plants don't have nerves. I didn't say anything because there was nothing else to say about it. The plants having feelings too comment is just a train of thought I was having at the time that I brought to the discussion. I had heard of someone doing research on the subject so I went and looked it up at a later date after finding a news article that reminded me of it. Turns out the guy was kinda crazy, so I shared the idea of his studies, but didn't say that they were right or prove anything.
Just interesting information.:thumbup:
Yeah, I just checked out that thread you made.
I read that article before and the one debunking him a while aback. Also, the original experiment that produced all those inferences that plants do feel pain has never been able to be duplicated by other researchers with the same results.
I guess you won't ever be using the failing question, "But what about plants?" when discussing vegetarianism or AR again, huh? To do so after you already have knowledge that it is a failed argument would be a dishonest tactic.
P_chan
11-07-2007, 08:32 PM
I never knew there was a study debunking it. I had heard about it, so I mentioned it here, and forgot to research it further. After being reminded about it by news article I read, I researched it further and found it to pretty much to be false.
Don't worry, I won't bring up the idea that plants feel pain again. After all I just admitted that your right and they don't feel pain. So why would I bring it up again after realizing that it was false?
TheNoNamedOne
11-07-2007, 08:36 PM
Fair enough.
Glad to see that long ago post of yours left dangling put to rest. Thanks.
OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand
11-07-2007, 09:06 PM
To me, the more it suffers, the better it tates:D
The science behind the taste:
http://www.hiyt.afhe.ualberta.ca/fall05projects/tastethetlc.pdf
...the treatment of pigs affects the palatability of their meat.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Cooking-Meat-750/wild-taste-wild-hog.htm
a lot of the wild taste is due to mishandling of the meat. Not by you, but by the hunter. It starts with how it is hunted and killed.
The meat industry has recongnized since the 1880's that an animal that dies under stress results in what is known as "dark cutting" meat. It results in darker than normal meat with a gummy sticky consistency. It is caused by lack of lactic acid in the meat raising the pH and allowing bacterial growth. This is due to alot of adrenaline in the animal and resulting in abnormal body chemistry post mortem.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E/x6909e04.htm
ark Firm and Dry (DFD) meat (Fig. 1)
This condition can be found in carcasses of cattle or sheep and sometimes pigs and turkeys soon after slaughter. The carcass meat is darker and drier than normal and has a much firmer texture. The muscle glycogen has been used up during the period of handling, transport and pre-slaughter and as a result, after slaughter, there is little lactic acid production, which results in DFD meat. This meat is of inferior quality as the less pronounced taste and the dark colour is less acceptable to the consumer and has a shorter shelf life due to the abnormally high pH-value of the meat (6.4-6.8). DFD meat means that the carcass was from an animal that was stressed, injured or diseased before being slaughtered.
P_chan
11-07-2007, 09:54 PM
.......it was a joke:-|
Here are some smiles in case you need them :ohmy::-|:-):thumbdown::thumbup1::first::barf:
I came this | | close to spitting my coffee on my keyboard just now. :D
kombu_kid
11-07-2007, 11:15 PM
How about eating/drinking dairy products? Extracted from "slaves"?
pardus
11-14-2007, 12:10 PM
hmm. I didn't know about DFD. I learned about the industry term PSE, or Pale, Soft, Exudative meat. Also from highly stressed pigs, and one of the reasons cited for enhancing animal welfare, because PSE cannot be marketed very well.
As for milk, you do realize what a dairy cow goes through, don't you?
She's forcibly impregnated, while still lactating, both of which are enormous stressors on the body. Then she gives birth, with oxytocin coursing in her veins (which stimulated the uterine contractions, helps with milk let-down, and PROMOTES BONDING), but has her calf taken away within 12 hours.
The calf is fed and housed separately, either as a replacement heifer or as a veal calf. You know the story behind veal crates & not being able to turn around & all that, right? Even the ones advertising on the web with pictures of their bright airy barns that allow them to see one another still show them in tiny stalls.
The cow is milked 2-4 times daily, whether or not she has a raging infection. 1/3-1/2 the herd does, that's why you regularly do CMT's the California Mastitis Test, to count how many white blood cells are in the sample to see if they're beneath the acceptable level.
She finally stops lactating for 2months but remember she's already pregnant again, and although she's been bred for good conformation in the back to support as much stress as possible, her body is constantly under enormous stress.
Once her milk production has peaked, which is 2 cycles for a factory farmed cow, she's sent off to the same slaughterhouse as everyone else. She's more likely to be one of those downer cows because of the wretched condition of her body, in which case she's dragged off by the fetlock in chains.
Let's just hope she doesn't run into her calf in the same transport truck. Oh wait, he was chopped up long ago. Silly me.
ja_Patriot
11-20-2007, 09:56 PM
See what happens when you eat your veggies. Weird but real.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/11/12/w3a.jpg
Tree man 'who grew roots' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QAQAMRDKZWMERQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/12/wtree112.xml).
TheNoNamedOne
04-25-2008, 05:41 PM
My reason for becoming a vegetarian is based on the first in the list -- moral and ethical reasons,...
Another vegetarian for moral reasons:
The strongest support for vegetarianism as a positive ideal anywhere in Torah literature (http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/ravkook.html) is in the writings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Isaac_Kook) (1865-1935). Rav Kook was the first Chief Rabbi of pre-state Israel and a highly respected and beloved Jewish spiritual leader in the early 20th century. He was a mystical thinker, a forceful writer, and a great Torah scholar.
Rav Kook was a very prolific writer who helped inspire many people to move toward spiritual paths. He urged religious people to become involved in social questions and efforts to improve the world. His powerful words on vegetarianism are found primarily in A Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace (edited by Rabbi David Cohen, "The Nazir").
Rabbi Kook believed that the permission to eat meat "after all the desire of your soul" was a concealed reproach and a qualified command. [4] He stated that a day will come when people will detest the eating of the flesh of animals because of a moral loathing, and then it shall be said that "because your soul does not long to eat meat, you will not eat meat." ...
Rabbi Kook believed that the high moral level involved in the vegetarianism of the generations before Noah, is a virtue of such great value that it cannot be lost forever.
applejacks
04-27-2008, 12:26 AM
Rabbi Kook believed that the permission to eat meat "after all the desire of your soul" was a concealed reproach and a qualified command. [4] He stated that a day will come when people will detest the eating of the flesh of animals because of a moral loathing, and then it shall be said that "because your soul does not long to eat meat, you will not eat meat." ...:
Ok, let me first of start by saying, I am not commenting to stir the pot since I have read enough threads to know it can get a bit ugly between meat eaters and grass munchers but as I read TP's posts, there are certain things I can accept and appreciate the information. I know it would be better for me to cut down on red meat, etc, we all heard it before, but I refuse to give it up. Just too darn tasty! There was one steak place in the States I would just dream about and the steaks were like having a great big food "O."
Maybe I am being girly, thinking of those cute cows with big brown eyes, or maybe it's the subliminal messages TP uses in his posts, whatever the reason is, my nice steak salad today at lunch was just not enjoyable.
Score one for TP today... not everything you post falls on deaf ears.
Trail
04-27-2008, 08:29 AM
Maybe I am being girly, thinking of those cute cows with big brown eyes, or maybe it's the subliminal messages TP uses in his posts, whatever the reason is, my nice steak salad today at lunch was just not enjoyable.
Score one for TP today... not everything you post falls on deaf ears.
This is why "farm life" is under-appreciated. IF you grow up knowing that cute baby calf will make a fine meal someday, you tend not to resist the inevitable. You get a glimpse into what a life cycle really is about. Your job as a responsible owner is to make sure these animals are treated well, fed well, and die without suffering.
Do I like the idea of slaughter houses, no. But that is the way humans have went since no one can do anything for themselves anymore and supply is sky high.
TheNoNamedOne
04-27-2008, 11:27 AM
This is why "farm life" is under-appreciated. IF you grow up knowing that cute baby calf will make a fine meal someday, you tend not to resist the inevitable.
Thankfully farming communities are dying off more and more as young people do not want to continue the tradition of animal agriculture. I guess that sense of what is "inevitable" cannot be imprinted on their children when they are raised in the city. That is good, because it does not have to be "inevitable".
pardus
04-30-2008, 02:29 PM
dunno if that's a good thing, though. it just leaves everything to industrial agriculture. ack!
TheNoNamedOne
04-30-2008, 02:33 PM
dunno if that's a good thing, though. it just leaves everything to industrial agriculture. ack!
Yes, there is that catch22 situation.
OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand
04-30-2008, 02:45 PM
The art of farming has been destroyed in North America :(
http://pureland.blogspot.com/search/label/Monsanto
日本 りより
06-26-2008, 10:26 AM
Busted
So, off topic but since this is your specialty, TP, maybe you wouldn't mind moving the following comment to the appropriate thread:
I'm not a vegetarian and doubt I ever will be but I'd like to get closer to it. I'd like to eat a mostly vegetarian diet with meat a couple times a week, mostly chicken or seafood, and pork, and red meat once in a while. I'm already moving in that direction with my eating habits and only have beef occasionally.
I read somewhere that prisoners who get placed on a macrobiotic diet are rehabilitated faster and that perhaps if we, as a nation ate less meat, would possibly be less violent and aggressive. hmmm?
TheNoNamedOne
06-26-2008, 10:29 AM
lol.
Will do in a little while, 日本. Diving around the threads right now.
----------------------------------------------
Edit to add: Moved your post from the "Vick drunk driving" thread to here as requested, 日本.
CaptainMcLusty
06-29-2008, 09:54 PM
Starting on Monday, June 30, I am going to start 1 Meat-Free Month....
I want to see if I can sprout some morals and ethics through sprouts.
Wish me luck!!!
And yeah...I'm throwing down my dork card, and Im starting a BLOG about it... Feel free to check it out...
http://weblog.xanga.com/islandfever0ki
TheNoNamedOne
06-30-2008, 12:16 AM
Good luck, Island. I'll check your blog once in a while.
Might as well make a thread here about it, too.
CaptainMcLusty
06-30-2008, 08:05 AM
since your not eating meat for a whole month does that mean no BJ's....
lol:grin1::scratchchin:
I never said anything about not eating any Man-Meat!! haha:thumbup1:
I'd like to spend a week or two, maybe even a month on a vegetarian, maybe even vegan diet. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to it.
CaptainMcLusty
06-30-2008, 12:54 PM
I'd like to spend a week or two, maybe even a month on a vegetarian, maybe even vegan diet. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to it.
Do it Ryukyuchina!!! DO IT!!! :first:
gibbonboy
07-01-2008, 11:05 AM
Like I've said, it's never been really a moral issue for me. It all started when my son said at dinner, " I don't want to eat animals anymore". We discussed it and questioned him (because I don't generally let 3-year-olds run my life) and decided that we'd try it. Well, after 4 years of being vegan, we decided that we really need cheese once in a while. My niece is allergic to eggs, so we don't use them at all.
The thing that was most surprising to me was even though I considered myself an accomplished cook, I learned so many more techniques and recipes as a vegan. I learned to use ingredients that I would have never considered before, and I'm sure it's improved my culinary skills immensely. I'd love to open a small restaurant some day, and I think being a veg*n really opened up my skills and horizons in food.
My wife's coworkers always ask for a batch of my vegan twinkies. I got the recipe from a site called Vegan Lunchbox, and many more recipes from vegweb.com . VegWeb is probably the biggest resource I've found for recipes and ideas.
Good for you Island, see how you feel after 2 weeks, I'm sure you won't ever eat nearly as much meat as you do now, maybe you'll stay veg! Be creative, you don't just have to eat salad or rice and beans for a month! My vegan bacon is indistinguishable from the real stuff if you don't see it (tested at work on 10 dedicated carnivores). I'll be checking your blog often (geeky as it is :rolleyes:)
TheNoNamedOne
07-01-2008, 11:13 AM
Interesting info, GibbonB. Thanks for sharing the part about your family and the innitial reason for going vegan.
Wow. Kids sure can impact adults with their poignant and innocent declarations, can't they?
I know you said you are not a vegan due to moral reasons, but you do have to accept that it was your child who pushed the first domino that changed your family's diet, and clearly he saw it as a moral issue that affected you guys. I think you may need to at least allow for some thought on the reason that at least some morals actually did come into the equation. Maybe not all, but certainly some. To deny that is not giving proper credit where it is due to your child.
Again, thanks for sharing.
Maggie
07-08-2008, 05:34 AM
Why? I haven't brought up a moot point or said anything inconsistant that your thread would clear up. Unless you can give me a good argument that is consistent as to why I should retract my thoughts on vegetarianism and reverse my decision to be a vegetarian. If so, I will.
Are you a vegan TP
Maggie
pardus
07-12-2008, 09:21 AM
I read somewhere that prisoners who get placed on a macrobiotic diet are rehabilitated faster and that perhaps if we, as a nation ate less meat, would possibly be less violent and aggressive. hmmm?
I think switching to a vegan diet goes along with becoming less receptive to violence, and that it goes both ways. It would be hard to demonstrate, but intuitively, it makes sense. At every meal, you're making a choice that does not require violence. That becomes a habit and informs your overall attitude.
I've never heard of such a study, though. Sounds interesting. Difficult to design, I imagine.
Sex Wax
07-12-2008, 09:35 AM
I think if you want to eat meat, you should have to fight the animal you want to chow down on. Like if you wanted steak, you would have to go in and wrestle a bull. Or chicken, you would have to fight a chicken with a bowie knife duct taped to each of its feet,to make it fair. Fishing would be cool. You get into a pool of fish, with only a fork instead of a speargun. after 5 minutes, if you still dont have any fish, a school of piranna is released. Oh, and if you lose...the animals get to eat you. AND you have to clean all your own food.
Me, I guess I would only be eating baby lamb. I think I could take a baby lamb. Unless they arm it with a head mounted battle axe.
Then I'll just be eating pasta for awhile.
:thumbup1:
TheNoNamedOne
07-12-2008, 11:51 AM
I think switching to a vegan diet goes along with becoming less receptive to violence, and that it goes both ways. It would be hard to demonstrate, but intuitively, it makes sense. At every meal, you're making a choice that does not require violence. That becomes a habit and informs your overall attitude.
I've never heard of such a study, though. Sounds interesting. Difficult to design, I imagine.
Hi Pardus,
Long time no see.
Actually, there does seem to be some research regarding violence and diet. Check this link (http://www.foodaq.com/html/General/46065.html) out from this thread (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3830&highlight=prison+vegetarian).
pardus
07-14-2008, 12:48 PM
weeell, I wouldn't exactly call it research. More like "interesting anecdote-gathering that starts someone pondering whether there might be some demonstrable (word?) correlation."
:scratchchin:
I used to live in Baltimore; I recognize the radio show host and I think I passed by the correctional facility all the time. (not sure if it was that specific facility).
日本 りより
07-14-2008, 02:10 PM
Not sure where the studies took place that he refers to (in bold) in the below message, but I thought this was interesting, although mostly cause my Uncle wrote it:
Thanks for the tip. I will look for that article. Scientists like to
think of themselves as being unbiased. However, they and we overlook
the fact that science is based on values at great peril. Virtually all
scientific inquiry is financed by organizations that have a stake in the
outcome. No matter how objectively it is designed and carried out, the
selection of research to be financed or undertaken involves value
judgements.
Western science also differs from eastern science. Macrobiotics are
based on a completely separate body of knowledge from western nutrition
science. The placement of foods on a yin-yang continuum may seem
arbitrary or metaphysical to someone trained in western modes of
thinking. However, it has worked wonders for many people suffering from
cancer and other ailments. (It is a major factor in giving me relief
from a gall stone problem.)
The 'Scientific American pyramid' as you describe it seems to have some
correlation to a macrobiotic diet. I think the distinction between
whole grains and processed grains is very important. I am convinced
that any kind of processing encourages fat storage.
The Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org) sued
the government because of conflicts of interest on the part of the board
that devised the current food pyramid. Livestock and dairy industry
interests prevailed in its design. I doubt that our government, serving
as it does at the whim of corporate interest, can be trusted to advise
us on matters as personally important as diet and health. (What can it
be trusted with?)
I also doubt that mainstream medical doctors can be relied on for
information concerning diet. Their field of study is disease and drugs,
not health and diet. I don't think that they have been taught about the
body's natural regenerative capabilities and how it will cure itself
when it is not subjected to physical, psychological and emotional
abuse.
Much is at stake in determining what a nation eats. I firmly believe
our diet influences our politics. Studies have shown that prisoners are
more easily rehabilitated when they are on a macrobiotic (mostly
vegetarian) diet. Perhaps we would be a less violent and aggressive
people if we all ate lower on the food chain. Many advocates of
vegetarian diets will contend that livestock production is one of our
major environmental problems. Cattle interests rule the west. How
different politics and landscapes would look in the western states if
that weren't so.
0341isa
04-07-2009, 01:58 PM
I can somewhat accept the moral argument. That up to your own personal feeling, but I totally can't get behind the health thing.
1. If Humans weren't meant to eat meat, why are we born designed to do so? Why are we born with the enzymes to digest meat?
2. If we weren't meant to eat meat, why do we have teeth that are obviously meant for a diet that includes meat? (To point out the importance of this, remember that scientists often examine the teeth of fossils to determine what kind of diet the animal probably ate when they were alive.)
3. If veganism is the naturally healthy way we were meant to eat, why does it seem like people on a vegetarian diet have to make so many special adjustemnts to their diets to replace the nutrients they arent getting ....from meat!
GODH8SU
04-07-2009, 03:09 PM
Talk about a bump on a thread.
Zim the Invader
04-07-2009, 04:37 PM
A few pages back the argument about the rear teeth evolving to better suit a diet of nuts and berries and the like. But the poster also gave the argument that there was some debate about our original diet as humans. I think those conflict. If we evolved to be able to eat nuts and berries, then it stands to reason that we ate something else before that. And since we don't photosynthesize, I think our options were limited. In addition, if our rear teeth changed over time to suit a more passive diet, why not the front ones, which are still suited for the ripping and tearing of meat?
On a personal note, I find referring to meat as "flesh" to be annoying and pathetic as an attempt to give a negative connotation and imagery to meat in an obvious effort to gain support for your cause. Which, by the way, conflicts with your statements about not liking inconsistencies in your life. If you want to brainwash people, just say it. Subversive behavior is annoying.
Lol about a year too late there buddy.
Zim the Invader
04-07-2009, 05:27 PM
Lol about a year too late there buddy.
I wasn't here a year ago. Plus, I'm not going to go thread spelunking. Especially for something as retarded as vegan-ism.
Other than to feed people, cows have no purpose. When was the last time you saw a discovery channel segment on the disappearing herds of wild cows and how spreading cities were closing in on their natural habitat? Or how they were being pushed to the brink of extinction from all those natural predators they have?
They aren't really found wild anywhere in the world, so if we didn't grow them to eat, they'd pretty much fade away. And how does that help them in their struggle for equal rights?
GODH8SU
04-07-2009, 06:01 PM
Did someone say steak?
Just John
04-07-2009, 06:03 PM
Bacon. Whenever I read something about vegan, or whatever the fluk they're calling that crap these days, I get a craving for bacon.
TheLastDon
04-07-2009, 07:04 PM
Did someone say BACON? (http://www.recipestar.com/quizzes/view/bacon-addict)
On a personal note, I find referring to meat as "flesh" to be annoying and pathetic as an attempt to give a negative connotation and imagery to meat in an obvious effort to gain support for your cause. .
I agree only with the exception of this "flesh"....<3:D
http://www.iseekgirls.com/blog/wp-content/naomi_white_thongs_bubble_butt.jpg
gibbonboy
04-07-2009, 10:34 PM
http://www.recipestar.com/img/photos/quizzes/generated/7_90.jpg
I fell off the vegan wagon quite a while back. Bacon and cheese are too important.
TheLastDon
04-08-2009, 06:12 AM
http://www.recipestar.com/img/photos/quizzes/generated/7_90.jpg
I fell off the vegan wagon quite a while back. Bacon and cheese are too important.
I can't get 100%.:D
http://www.recipestar.com/img/photos/quizzes/generated/7_98.jpg
http://www.recipestar.com/quizzes/view/bacon-addict
http://www.recipestar.com/img/photos/quizzes/generated/7_100.jpg:grin1::first:
P_chan
04-08-2009, 07:44 AM
http://www.recipestar.com/img/photos/quizzes/generated/7_78.jpg
0341isa
04-08-2009, 08:25 AM
Ahh "rehabilitated". Prisoner is a significant word usage here, I think. Placing military and political prisoners on diets especially low in protein has been an established tactic to wear down their willpower, and blunt their resistance to interrogation or brainwashing. When you think of it that way, it might put this other study in a different context. Studies have shown that prisoners are
more easily rehabilitated when they are on a macrobiotic (mostly
vegetarian) diet. Perhaps we would be a less violent and aggressive
people if we all ate lower on the food chain.
By the way, where do we draw the line between "whats less violent and aggressive" and being flat out meek?
Sex Wax
04-08-2009, 08:45 AM
Did someone say BACON? (http://www.recipestar.com/quizzes/view/bacon-addict)
Bacon, it's whats for Breakfast (and Lunch, Dinner, Midnight Snack, etc)
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o169/AshMiller1972/bacon-1.jpg
0341isa
04-08-2009, 09:53 AM
This is why "farm life" is under-appreciated. IF you grow up knowing that cute baby calf will make a fine meal someday, you tend not to resist the inevitable. You get a glimpse into what a life cycle really is about. Your job as a responsible owner is to make sure these animals are treated well, fed well, and die without suffering.
Do I like the idea of slaughter houses, no. But that is the way humans have went since no one can do anything for themselves anymore and supply is sky high.
You could no one does anything for themselves, (farms their food, raises their feedstock, etc), but then again, why should they? Specialized labor is the mark of an efficent and evolved society.
On the animals not suffering thing, no they shoudn't suffer. I thought that if the animal suffered, (or was scared) that it made the meat taste worse? (no, really. I'm asking. Anyone know about this?)
BTW baby calf. mmmmmmmm......
Oh, and whoever mention "meat eaters VS grass munchers" earlier...:D... uhmm nevermind.
P_chan
04-08-2009, 10:11 AM
You could no one does anything for themselves, (farms their food, raises their feedstock, etc), but then again, why should they? Specialized labor is the mark of an efficent and evolved society.
On the animals not suffering thing, no they shoudn't suffer. I thought that if the animal suffered, (or was scared) that it made the meat taste worse? (no, really. I'm asking. Anyone know about this?)
BTW baby calf. mmmmmmmm......
Oh, and whoever mention "meat eaters VS grass munchers" earlier...:D... uhmm nevermind.
It's fact that the more an animal is abused (physically, emotionally, and verbally) the better it tastes:D
Crazysix
04-08-2009, 10:21 AM
It's fact that the more an animal is abused (physically, emotionally, and verbally) the better it tastes:D
LMAO look at women perfect example*****ducks shoe*****
gibbonboy
04-08-2009, 11:13 AM
I thought that if the animal suffered, (or was scared) that it made the meat taste worse? (no, really. I'm asking. Anyone know about this?)
Go to Youtube and search for "slaughterhouse". When you find the video that makes you scared AND nauseous, that's probably the real thing. The only time the animal remotely stands any chance of being relaxed is if it is the ONLY animal being killed. That usually only happens on a family farm, and nowadays it's pretty rare even there. Most people I know just drop their animals off at the slaughterhouse and tell them how much gets ground, what cuts they want, etc.
I'm certainly no PETA activist, we ate vegan mostly because of health reasons, and we're wwaaaayyy away from being vegan now. But large plants like Smithfield, Cargill, or Hormel are pretty freaky places. But most people are so far removed from that they can't even realistically imagine it.
Sex Wax
04-08-2009, 11:37 AM
I used to live near the Smithfield Ham Plant in V.A., we even went there on a high school field trip since most of the students would end up working there (or Busch Gardens or become oystermen). Great place. I got to see step by step how my Bacon is made. Makes me appreciate it more.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.