You make about as much sense as Vanilla ****. I'm starting to wonder if you even read my entire post, or just decided to put one paragraph out of sentence?
Are you a vegetarian?
- Thread starter Jizm
- Start date
I understood that you wish you didn't eat meat....and I used an analogy to demonstrate how your suggestion that we humans are "crafty enough" to get nutrition from other sources to suggest to you that eating meat isn't merely about nutrition for many people.
Just like sex is not merely about procreating, eating meat is not merely about nutrition.
What do you think I missed?
You seemed to assume that I was trying to convince people into becoming vegetarians, which I certainly didn't. But after reading your last sentence again I might have misunderstood.
Nevertheless, comparing meat eating with sex is very flawed. Sex is for many people of great importance, and a nice element of their lives. You might even argue that sex, in one form or another, is essential for us. And since sex is mostly positive experiences there's no reason to quit it.
Meat eating however, is not the least essential to us. We know alternatives, and most of these aren't all that bad. It's not like eating dung so to speak. So if you really care more than about yourself, you don't eat meat. Because over the years of your life, many ******* suffer and die if you do.
It's not a matter of not eating meat because we can. It's a matter of not eating meat because it's cruel to *******. But like I said sometimes you're egoistic and don't give a **** about all this. No one is perfect. I eat meat because I like it so much that I'm willing to live with being irresponsible. But that doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong.
So conclusively, there are three ways to look at it:
a) either you don't give a **** about how ******* feel and eat meat.
b) you eat meat, but admits that it's not fully right to do so.
c) you don't eat meat
A and B are no different in practice, only when discussing it.
And you also mentioned how there's no point in staying healthy. I do believe there is, but again you can't stay healthy on all levels either. Sometimes you ignore your health. This is fine, but to say that a good health is meaningless because it doesn't make you immortal is bullshit, and I think you're sensible enough to agree with that without me putting forward all the standard arguments.
And even so, I'd rather not live with my back hurting constantly, or coughing ***** when running to the bus. So yeah, I would even go as far as saying it does make life more valuable.
Phew, long rant. Sorry about that
Nevertheless, comparing meat eating with sex is very flawed. Sex is for many people of great importance, and a nice element of their lives. You might even argue that sex, in one form or another, is essential for us. And since sex is mostly positive experiences there's no reason to quit it.
Meat eating however, is not the least essential to us. We know alternatives, and most of these aren't all that bad. It's not like eating dung so to speak. So if you really care more than about yourself, you don't eat meat. Because over the years of your life, many ******* suffer and die if you do.
It's not a matter of not eating meat because we can. It's a matter of not eating meat because it's cruel to *******. But like I said sometimes you're egoistic and don't give a **** about all this. No one is perfect. I eat meat because I like it so much that I'm willing to live with being irresponsible. But that doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong.
So conclusively, there are three ways to look at it:
a) either you don't give a **** about how ******* feel and eat meat.
b) you eat meat, but admits that it's not fully right to do so.
c) you don't eat meat
A and B are no different in practice, only when discussing it.
And you also mentioned how there's no point in staying healthy. I do believe there is, but again you can't stay healthy on all levels either. Sometimes you ignore your health. This is fine, but to say that a good health is meaningless because it doesn't make you immortal is bullshit, and I think you're sensible enough to agree with that without me putting forward all the standard arguments.
And even so, I'd rather not live with my back hurting constantly, or coughing ***** when running to the bus. So yeah, I would even go as far as saying it does make life more valuable.
Phew, long rant. Sorry about that
Meat is for many people of great importance, and a nice element of their lives. You might even argue that meat, in one form or another, is essential for us. And since meat is mostly positive experiences there's no reason to quit it.
Those are your words and all I did was substitute "sex" for "meat" and the statement holds virtually the same amount to truth.
I don't argue that people die so why bother concerning yourself with health. I am making the point that to whatever degree we assume meat is "bad" for us....It certainly isn't a significant enough threat to our health that people should alter their lifestyles if they enjoy eating it.
As far as ******* suffering, in my calculation one only worries about something like that if they plan on doing something about it like not eating meat anymore. Since that's not a part of my consideration, why would I worry about how my Porter House made it's way to my dinning room table?? As long as it made it there reasonably sanitary and fresh, I think I'd care more about the price of tea in China.
No, meat is not in any way essential for us. Maybe my choice of words was flawed, but meat and sex can't be compared. Sex only concerns you and your partner, whereas meat eating involves an ****** who has got no choice. A closer parallel would be sexing a ******* girl compared to meat for example - if that made any sense
Anyway, once again you're misinterpreting what I say. I don't "worry" about my meat eating habits, but I won't defend them either, or try to justify them because that's not what I believe.
All I did was break down some of the classic anti-vegetarianism arguments ("we need meat", "meat eating is natural", "my choice won't make a difference".) You even said so yourself that you think the same (something about "more power to them"), so why even have this discussion - we both agree with each other.
Uh, no fucking way. i love and support ******* rights and all. But, no way would I ever become a vegetarian.
Skyraider22
The One and Only Big *****
No but I do eat my veggies:hatsoff:
Wait a minute - so what's the poll?
Are we vegetarians or are we vegans? They're not the same question, ya know.
Are we vegetarians or are we vegans? They're not the same question, ya know.
Hotmega, are you just being dense or can you truly not understand why a vegetarian would be opposed to you eating meat?
To put it in simple terms, vegetarians feel the same way about ******* non-human ******* as they (and most everyone else) do about ******* other humans. In other words, that it is morally defensible to **** someone else to save your own life or the life of someone else, but it is not defensible to **** someone just because you "feel like it" aka. commit ******.
Since that case does not apply to human's meat consumption- as pointed out, you don't need to eat meat to survive, unlike carnivorous non-human's- then they feel it is wrong to **** an ****** that way.
******* have lives and feelings and that is a fact that is not changed because you refuse to consider it.
To put it very simply vegetarians don't have a problem with eating meat- they have a problem with ******* *******.
So by that rational it would be like me saying: I'm not a ********, that's a personal choice, but why should I tell anyone else that they should not go out and **** people? Because if you think that the act of ****** is wrong, then it doesn't matter who is doing it, it's still wrong.
I don't really care if people eat meat or not because I know people are stupid and selfish and nothing will change that. But I have yet to see one intellectually reasonable arguement for eating meat that wasn't narrow-minded and based on one person's perceived comfort at the expense of other humans and ******* and the environment.
To put it in simple terms, vegetarians feel the same way about ******* non-human ******* as they (and most everyone else) do about ******* other humans. In other words, that it is morally defensible to **** someone else to save your own life or the life of someone else, but it is not defensible to **** someone just because you "feel like it" aka. commit ******.
Since that case does not apply to human's meat consumption- as pointed out, you don't need to eat meat to survive, unlike carnivorous non-human's- then they feel it is wrong to **** an ****** that way.
******* have lives and feelings and that is a fact that is not changed because you refuse to consider it.
To put it very simply vegetarians don't have a problem with eating meat- they have a problem with ******* *******.
So by that rational it would be like me saying: I'm not a ********, that's a personal choice, but why should I tell anyone else that they should not go out and **** people? Because if you think that the act of ****** is wrong, then it doesn't matter who is doing it, it's still wrong.
I don't really care if people eat meat or not because I know people are stupid and selfish and nothing will change that. But I have yet to see one intellectually reasonable arguement for eating meat that wasn't narrow-minded and based on one person's perceived comfort at the expense of other humans and ******* and the environment.
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
Tonight's meal was various salad leaves, cucumber, avo, bread, diced tomato, cottage cheese, some other cream cheese, pecan nuts, raisins, strawberries, egg, diced apple, banana and some cool salad dressing.
Actually, coming to think of it, there was so much food I had to use a larger plate than usual.
Good news and bad news is I'm hungry, again, yet I have so much energy, and feel fresh.
You know, after eating veg type meals I really don't see myself buying meat anytime soon.
However, if I go to a restaurant, I'll have what she/they is having.
I wouldn't mind a steak, but I know it is xpensive in so many ways, and I don't really need it. I also know I won't go back to meat on a regular basis. Ever.
I **** having to pry away with floss after.
Think I'll have some pasta tomorrow, with some nice fish.
Frell I shouldn't have posted here. Now I'm ****** starving.
Actually, coming to think of it, there was so much food I had to use a larger plate than usual.
Good news and bad news is I'm hungry, again, yet I have so much energy, and feel fresh.
You know, after eating veg type meals I really don't see myself buying meat anytime soon.
However, if I go to a restaurant, I'll have what she/they is having.
I wouldn't mind a steak, but I know it is xpensive in so many ways, and I don't really need it. I also know I won't go back to meat on a regular basis. Ever.
I **** having to pry away with floss after.
Think I'll have some pasta tomorrow, with some nice fish.
Frell I shouldn't have posted here. Now I'm ****** starving.
Ash... I agree with 99% of what you are saying. Organic is millions of times better than any other way. And supporting organic farmers can only do miles and miles of good in the long run.
But I still believe the point of that ****** is to end up in a stomach much sooner than its "time"... If it was allowed to life till its natural "time was up", the meat would be old, and therefore probably useless/worth less money.
My stance on the issue is more along the lines of breeding millions and millions of ******* in the first place. Its incredibly harmful on the planet (organic or not, stock still produce tons of emissions).
Sure, in a perfect world we would all be vegan and actually love the planet, but that is just not going to happen.
Please don't think I am in any way flaming you or your post. You get miles of respect from me by buying Organic and supporting the farmers trying to bring about an awesome change in thinking. :thumbsup:
-Well done, THX.:thumbsup:
Yes, the ******* aren't kept until they're on their deathbed. But they ARE kept alive MUCH longer than the commercialized, mass produced "mutants" that they call chickens, cows and pigs. The meat that most people eat is injected with god knows what to make it grow at an unhealthy rate and they are usually slaughtered after a few short weeks or months. The organic farmers I buy off of, have their ******* for at least two years before ******* them. HUGE difference.
As eloquently as you think you put this, you're not making any news. I understand this is part of the position as I have addressed it in different ways within this thread. But I think it's an (another) utterly nonsensical, extremist perspective at odds with the way the overwhelming majority of humans believe and human history.
But like most extremist positions, that one is not well thought either. Aside from the position being hardly practical if taken to it's logical end (since they think it's "******", the establishment of the ******* any ****** by humans as being ******* and punishable), it makes little sense if we project the concept out to all of it's theoretical applications.
You would think some of this would be obvious if people were to do homework on what they actually believe and it's conclusions instead of being knee-jerk reactionaries. But since they don't, here's the rant;
The intellectual argument in favor of humans ******* (other) ******* for consumption is that predation and meat consumption has always been a natural occurrence with natural man to support an omnivorous diet. Now if you want to question whether or not we're inherently omnivores, it is our nutrient need for energy (physical and for brain function) as a species which determine what type of diet is intrinsic to us naturally. We've always (man) used some combination of plant life and ****** hide to clothe our bodies and in some cases to shelter us against the elements. Man as a species would have largely died off if man inherently had a moral opposition to ******* ******* for sustenance and protection.
As with all detritivores, insectivores, herbivores, carnivores and omnivores, man has an ecological responsibility as an omnivore in the ecosystem to consume other ******* for food and/or garment. In so doing, (the important part) in many cases we've shepherded their survival.
Man intelligently makes distinctions between, domesticated, civet, livestock, wild game and other wild ******* because they're not all the same in terms of their relative sentience or personhood. Because man is not inherently cruel, we discourage cruelty and in some cases make it ******* to be cruel to *******. Why do we do that? It's not because we draw the line on whether these ******* "feel" or not. It's because we believe some ******* are more sentient than others and cruelty them is abjectly inhumane and therefore punishable.
Speaking of the "feelings" aspect of the argument, since we can't interpret what some ******* think beyond our crude recognition of their responses to things, how do we objectively know they can "feel" (emotion) verses merely feel (sense)? I don't think we can with some ******* because some are less sentient than others.
If the objection is to "feel" the sense (e.g. "feel pain") where do we draw the line? As all living things with nervous systems and brains do too. All living things intrinsically respond to urgency and threat. It is built into their natural defense mechanisms. If you conclude that needlessly ******* a thing that can feel pain is tantamount to ******, am I committing ****** for gassing pests, trapping rodents or simply not watching where I step and ******* an insect?? Like it or not, those are some of the logical conclusions of that line of thinking.
It's "******" to **** (other) ******* for consumption because it's presumed we don't need to?? How stupid is that position since it's a natural trap door for instant inconsistency.
To square that logic, you'd have to maintain the illogical and nonsensical position that it was okay (or not ******) when mankind needed but that because some now think we don't need to, it's ******.
What about the people in the world who don't have healthy alternatives to eating meat and need to **** (other) ******* to support their dietary needs? Are they not ********* and we are? If somehow the world plunges into debacle is it not ****** to eat meat again? Since the subjective word here is "need" how in the world could it be a sensible position to conclude eating meat based on "need" is either ****** or not when "need" is different things to different people??
If I live in the city where access to shipped alternatives are plenty, am I barred from eating meat because the perception by some is I don't "need" to? Or can I choose to not be a ******** by living a spartan lifestyle isolated from modernization where there is a necessity?
So again, due to the nonsense of it, utter impracticality of it, it being completely at odds with reality and human history, believing that ******* ******* for consumption is "******" is as best, a personal decision.
Frankly, I thought I was doing a service to vegetarians by not highlighting the "meat is ******" theme of their position by instead focusing on some of the more debatable aspects of their argument.
Are cows, pigs, chicken etc... considered vegetables now?
Yes, the ******* aren't kept until they're on their deathbed. But they ARE kept alive MUCH longer than the commercialized, mass produced "mutants" that they call chickens, cows and pigs. The meat that most people eat is injected with god knows what to make it grow at an unhealthy rate and they are usually slaughtered after a few short weeks or months. The organic farmers I buy off of, have their ******* for at least two years before ******* them. HUGE difference.
I agree. Now, how can we get all omnivores to think this sensibly?
Similar threads
