|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:32 pm
I eat meat and am of course pro-life. I was for a wile vegetarian but the last time I went for a wile with out having meet or fish I felt a bit sick. I have no moral qualms with killing animals for food, though I think it should be done as painlessly as possible.
But hey, if you do not want to eat meat, that is your choice, it does not hurt any one else. As long as you are not one of those people who look at me like a burbiqued a live kitten when I eat a hamburger
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:49 pm
 Some of you may know that, as a devout Roman Catholic, my patron saint is St. Francis, the patron of animals and the environment. And many have asked me why I'm not a vegetarian, as someone spiritually called to look at St. Francis as a role model, of sorts.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: There's a difference, in my eyes, between killing an animal painlessly and humanely for the sake of survival and nutrition, and killing an unborn child, or any fellow human, for reasons of vanity, greed, or selfishness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:00 pm
My point isn't to attack your way of life at all, Kasumi. I have no problem with veggies. My problem is with veggies who get all high and mighty, and morally superior. And, as you said, when you feel that someone is attacking your way of life, you defend yourself. So do I.
Personally, I am very against hunting for pleasure; If you hunt, you eat. And I'm against cruelty against animals. I'm not even willing to neuter my pets. But I am going to eat meat, for the reasons stated. Yeah, a veggie life is possible, even a strict vegan life. But it requires carefully avoiding about half the foods out there, and 90% of the food I eat and enjoy, and I don't see a logical, moral reason to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:17 pm
I.Am La Veuve Zin Quote: To me, animals in the wild kill and eat each other. If we're going to say, "All life is sacred! We have to protect all life!" Then it makes no sense to say, "Humans can't kill/eat animals, but other animals can." To me, if you're going to protect animals, you're going to have to protect them from each other too. If humans required meat to survive, I wouldn't be a vegetarian. (I doubt anyone would be.) Some animals just evolved to need to eat other animals, but humans aren't one of them. We have the ability to avoid meat and still be healthy, so eating meat is therefore just a luxury. I understand why some people would be anti-abortion but not vegetarian, but the scientific facts are, cows and chickens have functioning central nervous systems and they can feel pain, but an embryo doesn't and can't. It may be human, and it may be alive, but it can't suffer the way an adult animal can. What about omnivorous animals? Because they can survive on vegetables and berries. Even though they would normally supplement that with meat, you're going to find some way to get them to stop doing what comes naturally? Like it or not, humans are omnivores. If we weren't, we wouldn't even like the taste of meat. Scientifically? Animals eat other animals. Unless you plan to get rid of all the carnivores, which just causes a whole other problem when the herbivores start breeding out of control. For that matter, it's probably not feasible now for humans to stop eating meat entirely, as we've become one of the top predators. The logical problem with your argument is you seem to be saying, "The reason we shouldn't eat eat animals is because they feel pain." But then you say, "It's okay if animals eat other animals, because they need to to survive." If a creature feeling pain is the reason for not killing it, it's not logical to let other animals kill it either, whether they need it to survive or not. Seems to me that carnivores cause a lot -more- pain in their killing and devouring of their sometimes still living prey, than humans do with a swift chop to the neck, or even a couple blows from a sledge hammer. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. I feel like we all know this argument very well. The level of meat in our diet is arguably unhealthy. Realistically, our anthropological ancestors never got that much meat in their diets. The amount we consume I would argue is above the average for which we need. And given that my own doctor commends me on my sparing consumption of red meat, i'd say the Medical Community also agrees less is best. I'm just saying, we need to analyze human life before and after Industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:14 pm
I agree, but the point of the argument seems to be that it's immoral to eat meat. Which means, eat no meat, not eat less meat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:18 am
I.Am I agree, but the point of the argument seems to be that it's immoral to eat meat. Which means, eat no meat, not eat less meat. Yes that is what I was asking. The question came up after some pro-choicers were talking about it. I agree as well that less meat is better but this isn't about eating less meat for health reasons but why people think we shouldn't eat meat at all. Honestly I'm getting tired of some of the crap and assumptions I hear all the time (which why I plan to stop debating again. I remember I hated it now, they always seem to miss the point i'm trying to make and twist things around). But I found it ridiculous to expect and claim that pro-lifers can't eat meat ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:23 am
Ebony the Peacian Vampire Some of you may know that, as a devout Roman Catholic, my patron saint is St. Francis, the patron of animals and the environment. And many have asked me why I'm not a vegetarian, as someone spiritually called to look at St. Francis as a role model, of sorts.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: There's a difference, in my eyes, between killing an animal painlessly and humanely for the sake of survival and nutrition, and killing an unborn child, or any fellow human, for reasons of vanity, greed, or selfishness. Unfortunately, I wouldn't call slaughterhouses painless. I have heard several ways of killing the animal. My favorite, due to the painlessness, would be a mallet fitted with a shotgun shell, which basically shoots the cow in the brain, and delivers concussive force just in case. I have also heard that they just cut their throats and dump them into a pit, which means there is a potential for a great deal of suffering if the cut wasn't deep enough or the cow was particularly resilient. Edit- But this is why I would advise a trip to a slaughterhouse, to see if one can handle the reality of the situation. It's easy to not think about things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:00 pm
I.Am And I'm against cruelty against animals. I'm not even willing to neuter my pets. That's not cruelty, dude. Neutering prevents unwanted stray feral kittens and puppies, and unlike unwanted babies, they're often killed when shelters get overcrowded. Animals don't use birth control, and when they're in heat, they'll screw anything that moves, whether it's your neighbor's purebred or a mangy, FIV-infected stray. Even if you keep them inside, they'll mark their territory and get aggressive with you and other animals. There's nothing cruel about neutering and spaying, it's the humane thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:13 pm
Yeah, see, I know the logic. I just disagree with it. Sure, if I neuter my brother I won't have to worry about him passing his genes on, or contributing to the future overpopulation of the world; But it'd still be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:13 pm
I.Am What about omnivorous animals? Because they can survive on vegetables and berries. Even though they would normally supplement that with meat, you're going to find some way to get them to stop doing what comes naturally? Like it or not, humans are omnivores. If we weren't, we wouldn't even like the taste of meat. Omnivorous means they need both, and humans clearly don't, even though we can tolerate meat and like the taste of it. You might like the taste of humans, or trans fats, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to eat them. People can feed their dogs vegetarian diets, and I feed my birds vegetarian food even though they might eat bugs in the wild, but that's because they can be healthy that way. Like I said, if I needed meat to survive, I'd eat it, because then I'd have to choose between dying and killing another being. Self-preservation. Quote: For that matter, it's probably not feasible now for humans to stop eating meat entirely, as we've become one of the top predators. That doesn't make sense. I've stopped eating meat entirely, as have millions of other humans. What's so difficult? Just because we have the technology to kill other animals doesn't mean we should; that logic would justify abortion, war for the hell of it, and shooting neighbors who wake you up at 3 a.m. Quote: If a creature feeling pain is the reason for not killing it, it's not logical to let other animals kill it either, whether they need it to survive or not. Seems to me that carnivores cause a lot -more- pain in their killing and devouring of their sometimes still living prey, than humans do with a swift chop to the neck, or even a couple blows from a sledge hammer. If I had a cat, I'd only feed it humanely killed meat. But it's not like cats have opposable thumbs to hold axes or inject their prey with phenobarbital. I also can't make animals stop eating their deformed young, but that doesn't justify letting humans commit infanticide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:15 pm
I.Am Yeah, see, I know the logic. I just disagree with it. Sure, if I neuter my brother I won't have to worry about him passing his genes on, or contributing to the future overpopulation of the world; But it'd still be wrong. Why? Because of his right to bodily integrity? wink
One of these days I'm going to find a way to neuter my brother-in-law... ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:22 pm
I'm not saying that it's difficult to become vegetarian, although it would be for me; There's meat in everything I eat. What I'm saying is that, if all human beings became vegetarians, then there would be a population boom in the animals that we eat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:29 pm
I.Am I'm not saying that it's difficult to become vegetarian, although it would be for me; There's meat in everything I eat. What I'm saying is that, if all human beings became vegetarians, then there would be a population boom in the animals that we eat. The population of most of the animals that humans eat are controlled by farmers, so a population boom would be easy to deal with for those animals. As for the rest, it's hard to say, but many of those species have been around before humans came to their habitats, so it may not be a problem if humans stop eating them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:42 pm
I.Am Yeah, see, I know the logic. I just disagree with it. Sure, if I neuter my brother I won't have to worry about him passing his genes on, or contributing to the future overpopulation of the world; But it'd still be wrong. People not neutering their pets is the reason why we are over run by cats and why some people put kittens and puppies in a bag and throw them on the freeway or in lakes, which is worse. If pets are neutered, there wouldn't be so many cats to worry about. So as you can see, unless someone makes birth control for pets, you'll be in trouble after awhile. As for a population boom of chicken, cows, and pigs, as already stated, the farms would find a way to deal with that and control it. But I still plan to eat chickens and not willing to give up tacos unless some replace is way better tasting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:43 pm
I.Am Yeah, see, I know the logic. I just disagree with it. Sure, if I neuter my brother I won't have to worry about him passing his genes on, or contributing to the future overpopulation of the world; But it'd still be wrong. Brothers =/= cats. Although going by mental capacity, I would argue that some of my brothers may be roughly equivalent, they are biologically different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
