Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Were humans supposed to eat meat?

UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 10:48:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.rense.com...

The article above was brought up in another forum. The person who brought it up (hereby known as the very anonymous codename: the lightning quick Rocky Balboa) and I were talking about vegetarianism; the article starts to argue that we are not supposed to eat meat. As I read the article, one thought sprang to my mind: I see fallacies.

Here are the main points:

Intestinal/digestive tract: in the early stages of the article, it argues that humans can not be carnivores because of humanity's rather long intestinal tract. In fact, the article points out that the length of the digestive system to be closer to the length of herbivores rather than carnivores. The obvious rebuttal: humans intestines are not as long as herbivores. The even more obvious rebuttal: we can eat meat. The complex rebuttal: humans digestive tract do not mimic those of herbivores strictly enough to have this to be a valid point; we do not chew cud, we do not have multiple stomachs, and our stomach produces hydrochloric acid, all of the reverse are found in herbivores.

Head shape: In the beginning parts of the article, the pro-humanity-is-naturally-vegetarian camp claims that people do not have the stuff to be hunters (I know a lot of people who would disagree with that assumption). The herbivore camp claims that the human skull and jaws are not as adept for "'seizing, killing and dismembering prey.'" They point out that people "extensively chew food" whereas carnivores go without masticating. Also, head-size-to-mouth-size ratios are brought up as a rebuttal to the humans desire to eat that (juicy) steak. They argue that humans have a ratio closer to herbivores rather than carnivores. Obvious rebuttal: horses, cows, hippos and other herbivores have closer ratios to that of carnivores than to us. Other obvious rebuttal: we have more prominent canines, used for dismembering food, than other herbivores.

Milk: People argue in the article that, as we only started drinking milk 10,000 years ago, we must be herbivores. A) This reminds me of a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon B) non-sequitor C) Animal domestication, sponsored by agriculture D) there are many places where people eat meat and do not drink milk, such as south-east Asia.

Other: There are places in the article where people start listing the similarities of herbivores and humans and say that humans must be herbivores. Rebuttal: we have similarities to carnivores as well, like a high degree of intelligence. We are designed to be omnivores. And that steak is tasty.

So, in conclusion, we can eat meat and plants. Whether you want to be a vegetarian or a vegan, that is up to you to decide. And I respect that decision. Just don't rub it in my face.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:31:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've always thought of vegetarianism as an extreme of picky eating. I never really see the point of it.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

Ha ha ha. True. Yet another first-world luxury. Like environmentalism. And of course, it's created by the demands and facies of the first-world. Gotta have cheap food, after all!
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 6:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 6:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's my pseudoscientific take on it.

Early hominids more than likely rarely eat meat, just as most primates rarely eat meat. However, as nomadic tribes pushed the boundaries further and further, food was sparse in many areas, particularly in frozen tundra's.

Some cultures are, and have been, reliant almost entirely on a carnivorous diet out of necessity. To elucidate this point, think of the Inuit.

Mankind is best suited for a mostly herbivorean diet, however, have adaptations for carnivorous tendencies, making modern humans what they currently are.... Omnivores.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 6:49:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?:

Morally, killing people is ethically wrong. Most people agree with that. HOWEVER, under certain circumstances (like in a kill or be killed situation) most people would agree that it is perfectly moral to kill.

I don't think ethical vegetarianism has to be an all or none situation.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 7:03:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 6:49:36 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?:

Morally, killing people is ethically wrong. Most people agree with that. HOWEVER, under certain circumstances (like in a kill or be killed situation) most people would agree that it is perfectly moral to kill.

I don't think ethical vegetarianism has to be an all or none situation.

If there were groups of people in the world who ate human beings for survival I would condemn it as immoral. Would vegetarians do the same for animals?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 7:42:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If there were groups of people in the world who ate human beings for survival I would condemn it as immoral. Would vegetarians do the same for animals?:

But it comes down to an opinion, is the point. If a vegetarian has the personal conviction to not eat meat for ethical reasons, I'll respect their choice. If they condemn me for eating meat and not following their opinion on the matter, I will respect their opinion but disagree with them fervently.

That's my take on it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 6:34:12 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?

No. You misunderstand. Morality and ethics are set aside in the face of personal danger, obviously. Like kill or be killed. Eat or starve. I don't condemn those who cannot chose to do anything but eat meat because they are surviving in what is the only way they can.

How exactly is anything immoral in all cases? Almost anything, in my opinion, can be excused. Even eating a person O.o....
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 12:30:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Originally, we were all eating other mono-celled organisms.

Ape digestive tracks evolved as smaller monkey species became a more viable food source, especially for those near that migrated north with less vegetation. However, there is evidence for ape carnvirous tendencies going back millions of years, just not as a primary means of sustinence.

What does drinking milk have to do with being carnivores? It depends on mutations that keep your lactase gene on longer than others. ANY species that has lactase is capable of evolving milk "tolerance" to ages past infantcy.

However, quite a few humans haven't had that specific mutation and are thus "lactose intolerant."

Unless there are no vegetarian species that take their mothers milk, I don't see the relevance.

Homo sapien sapiens came into existence with a digestive system evolved to the extent where carnivorous diet was a viable source of food for small tribes.

Until the establishment of stable agriculture, many homo sapien sapien populations lived on largely carnvirous diets (with occasional berries and fruits picked from trees).

So, herbivores came first in the evolutionary chain, homo sapien sapiens came into existence with a digestive system evolved to handle carnviorous diets.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 7:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

i find this comment interesting, because the fact is that if we dedicated all the crop land we use to (a) raise livestock and (b) grow food for livestock to eat to growing food for humans to eat, we would have a sh*tton more food. its a basic fact of energy dynamics that every time you go up the food chain a step you lose a large percentage of the energy. we manage to extract about 10% of the energy from cows that we feed them in crops.... imagine if we fed 100% of that energy to people instead?

easy to say of course, but theres political and other issues that make this simple logic inapplicable to actual situations. i just wanted to point out the energy dynamics are actually working against you there.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 7:46:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
were meant to eat both
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
aubrey20042
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:24:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 6:34:12 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?

You falsely make the generalization that all vegetarians avoid eating meat because they believe that eating animals is inherently immoral. I'm a vegetarian, and I do not believe that eating animals is inherently immoral. If someone were to have their own farm, where the livestock is raised, treated, and killed humanely, I would have few objections. However, the meat industry in the United States (where I live) is abound with issues. Many people working in the industry are undocumented immigrants, who work in deplorable conditions, are unable to defend their rights to a clean and safe workplace, and are easily expendable. In most of the world, meat is a luxury, definitely not something to be had at nearly every meal. Because of the meat-eating habits of the U.S., tons of natural resources have to be funneled into raising all these animals for meat, as well as raising plants to be used exclusively as animal feed. It is environmentally irresponsible to eat meat at nearly every meal. Most meat animals are raised on diets of corn, a staple that these animals are not naturally supposed to eat (levels of e.coli are higher when animals are fed exclusively corn). Fewer and fewer meat inspections are undertaken each year, primarily because many of the higher-ups in the USDA and FDA were at one point higher-ups in the meat industry.

Because of these issues, I do not eat meat. Obviously if I were starving I would, but as I have the choice I do not. I do not condemn those who do not have the luxury of choice.
"The only truth is music" - Jack Kerouac
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" - Thomas Paine
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 9:34:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

Exactly. Also, I will eat meat as long as I think it was raised and slaughtered humanely (either if I saw how it was raised or if there is a third party certification).
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:10:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:24:10 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 12/29/2011 6:34:12 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?

You falsely make the generalization that all vegetarians avoid eating meat because they believe that eating animals is inherently immoral.

Wrong. I admit my first post was misleading and that is why I clarified, "IF meat-eating is immoral" when Partam also made the false assumption that I had meant all vegetarians believe meat-eating is immoral, indicating that I was specifically talking about vegetarians who believe meat-eating is immoral.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:16:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 7:38:44 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

i find this comment interesting, because the fact is that if we dedicated all the crop land we use to (a) raise livestock and (b) grow food for livestock to eat to growing food for humans to eat, we would have a sh*tton more food. its a basic fact of energy dynamics that every time you go up the food chain a step you lose a large percentage of the energy. we manage to extract about 10% of the energy from cows that we feed them in crops.... imagine if we fed 100% of that energy to people instead?

easy to say of course, but theres political and other issues that make this simple logic inapplicable to actual situations. i just wanted to point out the energy dynamics are actually working against you there.

Do you think most poverty-stricken countries can get all the nutrients they need from the crops they can grow on their own? We are fortunate to be able to import food as well as consume pills and powders to make up for any nutrients we may be deficient in. It would probably be a lot cheaper for them to grow their own animals than to import vitamins and foreign foods from elsewhere. And people in poverty-stricken countries have more things to worry about than the well-being of animals. I may be generalizing all poverty-stricken countries, but I'm thinking of a specific country as I type this.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:35:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 10:16:36 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 12/31/2011 7:38:44 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

i find this comment interesting, because the fact is that if we dedicated all the crop land we use to (a) raise livestock and (b) grow food for livestock to eat to growing food for humans to eat, we would have a sh*tton more food. its a basic fact of energy dynamics that every time you go up the food chain a step you lose a large percentage of the energy. we manage to extract about 10% of the energy from cows that we feed them in crops.... imagine if we fed 100% of that energy to people instead?

easy to say of course, but theres political and other issues that make this simple logic inapplicable to actual situations. i just wanted to point out the energy dynamics are actually working against you there.

Do you think most poverty-stricken countries can get all the nutrients they need from the crops they can grow on their own? We are fortunate to be able to import food as well as consume pills and powders to make up for any nutrients we may be deficient in. It would probably be a lot cheaper for them to grow their own animals than to import vitamins and foreign foods from elsewhere. And people in poverty-stricken countries have more things to worry about than the well-being of animals. I may be generalizing all poverty-stricken countries, but I'm thinking of a specific country as I type this.

Additionally, in North America our government regulates our food and we can be fairly certain of where it comes from and what it contains. There are countries out there that don't have that luxury and a vegan diet would just not be feasible.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 1:18:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

Why SHOULD we choose to be vegetarian?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 1:31:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 8:24:10 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 12/29/2011 6:34:12 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?

You falsely make the generalization that all vegetarians avoid eating meat because they believe that eating animals is inherently immoral. I'm a vegetarian, and I do not believe that eating animals is inherently immoral. If someone were to have their own farm, where the livestock is raised, treated, and killed humanely, I would have few objections. However, the meat industry in the United States (where I live) is abound with issues. Many people working in the industry are undocumented immigrants, who work in deplorable conditions, are unable to defend their rights to a clean and safe workplace, and are easily expendable. In most of the world, meat is a luxury, definitely not something to be had at nearly every meal. Because of the meat-eating habits of the U.S., tons of natural resources have to be funneled into raising all these animals for meat, as well as raising plants to be used exclusively as animal feed. It is environmentally irresponsible to eat meat at nearly every meal. Most meat animals are raised on diets of corn, a staple that these animals are not naturally supposed to eat (levels of e.coli are higher when animals are fed exclusively corn). Fewer and fewer meat inspections are undertaken each year, primarily because many of the higher-ups in the USDA and FDA were at one point higher-ups in the meat industry.

Because of these issues, I do not eat meat. Obviously if I were starving I would, but as I have the choice I do not. I do not condemn those who do not have the luxury of choice.

I tend to stick to local, field raised cattle and chickens. (not sure if the chickens are field raised, they just came after). I don't tend to eat pork too often. My other meats come from hunting and are seasonal. Most of my fish intake is in spring and summer, with a little in fall; trout season in spring, fluke, weakfish (we don't tend to keep them due to decreasing population), bluefish, and kingfish in summer, and trout again in spring. I don't like store bought fish. For whatever reason, I find myself unable to eat it most of the time. Unfortunately, the same tends to be true for store bought vegetables. I have to force myself to eat them. I much prefer eating the vegetable straight off the plant. All of the apples I eat are grown local. I eat bananas too, which obviously aren't local, and the occasional kiwi or pomegranate. I like wild raspberries in summer and local strawberries in fall. I've also found a field of wild blueberries, but haven't up there since I verified what they were.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 2:33:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 10:10:30 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 1/1/2012 8:24:10 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 12/29/2011 6:34:12 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

But if a person believes eating meat is immoral, shouldn't it be immoral in all cases? How can one defend vegetarianism as being the only ethically right choice without condemning all those who do not have the luxury to choose?

You falsely make the generalization that all vegetarians avoid eating meat because they believe that eating animals is inherently immoral.

Wrong. I admit my first post was misleading and that is why I clarified, "IF meat-eating is immoral" when Partam also made the false assumption that I had meant all vegetarians believe meat-eating is immoral, indicating that I was specifically talking about vegetarians who believe meat-eating is immoral.

nonentity, what is your definition of morality. In other words, what criteria do you use to distinguish a moral action from an immoral action.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:31:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 1:18:43 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

Why SHOULD we choose to be vegetarian?

There are 5 reasons for reducing or eliminating you intake of animal products.

Diet
There is a very strong and scientifically sound argument to be made that, if you want to increase you longevity and decrease you risk of disease, you should choose to be a vegetarian.

Morality
If you are opposed to animal torture, you should choose to be a vegetarian. Animal farms are not simply places where animals live for a while and then are suddenly euthanized. There is a catalog of torments systematically applied to every type of farmed animal. Slaughterhouse are places where animals are sent to be tortured to death, sometimes, very slowly.

Environmentalism
aubrey20042 has already written well about this. If you value an environment conducive to human flourishing you should become a vegetarian.

Human welfare
aubrey20042 also wrote about this.

Meatpacking is the most dangerous job in U.S.. Slaughterhouses have the highest turnover rate in the U.S. You should become vegetarian if you want low-wage earners to be employed on safer plant-based farms instead of dangerous slaughterhouses. (http://www.wesleyan.edu...)

Epidemiology
The bird flu and swine flu outbreaks likely originated on animal farms (http://ipsnews.net...). Epidemics like these will eventually strike again, likely resulting in tremendous losses of life. If you value human life, you should become a vegetarian to advocate for and promote a reduction in factory farming.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:36:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not generally the fact that vegetarians don't normally eat meat. The main reason is that most vegans treat vegetarianism religiously, and attempt to try to "convert" others to to become vegetarians when the have to right or reason to.

Also, how can vegetarians not eat meant. Meat is do delicious.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:57:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 1:18:43 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:54:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:39:41 PM, nonentity wrote:
Calling meat-eating immoral is essentially condemning every poverty stricken country... I wonder what vegetarians/vegans propose we do about that?

I am a vegetarian, and please don't associate all of us under the same set of ideas. If it came down to it, I would eat meat. I would even kill the cow! It's about survival, and if they need the inexpensive means to survive, then so be it. As long as the slaughter is humane and free of cruelty.

However, seeing as I have the luxury to choose, I choose being vegetarian. Anyone who has the option SHOULD follow vegetarianism, but I understand that that won't happen. People are too set in their comfort zones, or too unwilling to be labeled.

Why SHOULD we choose to be vegetarian?

For me it's mainly because of morality- animals are not raised in humane conditions.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:58:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 3:36:20 PM, MasterKage wrote:
It's not generally the fact that vegetarians don't normally eat meat. The main reason is that most vegans treat vegetarianism religiously, and attempt to try to "convert" others to to become vegetarians when the have to right or reason to.

Also, how can vegetarians not eat meant. Meat is do delicious.

The reason many vegetarians try to "convert" others is because they think that the animals are raised in inhumane conditions, and every person they convert means fewer animals are raised in inhumane conditions. It's really not that hard to avoid eating meat.