Welcome to Gaia! ::

That still doesn't make the eating of meat wrong. See below.



Yes, that's true. Cruelty to animals is not a necessary requirement for survival.

But eating animals isn't cruel.

Animal cruelty is cruel.

The difference between eating animals, and animal cruelty, is not something that bleeding heart vegans/vegetarians can seem to grasp very well. I'll explain it, because the idea that these two notions are one in the same is the crux of your entire response, apparently:

Eating meat, solely in and of itself without these extraneous factors like the treatment of animals, is NOT cruel. It's a part of the larger circle of life and nature in general. Food chains; the mouse eats the grain, the hawk eats the mouse. We - humans - are part of that food chain because we eat meat and vegetables. Is it harsh, in a philosophical sense, that life survives by taking life in many instances? Yeah, I could see that. But cruel? Not in the least.

It is cruel that locusts will devour entire crops and starve villages? No. Is it cruel that we eat fish, or animals, or vegetables? No. Harsh? In some viewpoints, one can view life in any form as a very harsh, brutal existence. Cruel? No, it's simply nature's design. Nature designed locusts to eat and populate very quickly. Nature designed man to eat meat, and vegetables. It's as simple as that.



Again, animal cruelty and eating meat ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

The fact that our bodies can process and digest meat, and that a majority of our species likes eating meat, means that it IS okay; it is as nature intended. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "not okay."



You're barking up the wrong tree. I've hunted and fished for food before, and I've dressed carcasses. I have no problem with eating animals for my continued existence. What I do have a problem with is animal cruelty. Force feeding animals? Wrong. Injecting them with anti-biotics and steroids to make them larger? Morally wrong, downright cruel. Housing them in overcrowded pens? It's ******** up.

But these things are not the same as simply eating meat for sustenance.



Again: Animal cruelty =/= eating animals. I agree; animal cruelty is wrong. That does not make eating animals wrong. I've explained this several times now.



Eating meat =/= mindless killing machine. Are you suggesting that a cheetah, or lion, is simply a mindless killing machine and nothing more? I would say that's fairly cruel, to assume that a carnivore is a "mindless" killing machine simply because it evolved to eat meat for the majority of its diet.

No, I would guess not. Why? Because I'm not suggesting that either. I'm only saying - as I've said a million times now, despite your inability to understand - that we, as animals, can eat meat. We're supposed to, in fact. There's nothing wrong, cruel, or selfish about that.

Moreover, you can make any implications about eating meat that you want, or that we were designed for it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Nor does implying that eating meat make someone a "mindless killing machine" invalidate what I'm saying. All you're doing is trying to make unfavorable implications about the concept without actually arguing it.

If that's all you want to do - all you can do, to argue with someone - then please do not respond to any of my posts. That's not a legitimate argument, I don't want to see that sort of tripe.

Also, eating just plant life doesn't give anyone any sort of moral high ground. The farming that gives you plants to eat can, in some cases, lead to the extinction of local fauna and flora, along with leaving entire stretches of land barren when over-farmed. So you have the potential to destroy the environment as much as anyone who still eats meat.

The act of eating meat or vegetables or fruit is not in and of itself bad. It's the way we go about it - animal cruelty, over-farming, the use of pesticides that poison aquifers and kill of local plant and animal life. This is all bad stuff. But it's not the same as eating plants or animals. They're different concepts.



And I'm not aware of an animal's pain because I eat meat, right? I'm guessing that's what you're implying, but I don't much care because if you're implying that, you're obviously not getting the point when I have (blatantly) stated that I do care about animal cruelty issues. It's also entirely irrelevant to my greater point.

Which is that the entire concept of eating meat for sustenance is entirely natural, and that there's nothing cruel about it, because that's simply the way nature operates. Nature is not capricious, nor is it cruel. It's a design, meant to accomplish specific objectives. Nothing more or less. What you choose to tag onto it is YOUR opinion, not the way the world works.



So is omnivorism.



Again: animal cruelty is not a good thing. I've already explained this ad naseum. Eating animals is not done "just because," there's not even a relevant explanation for saying that. It's done because meat provides essential nutrients that aren't found naturally in other foods.



This is entirely your opinion. I find nothing "base" (in the derisive sense) about eating meat. Again, I find it entirely natural, and see nothing wrong with it, provided we do not treat animals cruelly, or eat them to extinction. As an aside, I try to confine what I eat to local meats and so forth, so as to avoid the chemically injected stuff. Animals that were raised properly and allowed to graze, and so forth.

We - if you're so philosophically inclined - have the freedom to make any choice we want. However, your suggestion that we can "choose" not to eat meat in the context of this argument is inherently tied to the fact that you would need to consider eating meat to be wrong in the first place.

Because I do not see eating meat as wrong, immoral, or unnatural, I do not see any reason to discuss the morality of this choice; it's irrelevant to what I'm explaining. You can make the choice, but neither choice is wrong, because neither choice is immoral.



Did I ever say, once, that bringing the extinction of another species was natural? No, I did not. Stop making these non-sequitur arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm saying. They're entirely irrelevant to my argument.

I will point out, though, that forced extinction of animals or plants is not entirely natural when induced by things like over consumption. This is - AGAIN, for like the twentieth time - why I support the proper treatment of animals, and why I support that we should protect animal populations from overuse.



Have you heard of the old saying, "Watch where you step"? Otherwise you might walk face first into a signpost and make an a** out of yourself, or that you might fall into a manhole, or something similarly demeaning.

Turns out the same concept applies to jumping into an argument, funnily enough. Which you have just done, by trying to make some bullshit high-and-mighty response to me without even understanding what I'm saying.

So yeah, it is quite hilarious =)



Point it out all you like, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying, nor did I ever imply as such. In fact, I have no problems at all with vegetarianism

It probably sounds like I'm attacking or "emasculating" vegetarianism because you don't seeing something you don't agree with despite the fact that it's right, so you're getting defensive over what I said and trying to find implications that simply aren't there. Of course, I never suggested any such thing - I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian.

I don't care if someone is a vegetarian. That's their business. Don't like the taste of meat? Okay. Don't like animal cruelty, want to protest it by not eating meat? Okay. Do you just really ******** love vegetables? Good for you, great in fact.

But the implication that the act of eating meat, in and of itself, without any other extraneous factors such as overconsumption or ill treatment is somehow "wrong" or "selfish" or "unnatural" is ******** stupid.

If you can't figure out what I'm saying, don't respond. I don't want to keep breaking my statements down into bite sized portions and spoon-feeding them to you, it's annoying to me, and probably demeaning to you.

So yes, you shall point out whatever you like in whatever passive-aggressive manner you want; shall I continue tearing any response you make to shreds? Or are you finished misunderstanding and incorrectly responding to my posts? I would hope so.

Read what I've posted in this thread and actually understand what I'm saying before you respond to me. And make sure you're actually making an argument, rather than just trying to sling mud on the concept by applying unfavorable terms to it that hold no weight. If you can't make a post and doing those things, then do not respond to me.

tl;dr: choosing not to abstain from eating meat is not a morally conscientious decision. Also, if you can't make a real argument without resorting to baseless, arbitrary attacks on ideas simply because you disagree with them, or if you aren't going to read what I say, then don't respond to me. From hereon, if you respond and I don't see anything legitimate in the post, I'm just going to respond to you with a LOLCAT image, because I'm not going to be assed to respond to someone who can't even figure out what I'm saying.

Yes, I remember now that humans are animals lol and maybe I should change the Opening Post because now I have different thoughts on the matter since people opened my mind a little more to see the bigger picture ninja

Either way, I think it's wrong to take the life of another being just so that we could survive however, if the being was killed by something or someone else and the meat was available for me to eat it then I would eat it but still respecting the animal, of course.

~insert sarcasm here~
I concur.
and yes, animal cruelty is in no way equal to eating meat.
It is how one does it.
so, thank you for clarifying. And no, it was not demeaning...
rather, it was slightly enlightening.

good day.

Edit: if killing animals is not cruel, I do not know what is.
just the way you chop 'em up, I guess.
so sad we have to resort to this load of bull called "self-rigtheousness". And the proud shall inherit the earth, for out of all the mammals, man is endowed with an intellect grand enough to crush all those around him.

do you feel your right to kill those who are defenseless and cannot speak for themselves is divine? ...or is it just nature

- this goes to all... ask yourself this.

I don't understand why this is such a sensitive subject.

The world with regards to humans has far bigger issues to worry about than whether or not it is right to kill animals, eat animals or how to kill animals to eat.

With every advancement in civilization we keep developing more "rules" that we impose on people.

If a dog is run over by a car, I lose no sleep over it. If a pig is slammed against a wall in order to break all the bones when it dies to get me some pork, I lose no sleep over it. Because as far as I'm concerned they could have stuck a spear in it in the wild and prepared it that way. It makes no difference.

I'm sure if they could speak for themselves they would rather not be kept in a barn or some person's house, or killed. It just so happens that the animals we kill for sport or nutrition lost out on the dice game for survival advantages.

But who cares? I'd like to think there's s**t more worth protecting and protesting than how an animal gets to my plate.

I thought this guild was supposed to be about informing others of the shadiness of globalists and the like... not some sort of PETA haven.

This is a topic about eating animals being wrong so if you don't care to discuss this topic then go create or post in another one that you feel is more important to you. Don't base the entire guild on one topic just because it has a lot of posts in it.

The discussion changed but is still related to the consumption of animals. Animal rights is pretty much related to the topic because of what shouldn't be done to them.