Eating Meat, Preference or Necessity?

[madnak]

That's correct. I can't criticize anyone for saying that it's fine to eat meat.

At the same time, if you "pick and choose," then you're inconsistent and in the realm of religion. If a person derives sufficient pleasure from microwaving a cat, then I can't see how that isn't justified to the same degree that animal agriculture is. This is especially true considering that animals no longer graze on fallow land, but use up considerable amounts of arable land. They may also contribute significantly to global climate change.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realise until the two threads here how vile I find the idea of "it'll be fine if you just take a few pills a day"

[/ QUOTE ]

I originally said eating pills as an example of how to make sure you would get all nutrients, I never said it's necessary, or that it would need to be daily. I didn't realize how afraid of eating pills some of you guys are, personally I eat them sometimes even though I do eat meat. Also, vegan diet is on average probably healthier than the diets of most meat eaters.

That said, how do you vegetarians take care of B12-vitamine (which AFAIK is the only nutrient that possibly isn't included in any vegetable, although there's some research going on about this)? Vitaminized food?

[madnak]

Yes, fortified foods are where most vegans get it. There are some others though, like tempeh.

[Jiggymike]

I don't see how eating meat and torturing animals are comparable. Theoretically, animals raised for meat are supposed to be treated well (I know they often aren't but this is a different point) and made healthy in order to be viable for consumption. The farmer takes care of the animal, raises it, and has it killed for the sole purpose of food and income. He/she derives pleasure not from making the animal die some horrible way but from the money made to support himself and family. Just because it is possible to live off of nothing but vegetable matter does not make it WRONG to raise and kill animals. Looked at another way, if we weren't raising pigs (best example) for meat, we wouldn't raise them at ALL and there would only be a few around as pets. These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

Torturing animals is another ballpark altogether. Cats and dogs are bred as pets, not as food sources (in most first world countries). By killing them and taking pleasure from it, you are only benefitting yourself in a manner that would be considered sick/sadistic by most. It is 'self-gain' in a way that a farmer is gaining from raising/killing animals but it does not benefit anyone but the killer. It also puts the animal through considerable suffering, which good farmers do not do.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely better to never exist than to be born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and live an unnatural life full of pain. And even most of the "best" farmers still keep animals in uncomfortable prisons where they can't live even nearly like they would if they were free and in nature.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just as healthy (perhaps healthier) as your meat eating friends if you're proactive about your diet (this may require taking vitamin supplements).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realise until the two threads here how vile I find the idea of "it'll be fine if you just take a few pills a day"

Its also hyprocritical if offered by someone who generally prefers 'natural' options, which I think may often be the case.

There are lots and lots of things that aren't neccesities, but life would become thoroughly unenjoyable without them.

If we follow that route then SitnHit may end up having a point.

But then if people commited suicide, could we eat them? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Would it be ok if we could find a way to breed animals with no sentience? If not, do you mind torturing of plants? Is humanity becoming fruitarian the ultimate goal? (according to their website it cures cancer and AIDS [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] )

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an elaborate dodge. If eating meat is wrong, it doesn't matter whether it makes your life less fun or not. Paying for movies makes my life less fun, at least in the short-term, but stealing is wrong, so I don't do it.

And I really don't get your complaint about taking a few pills. You aren't being forced to take a few pills, you are more than welcome to become vitamin-deficient. You aren't currently being obligated or forced to eat meat, are you? You just do it because you are hungry and need the protein, and perhaps you even like meat. Again, its not valid to claim this would be a great imposition on you, if you accept that eating meat actually IS wrong. So fight the battle on the true front, argue that eating meat ISNT wrong, and you are in the clear.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely better to never exist than to be born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and live an unnatural life full of pain. And even most of the "best" farmers still keep animals in uncomfortable prisons where they can't live even nearly like they would if they were free and in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about free range animals? I do agree that bad farming practices should be put to an end e.g. chicken coops where they are piled on top of one another and cramped pig stys. You should realize, however, that animals don't need 'freedom' to be happy, they need territory and food, which they should be provided. My pets at home aren't unhappy because they aren't 'wild' and 'free' in nature, they are provided with all their necessities and ample space to move around and exercise in. Not giving these amenities to farm animals is wrong but raising them to be slaughtered and eaten does not seem morally objectionable to me, it seems like nature + business. Should omnivorous animals (like bears) not eat meat because it's 'wrong?' How do people feel about hunting?

Personally, I would prefer to be a vegetarian but I have not been able to phase meat out of my diet and I think I enjoy it too much to not eat it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These animals are no longer wild and only exist for commercial purposes, if they weren't being raised they would basically be extinct. Which option is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely better to never exist than to be born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and live an unnatural life full of pain. And even most of the "best" farmers still keep animals in uncomfortable prisons where they can't live even nearly like they would if they were free and in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about free range animals? I do agree that bad farming practices should be put to an end e.g. chicken coops where they are piled on top of one another and cramped pig stys. You should realize, however, that animals don't need 'freedom' to be happy, they need territory and food, which they should be provided. My pets at home aren't unhappy because they aren't 'wild' and 'free' in nature, they are provided with all their necessities and ample space to move around and exercise in. Not giving these amenities to farm animals is wrong but raising them to be slaughtered and eaten does not seem morally objectionable to me, it seems like nature + business. Should omnivorous animals (like bears) not eat meat because it's 'wrong?' How do people feel about hunting?

Personally, I would prefer to be a vegetarian but I have not been able to phase meat out of my diet and I think I enjoy it too much to not eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I will ever understand this argument. "Bears eat animals, why can't we?" Seriously? Thats a legitimate, intentional argument? Can you explain to me why thats valid, in a way that still prevents me from, say, mauling campers and stealing pickanick baskets?

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I will ever understand this argument. "Bears eat animals, why can't we?" Seriously? Thats a legitimate, intentional argument? Can you explain to me why thats valid, in a way that still prevents me from, say, mauling campers and stealing pickanick baskets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I agree, it is a terrible argument and I meant to remove it from my original post but my computer at school doesn't delete things the same ways as my computer at home, its weird. But can you explain why you think eating meat is morally wrong besides raising animals in poor conditions? You seem to have thought about the issue quite a bit and I am curious to hear.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I will ever understand this argument. "Bears eat animals, why can't we?" Seriously? Thats a legitimate, intentional argument? Can you explain to me why thats valid, in a way that still prevents me from, say, mauling campers and stealing pickanick baskets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I agree, it is a terrible argument and I meant to remove it from my original post but my computer at school doesn't delete things the same ways as my computer at home, its weird. But can you explain why you think eating meat is morally wrong besides raising animals in poor conditions? You seem to have thought about the issue quite a bit and I am curious to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have thought about it a lot, and I am not sure I DO think eating animals is wrong. I've posted on a few of these threads in the past, mostly asking for people to explain to me why it was ok to eat meat. It seems wrong, but I am not sure I have a firm grasp on it. I eat as much meat as anyone else. I am not saying that you all need to be vegetarians...far from it. I'm just trying to force people away from specious arguments like "it's natural" and "you need meat or you die."

It seems to me that slaughtering other animals that feel pain and suffer is wrong. Slaughtering humans is obviously wrong, because we know how much they suffer, since we are one. Killing gnats is probably ok, since it is extremely unlikely that they suffer...they aren't really equipped. So, we have ourselves a continuum, and obviously, drawing lines is always partly arbitrary. DS made the point that we should stick to eating fish, and that is obviously a good point. Fish feel far less pain (if any) and suffer less, so killing them is 'more ok.' Animal testing ethics standards are far lower for experiments on fish compared to, say, mice or chimps, and for good reason. Where do cows fit on this spectrum? How about dogs? Chimps? The mentally incapacitated or brain-dead? Just because no one WANTS to eat chimps or fetuses or the brain-dead doesn't mean they don't fit on the spectrum of ability to suffer SOMEWHERE.

The ability to suffer isn't the only consideration, but IMO its the most important. This isn't the only reason I think abortion is ok, but its one of them. So, where do we want to draw the line, and can we be consistent?

In the end it probably has a lot to do with empathy, at least for me. There have been a few threads about racism and other topics to which "ingroup/outgroup" classifcations are the fundamental issue. I am not a racist because I consider all human beings to be part of my ingroup, and I empathize with ALL of them. I also empathize with a lot of animals. I have different ingroups for different topics, I suppose, but chimps are in my ingroup for a lot of things. I don't think chimp testing is acceptable where human testing isn't. I don't think we can kill and eat chimps. I don't know where I draw my line, what animals are NOT in my ingroup. But its below chimps and above fish, for sure.

That was a lot of scattershot rambling, but hopefully I answered your questions.