Do you eat meat?

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

If suffering is your only concern, then humanely butchered meat should be no issue to you. There is no suffering involved if the death is so quick as to not emit a pain response.

I personally know vegetarians who are in good health, so I am not implying it is a horrible health choice. I personally put a lot of emphasis on the evolutionary side of things, and I know for a fact my ancient (prehistoric) European ancestors had a meat-rich diet, which implies to me that it is probably the optimal diet.

That humane butchering were there is hardly a pain response...isn't how most animals are butchered. And even then, you are taking a complex being (let's say a cow), raising it to be killed, and then killing it just to eat it.

The more humane the process is for taking an animals life for the sake of meat, the better, but it'll never be as guilt free as eating something that is vegetation. Plants don't have complex central nervous systems, and they don't have minds that go frantic as they are being 'butchered' like say, cows and chickens. Scientists believe plants undergo some distress when parts of it are harvested, but that is the closest way they can describe it, and the plants distress is not at all anywhere near as bad as the distress animals feel when killed for meat.

Eating vegetation is basically guilt-free, really. But eating meat is important. It is the best way for people, in general, to get sufficient protein intake. Some cultures really do eat more meat than they should, though (definitely America), and like I said about the American meat industry, most of how it operates is very cruel; it is terrible.

I have some things in spoilers. Don't read if you are squeemish.

Spoiler:

To give an example, I heard this before: pigs for pork products are typically treated this way in America. They get grouped together and are confined in areas that are tightly packed. The males get agitated by this. They'll bite at other pigs and mount the females. This is problematic for the meat plant workers. For one thing, the aggression leads to kicking and biting which leads to meat being damaged. They don't want the pigs to damage so that when they kill them and make them into meat products, their meat isn't damaged. They have solutions, and they are cheap. They could do these things humanely, but they do things the cheapest way possible, and that equates to horrible things in this case.

Less aggression in males can happen by affecting testosterone production. They could get them fixed. Too time consuming and way too much money for these meat industry folks. So they fix them in the cruelest way: workers put on long, thick rubber gloves and rip off the 'male parts' that need to be removed to fix the animals. Agonizing. Furthermore, to stop pigs from biting other pigs, they clip their teeth. That means taking something that can cut teeth, and cutting them, cutting the sensitive nerves (VERY sensitive nerves). Agonizing. These people don't care. These animals don't matter to them, let them suffer badly; very badly. They'll die anyway, sooner or later, for meat products.

Another thing I heard is how they kill cows. Big hooks go into their legs, and then they are lifted up in the air. They are in great, great pain. They are shot with a rubber slug to daze them since they are freaking out. Large cutting devices are to cut them up. I didn't hear the rest. I heard these things in a college class. I heard this much about the cows, and then a girl pleaded the guy not to tell anymore because she was disturbed and bothered. It bothered me, too. Horrible things. This is typical of how animals are treated in slaughter houses. I wish to eat less meat and more free-range meats, but I don't have the money to be so selective at the moment. But the meat industry in America is pretty damn bad.

Now compare those things to plucking an apple from a tree, or harvesting some grain. Simply no comparisons, eh?

[ChainLegacy]

But you're taking issue with a capitalist practice that requires high efficiency yields rather than high-quality. So instead of raising the livestock the traditional cultural methods that have been developed for thousands of years, (which, believe it or not, involve treating the animal with care in many cases) we get the product that is easiest to make for the highest profit margin. THAT is the issue, and no there is simply no way an animal is going to feel a lot of stress if it is killed so as not to emit a pain response.

Should we care about the horrid way this industry operates? Yes, of course, it even affects the taste of the meat so that is a no-brainer. Explain to me though, instead of fighting for industry reforms or buying high-quality meat that is reared the traditional way, why would one turn to vegetarianism? It simply seems illogical to me.

And I've got to be honest with you, I don't really see the problem with raising animals just to kill and eat them. If you treat them with care and slaughter them humanely, it is no different from a natural life cycle (actually, livestock tended by nomads and other groups have a far more pampered existence than their wild cousins.)

Also, I'm not buying the plants don't care about dying argument. Animals have all kinds of different nervous systems and brain setups that no doubt significantly alter their perception of reality. With this in mind, are we really justified in saying plants don't count?

[synaesthetic]

Don't spread FUD. You got the whole process backwards. In slaughtering beef, the bolt-gun is used first, before anything else is done, basically rendering the animal brain-dead. Then it's hung by the hind legs and the animal's throat is slit, allowing it to die from exsanguination and also drain much of the blood from the carcass.

I see no problem with raising animals for food. I don't even see much of a problem with the way they're treated in modern commercial farms unless those methods impact the quality and flavor of the end product. I know what goes on in slaughterhouses and packing plants and it's not pretty. But honestly I really don't give a shit.

Humans have done far worse things to each other for far more illogical reasons. We've shot, stabbed, slashed, blown up, vaporized, infected with horrifying diseases, dissolved internal organs with corrosive gas and even dropped atomic bombs on other humans. And yet people get their panties in a wad over animals that we kill for an actual purpose--to eat them--yet suspiciously seem to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, acting as if animals are more important than humans.

This is why I loathe environmental extremists. They don't love the environment at all. They hate humanity.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

If suffering is your only concern, then humanely butchered meat should be no issue to you. There is no suffering involved if the death is so quick as to not emit a pain response.

I don't want to cause unnecessary suffering, but neither do I want to cause harm where I can prevent it. If I were to kill someone in their sleep, they would not "suffer", but I believe that by taking away their present and future, I would be harming them. Since I don't see any morally relevant difference between humans and many non-human animals, I would not buy even "humanely" butchered meat.

However, my main concern is indeed suffering, and I can at least understand why many people do not have moral concerns when it comes to eating the meat of animals that had a fairly enjoyable live and a quick, painless death. The problem is that a lot of free range meat is not really "free range", and that it's incredibly hard to ascertain how the animal was killed. The way things are, it's also pretty much impossible to treat the animals used for meat production without cruelty and produce enough meat for everyone at the same time.

[Arbitres]

If I were to kill someone in their sleep, they would not "suffer", but I believe that by taking away their present and future, I would be harming them

What present? What future? Animals raised to be butcher are dead in spirit, they have no ambition or existence besides 'living'... even that, that sounds stretched.

It sounds cruel, I'm aware - but killing an animal because it was born to die is fulfilling it's purpose. Life itself is precious, something humans nowaday fail to understand.


I don't eat meat... even then, it's very little. I have a conscience in some aspect, but I firmly believe those animals are equally dead as their cut up and grinded as they simply live, completely uanware of everything but 'there'.


Killing them is a occupation, killing them is mercy. It's better then them rotting away any further.


Speaking on my personal opinion -- I still don't like eating emat, but that doesn't mean I don't think others don't like eating it... So that's it, I'm one of the people that hardly eat it.

I don't condone or repudiate it in any manner. But... Well, you get the idea, don't you?

[ninryu]

yes, it's delicious. : D

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Arbitres

What present? What future? Animals raised to be butcher are dead in spirit, they have no ambition or existence besides 'living'... even that, that sounds stretched.

You are taking my example out of context. We were talking about "humanely" raised and slaughtered animals.

Even if that wasn't the case and I thought I had the right to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't, eating factory farmed meat leads to more animals being raised and treated that way. It's not a sign of "mercy" to torture something and then kill it.

It sounds cruel, I'm aware - but killing an animal because it was born to die is fulfilling it's purpose. Life itself is precious, something humans nowaday fail to understand.

Born to die because someone else says so? If someone raised a child for the sole puprose of killing it once it turns three years old, I wouldn't call that its "purpose in life". Not at all.

Killing them is a occupation, killing them is mercy. It's better then them rotting away any further.

It's not mercy considering they only suffer because those who want them dead make them, and seeing how their deaths are usually pretty gruesome, too.

Speaking on my personal opinion -- I still don't like eating emat, but that doesn't mean I don't think others don't like eating it...

If others wouldn't like eating meat, they probably wouldn't do it given the choice, so I think that's a fairly valid assumption, yes.

I don't condone or repudiate it in any manner. But... Well, you get the idea, don't you?

I think I do, but I still disagree with a lot of what you are saying.

[Kafriel]

First I'll make the distinction between animal and human. Humans are superior (yes, plainly because "I say so", they are arrogant beings) and can even kill without remorse. Taking emotions into account, we shouldn't kill anything, because all living things have a soul (at least according to the Bible, but I won't focus on that now). At any rate...

They don't love the environment at all. They hate humanity.

I will support this opinion, although to a lesser extent...but it still applies. I'd much rather have fresh meat on my table than eat experimental soy beef that could kill me in 30 years. Also note that people control the birth rate of animals, they don't let them go extinct.

Scientists believe plants undergo some distress when parts of it are harvested, but that is the closest way they can describe it, and the plants distress is not at all anywhere near as bad as the distress animals feel when killed for meat.

A single fire can kill entire ectars of flora, so why do people care more about 100 animals that are slain as painlessly as possible instead of being slowly burned to the ground? Also note that humans have been shot, maimed and burned alive for reasons much more trivial than survival, I only see people saying it's because of the "nature of war" though.

guilt free

I've never felt guilty about eating pork or chicken or any other kind of meat. I feel more guilty when I accidentally step on an ant. Now you're pushing your guilt on me, when there is no reason to...

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

But you're taking issue with a capitalist practice that requires high efficiency yields rather than high-quality. So instead of raising the livestock the traditional cultural methods that have been developed for thousands of years, (which, believe it or not, involve treating the animal with care in many cases) we get the product that is easiest to make for the highest profit margin. THAT is the issue, and no there is simply no way an animal is going to feel a lot of stress if it is killed so as not to emit a pain response.

Should we care about the horrid way this industry operates? Yes, of course, it even affects the taste of the meat so that is a no-brainer. Explain to me though, instead of fighting for industry reforms or buying high-quality meat that is reared the traditional way, why would one turn to vegetarianism? It simply seems illogical to me.

And I've got to be honest with you, I don't really see the problem with raising animals just to kill and eat them. If you treat them with care and slaughter them humanely, it is no different from a natural life cycle (actually, livestock tended by nomads and other groups have a far more pampered existence than their wild cousins.)

Also, I'm not buying the plants don't care about dying argument. Animals have all kinds of different nervous systems and brain setups that no doubt significantly alter their perception of reality. With this in mind, are we really justified in saying plants don't count?

I'm not a vegetarian and I didn't say people should turn to vegetarianism (but when people do, I think that is just fine). You said "If you treat them with care and slaughter them humanely...", that line of thought; I said in my post before the last one that I think such things are good. I eat meat. I don't feel good about the meat industry on the whole, but I'm happy there are more humane farms for animals that will be killed for meat (like free-range farms).

And plants do matter, but comparing taking the life of a plant for food to taking the life of an animal for food is a stark comparison. You could be a vegan or someone who eats meat everyday and see that plucking some carrots out of the ground isn't as bad as slaughtering an animal for food.

Synaesthetic, I didn't mean to spread misinformation, I was going on something I heard once five years ago.

I just don't want some people thinking I'm some tree hugging hippie type. I eat meat, but I do think a lot of how the meat industry operates is pretty bad. The more humane this sort of process is for animals, the better. I just wish it was more wide spread than it is now. Just like I wish there was more organic foods grown, because there tends to be many positives to organic foods.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#Characteristics

So basically one is "colored" one way and the other is "colored" another way. I could take any two "same" objects in a room and find differences between them if we were to nit pick. The point is what's the difference that matters to you? At best they are different at some minute cellular level, and that's stretching it into "terminology" more so then what is actually there. But if we were to make a big deal out of that then why are you people not making a fuss over which animals lays eggs and which do not? Or "cruelty" to animal that share the closest DNA structure with humans?

If I call this vegetarian thing just a mass "masochism" movement in sheep's cloth (ie. cruelty to "stupid people"), what arguments do you have in your defense?

[Unos Hambalos]

Not participating in the serious debate but, yup I eat meat and I like em.

Pork, chicken meat, beef. I love them.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by felix

So basically one is "colored" one way and the other is "colored" another way.

Yes, you could say that.

I could take any two "same" objects in a room and find differences between them if we were to nit pick. The point is what's the difference that matters to you?

You didn't ask that. And since I answered that question a thousand times already in this thread, including right above your post prior to this one, I don't really feel like repeating myself. To sum it up: the difference that matters to me is the very obvious ability to suffer that many animals possess. Go one page back if you want a few more details.

There are quite a few morally relevant differences between plants and many animals, but not so many between humans and many non-human animals. I wonder if you could even give me a single one when it comes to the latter.

If I call this vegetarian thing just a mass "masochism" movement in sheep's cloth (ie. cruelty to "stupid people"), what arguments do you have in your defense?

I don't need to defend myself, as it's clear that I'm not hurting anyone by my choice to be a vegetarian. If anything, you are the one who should be able to argue your case convincingly.

Aside from that, I'v explained my stance very clearly in this thread already. Go take a look, google "animal rights plants" (or something), or just give me what you consider a morally relevant difference between humans and non-human animals possessing a central nervous system and we can go from there.

[Tenken's Smile]

<--- meat lover

[En3mick]

I can't even think my self without eating meat.

[Silvance]

I don't think I'd be able to live without chicken, beef, and pork. So technically, yeah. I love meat.

[Tsuchi]

I like eating meat. Since, as a human, I'm an omnivore. I won't say "I'm proud of being an omnivore". That's just... trivial, I'd say. I just consider it what we are meant to be. Or at least what we can be.

No nutritionist will tell you to completely remove meat from your diet, unless you actually want to become a vegetarian. They don't live longer nor shorter lives, they will just have different problems from people who eat meat. Different diets mean different pros and cons.

The thing is, I don't like hierarchising living beings through a measurement like 'feeling of pain'. Does an alarm mechanism like pain make one being superior, more dignified or more worthy of having its life spared than one who doesn't?

My answer to that is, 'no'.

Some people could consider me a monster here, but, thinking coldly, I don't see any difference between a farm and a vegetable garden. They're both places where living beings are bred to be transformed into food.

A chicken is fed lots of chemicals to grow fast and big; we could say the same with special fertilizers that are given to plants, but since I'm no specialist and I don't really know about the real impact of those products on the plants' correct growth, I won't talk too much without knowing.

The difference? Animals have qualities that plants don't, obviously, and vice versa.

Of course, we humans have the ability of choice. If someone can live a healthy life being a vegetarian/vegan, on par with an omni, let them choose. It's not an abhorrent idea at all. I see it as something that 'limits' oneself since the spectrum of possible food is reduced, but that's outside of the matter and a personal opinion. They're not more free nor more charged with sin, they still get energy from other living beings. They die for the sake of their nutrition.

My point still stands; I think every single human, animal or plant should have the same value as a living being, feeling pain or not. Lives are lives. And we must respect them equally.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

And plants do matter, but comparing taking the life of a plant for food to taking the life of an animal for food is a stark comparison.

I still don't see it, personally. Too many assumptions are being made based on similarities to humanity. I don't think we are in a position to definitively say there is some kind of greater moral weight in killing a plant than an animal.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I still don't see it, personally. Too many assumptions are being made based on similarities to humanity. I don't think we are in a position to definitively say there is some kind of greater moral weight in killing a plant than an animal.

This. It's a lot easier to anthropomorphize a mammal than it is, say, an ear of corn. When put this way, it appears to be more like a sense of misplaced guilt than an actual moral dilemma, especially when you consider the fact that the most hardcore animal-rights activists see absolutely no evil in murdering humans to "prevent" harm to animals.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

This. It's a lot easier to anthropomorphize a mammal than it is, say, an ear of corn. When put this way, it appears to be more like a sense of misplaced guilt than an actual moral dilemma, especially when you consider the fact that the most hardcore animal-rights activists see absolutely no evil in murdering humans to "prevent" harm to animals.

Those people aren't sane. They are just as bad as the pro-life people who'd like to kill 'baby killers' and abortion doctors.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

especially when you consider the fact that the most hardcore animal-rights activists see absolutely no evil in murdering humans to "prevent" harm to animals.

"There are feminists who think men are evil, so all feminists must be stupid."

This is not a valid argument.
People who say the life of an animal is worth more than that of a human are most likely being morally inconsistent. Though this reminds me of the only vegetarian manga character I have ever encountered - yay for Jezebel. If only he stopped hating humanity now, he'd be an awesome guy... probably.

It's interesting how many people reject the similarities between humans and non-human animals without giving a reason beyond, "plants are alive, too!". Yes, plants are alive, but there's a good chance they do not possess any relevant amount of self-awareness and therefore have no active interest in staying alive. Even if they had, and even if they were capable of feeling pain (which is not all that likely, considering their lack of nervous system and the fact that it wouldn't help them much as they can't flee anyway), the meat industry kills significant amounts of plants to feed the animals it raises.

Many animals, on the other hand, are just as capable of experiencing suffering as humans are - we can be fairly sure of that. As far as I can tell, there is no morally relevant difference beween all animals and all humans, and if I didn't overlook anything, no one has even tried to point one out since this thread came back to life.