Eating Meat, Preference or Necessity?

[kevin017]

bears can't make decisions based on ethics, but we can. we judge their decision to be wrong, so shouldn't we stop them? why do you care about saving animals from being killed by humans, but when an animal kills an animal its just part of nature and you wash your hands of it? obv this doesn't apply to the broad argument, just to the idea that there's no difference between killing for fun and for food, even if there are alternatives to that food.

also, bears don't need meat to live. no animal needs meat to live any more than humans do, ie. even the animals that rely the most on meat (which doesn't include bears), can likely be kept healthy by us.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i have a question for the anti-meat eaters, it goes back to the bear example.

if you think there is no difference between killing an animal for fun, and killing it to eat it, how can you sit idly by while bears and other animals are killing and eating animals? shouldn't you be forming groups to stop the atrocities committed by bears?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. If we can't stop every single instance of suffering in the world, why stop any?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat? What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE (caps for emphasis, not to be yelling). I'm not saying that killing animals is great, just that it isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as John Smith and his wife agree that the only reason they are going to have children is so that they can rape and then eat them, its ok? It would be the only reason that those children ever came into existence.

[TimWillTell]

During puberty I had to follow a strict vegetarian diet due to health-problems.
Because of this diet health problems became worse, because my digestion-system appeared to have problems with: potatoes, beans, soja, tauge, tahoe, mushrooms and all the other so-called meat-replacements.
I lost way to much wight and the doctors decided a had to start eating meat again, because my body couldn't handle a vegetarian diet.
I started eating meat again and recovered.
I suggest everybody that doesn't need meat, stop eating it, but let my enjoy my juicy steak!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
During puberty I had to follow a strict vegetarian diet due to health-problems.
Because of this diet health problems became worse, because my digestion-system appeared to have problems with: potatoes, beans, soja, tauge, tahoe, mushrooms and all the other so-called meat-replacements.
I lost way to much wight and the doctors decided a had to start eating meat again, because my body couldn't handle a vegetarian diet.
I started eating meat again and recovered.
I suggest everybody that doesn't need meat, stop eating it, but let my enjoy my juicy steak!

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, same thing happens to me when I don't drink the blood of the innocent.

[kidcolin]

For a large portion of Americans, maybe not. I'm still unsure about babies and young children though. I know a few vegetarians who dropped it once they became pregnant. It might not be "necessary", but when it comes to your baby, I would never fault anyone for not [censored] around and sticking to what is known to work.

For other parts of the world, I'd argue it is necessary (Africa especially).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
For a large portion of Americans, maybe not. I'm still unsure about babies and young children though. I know a few vegetarians who dropped it once they became pregnant. It might not be "necessary", but when it comes to your baby, I would never fault anyone for not [censored] around and sticking to what is known to work.

For other parts of the world, I'd argue it is necessary (Africa especially).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, and I think this can be used as a legitimate argument as long as it is true. If it is economically or practically impossible for some society to survive unless they eat meat, then that is a relevant factor, and probably obliterates any other moral qualms.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat? What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE (caps for emphasis, not to be yelling). I'm not saying that killing animals is great, just that it isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as John Smith and his wife agree that the only reason they are going to have children is so that they can rape and then eat them, its ok? It would be the only reason that those children ever came into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not). If people stopped breeding animals for the purpose of eating them, I would gladly discontinue the practice. I know this is a terribly smarmy response but it is the truth - the only reason I would become a vegetarian would be to take a stance on the issue, and I do not feel strongly enough about it to take that step just yet. Hopefully one day I will get a pet chicken and my love for it will stop me from eating meat ever again (this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me). I do think a lot of people have made good points about why slaughtering animals is wrong here, though.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have a problem with what you are saying. You are saying it is JUSTIFIABLE because we get things out of it, but then you freely admit that they are things we could get elsewhere with no suffering. So, how then is it justifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what if I just said that it was justifiable because people enjoy eating meat, would that change anything? Or what about it is easier/less expensive to get those nutrients from meat? What I'm saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with killing an animal for meat IF THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR ITS EXISTENCE (caps for emphasis, not to be yelling). I'm not saying that killing animals is great, just that it isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as John Smith and his wife agree that the only reason they are going to have children is so that they can rape and then eat them, its ok? It would be the only reason that those children ever came into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not). If people stopped breeding animals for the purpose of eating them, I would gladly discontinue the practice. I know this is a terribly smarmy response but it is the truth - the only reason I would become a vegetarian would be to take a stance on the issue, and I do not feel strongly enough about it to take that step just yet. Hopefully one day I will get a pet chicken and my love for it will stop me from eating meat ever again (this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me). I do think a lot of people have made good points about why slaughtering animals is wrong here, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not comparing the raping and eating of a child with the raising and eating of an animal. I am saying that the 'thats the whole reason it exists in the first place' argument is invalid. The reason we cause a sentient, suffering being to exist has no effect on what we are then allowed to do to it.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I suppose so, if you equate raping and eating a child (which pretty much anyone would consider barbaric) to raising and killing an animal (which some would consider barbaric but most would not). If people stopped breeding animals for the purpose of eating them, I would gladly discontinue the practice. I know this is a terribly smarmy response but it is the truth - the only reason I would become a vegetarian would be to take a stance on the issue, and I do not feel strongly enough about it to take that step just yet. Hopefully one day I will get a pet chicken and my love for it will stop me from eating meat ever again (this sounds idiotic but I really want a pet chicken and I have a feeling once I do, that will be it for meat for me). I do think a lot of people have made good points about why slaughtering animals is wrong here, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not comparing the raping and eating of a child with the raising and eating of an animal. I am saying that the 'thats the whole reason it exists in the first place' argument is invalid. The reason we cause a sentient, suffering being to exist has no effect on what we are then allowed to do to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you want to argue that animals should never be bred for food (if other means are available), I honestly cannot provide a counterargument to that and I do not think I would want to. However, as I stated earlier, I just cannot make myself feel bad about eating meat at the moment (although I have in the past), probably in the future I will at least phase out most meat besides fish as I become more morally inclined. On the other hand, I don't think I would ever campaign for vegetarianism or attempt to push people towards those beliefs.