NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?

I eat them if thats what you mean.

Eating an already dead animal isn't cruel. It may be cruel to kill it, although I personally don't have a problem with that as long as it's done in a respectful and painless way.

Certainly it could be made less cruel. And personally I believe that everyone who eats meat should be required to watch at least one slaughterhouse documentary. If they still decide to eat meat afterwards, that's their prerogative.

Certainly it could be made less cruel. And personally I believe that everyone who eats meat should be required to watch at least one slaughterhouse documentary. If they still decide to eat meat afterwards, that's their prerogative.
Well i'm in the clear then.

So, you wouldn't mind dying as long as it's painless and quick? Can't be SO bad hmm?

Eating an already dead animal isn't cruel.

Yes, it is. Because the animal would not have been killed had you not been there to eat it. You are the cause of it being killed. If there were no meat-eaters, there would be no meat.

Pricisely!!!

What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?
There's more to vegetarianism than "Cute cuddlies shouldn't be eaten, OMG ur so mean to the fluffie-wuffie snookumses!"

I as a vegetarian am incredibly insulted to be put in an ideological box with those kinds of freaks.

My view on simply not eating meat is this -- are our choices negatively harming the non-vegetarians? It's like the friend who doesn't want to drink until he's 21 -- it totally doesn't kill your buzz, but everybody tries to change his mind anyway.

And please, dont' start on that cruelty bit -- you can blow all the hot air you want about how I "don't understand", but until you've been slaughtered for the meat on your bones, neither do you. For all you know, it might not be that bad.

So, you wouldn't mind dying as long as it's painless and quick? Can't be SO bad hmm?
I would not mind dieing painless, just so long as i dond't have people who relied on me. If i die now, I would have been more than happie with what i have done in life. And at the moment if i die, no one will be screwed, just some people would be upset. And so long as I leave with out it being harmful to others, It would have been a decent death.

If there were no meat eaters, herbivores would overrun their territories and die of starvation leaving rotting carcasses all over the land. Carnivores are an important link in the food chain. Also, meat is delicious, if you ask me.

Yes, it is. Because the animal would not have been killed had you not been there to eat it. You are the cause of it being killed. If there were no meat-eaters, there would be no meat.and all the animals would live forever!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!! :rolleyes:

So, you wouldn't mind dying as long as it's painless and quick? Can't be SO bad hmm?
There's a world of difference between me and a cow. Besides, eating meat kills far fewer animals than eating grain does.

So, you wouldn't mind dying as long as it's painless and quick? Can't be SO bad hmm?

Well, if it was painless and quick, I'd probably be dead before I could mind the dying part...

Yes, it is. Because the animal would not have been killed had you not been there to eat it. You are the cause of it being killed. If there were no meat-eaters, there would be no meat.
Uh, that is fairly circular...

All animals are eaten at sometime in some way. You can't tell me that my cat killing the bunny by tearing it apart is less cruel than my popping it in the head with a .22. Ditto for the Cougar & the Deer.

Free Range cattle that are slaughtered are in no way being treated cruelly (feedlots are another issue).

Omnivores eat meat. Humans are Omnivores. Humans that do not eat meat do so from political or religious ideologies that are out of ballance with nature.

Yeah, but I remind you that it's natural. I agree that there should not be so many cruel ways of killing animals, and perhaps we meat-eaters should focus on boycotting those products, but it's rough to find solidarity with vegetarians and vegans when the rest of the animal kingdom has no problem with eating meat.

I do care about animal rights, but I don't rank their lives on quite the same level as human life. I know that makes me a human supremacist, but that's where I am right now.

One criticism is that cattle ranching contributes to cow flatulence, or something, working against the ozone layer (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). But I see this as a red herring; no environmentalist I've met would advocate wiping out the cow species as a sacrifice for the ozone.

Yeah, but I remind you that it's natural. I agree that there should not be so many cruel ways of killing animals, and perhaps we meat-eaters should focus on boycotting those products, but it's rough to find solidarity with vegetarians and vegans when the rest of the animal kingdom has no problem with eating meat.

I do care about animal rights, but I don't rank their lives on quite the same level as human life. I know that makes me a human supremacist, but that's where I am right now.

One criticism is that cattle ranching contributes to cow flatulence, or something, working against the ozone layer (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). But I see this as a red herring; no environmentalist I've met would advocate wiping out the cow species as a sacrifice for the ozone.
Well then I'll do it just to spite you. And all you true omnivores who still can eat meat -- we'll have a barbeque at my place to celebrate the excess of.....beef. Soy and veggie alternatives available to my fellow veggies :D

There' now THAT'S solidarity :fluffle:

Simonist']There's more to vegetarianism than "Cute cuddlies shouldn't be eaten, OMG ur so mean to the fluffie-wuffie snookumses!"

I as a vegetarian am incredibly insulted to be put in an ideological box with those kinds of freaks.

My view on simply not eating meat is this -- are our choices negatively harming the non-vegetarians? It's like the friend who doesn't want to drink until he's 21 -- it totally doesn't kill your buzz, but everybody tries to change his mind anyway.

And please, dont' start on that cruelty bit -- you can blow all the hot air you want about how I "don't understand", but until you've been slaughtered for the meat on your bones, neither do you. For all you know, it might not be that bad.

How very Biblical of you. :)

One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him.

Of course, this is taken completely out of context, but it's still funny to me. The moral: don't make fun of vegetarians/vegans.

If there were no meat eaters, herbivores would overrun their territories and die of starvation leaving rotting carcasses all over the land. Carnivores are an important link in the food chain. Also, meat is delicious, if you ask me.

Beeep! Wrong. Thank you for trying. Those herbivores are currently being mass-produced for human consumption (which, incidentally, is harmful to the environment). If there were no meat-eaters, most of those animals would not be born in the first place, and the few that would, would fit into the natural balance of nature. If you believe animals bred for meat are bred naturally and in natural numbers, you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.


and all the animals would live forever!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!

Beeep! Wrong. See above.


Uh, that is fairly circular...

All animals are eaten at sometime in some way. You can't tell me that my cat killing the bunny by tearing it apart is less cruel than my popping it in the head with a .22. Ditto for the Cougar & the Deer.

Free Range cattle that are slaughtered are in no way being treated cruelly (feedlots are another issue).

Omnivores eat meat. Humans are Omnivores. Humans that do not eat meat do so from political or religious ideologies that are out of ballance with nature.

Nope. The fundamental differences are

a) we humans can live long and healthy lives without eating meat, so clearly there's nothing unatural about it, and

b) humans are unique in the sense that they have the capacity for a sense of ethics.

What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?

Humans are designed to eat animals, that's why we have the teeth we have. Our teeth aren't desinged to eat carrots and tomatoes for a living.

I say, it's not rude at all.

Rude? To eat animals? Vegi, or Non-Vegi, thats sound stupid as can be. :rolleyes:

<snip>Nope. The fundamental differences are

a) we humans can live long and healthy lives without eating meat, so clearly there's nothing unatural about it, andIf and only if you assume Modern Agriculture (decdedly unnatural) or a hugely diminished population.
b) humans are unique in the sense that they have the capacity for a sense of ethics.What does ethich have to do with biological subsistance? Ethics is the means by which humans interact with each other - not animals. "Morality" is Ethics modified by dogma. Your dogma may find killing animals morraly repugnant, but as long as the killing is neither wanton nor excessive for the need, than the "ethics" of the killing are equivilant to the "ethics" of any other omnivore/carnivore doing the killing - usually with less pain and fear to boot.

Beeep! Wrong. Thank you for trying. Those herbivores are currently being mass-produced for human consumption (which, incidentally, is harmful to the environment). If there were no meat-eaters, most of those animals would not be born in the first place, and the few that would, would fit into the natural balance of nature. If you believe animals bred for meat are bred naturally and in natural numbers, you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.



Beeep! Wrong. See above.



Nope. The fundamental differences are

a) we humans can live long and healthy lives without eating meat, so clearly there's nothing unatural about it, and

b) humans are unique in the sense that they have the capacity for a sense of ethics.

1. Show me a moose farm. Come on. There are delicious things out there besides cows.

2. You didn't register the sarcasm on that one.

3a. I don't think I'd want to live past thirty if it was living on soy and celery.

3b. Ethics is in a different department than survival. Leave it to humanity to think of ways to NOT feed its families.

1. Show me a moose farm. Come on. There are delicious things out there besides cows.

2. You didn't register the sarcasm on that one.

3a. I don't think I'd want to live past thirty if it was living on soy and celery.

3b. Ethics is in a different department than survival. Leave it to humanity to think of ways to NOT feed its families.

SOY AND CELERY? EAT CHEESE AND WHEAT. SCREW SOY AND CELERY

SOY AND CELERY? EAT CHEESE AND WHEAT. SCREW SOY AND CELERY
Lactose intolerance? Wheat intolerance? Yeast sensitivity?

Two sides of every coin.

SOY AND CELERY? EAT CHEESE AND WHEAT. SCREW SOY AND CELERY
[PETA mode=ON]
Cheese?

CHEESE?!

You would enslave our bovine sisters and drain them of their personal lactation?

You beast!
[/PETA mode]
:rolleyes:

I'm not a big fan of agro-industry farmed anything - especially meat. I much prefer to kill my own. That way I know where it came from, how "humanely" it was killed, and who handled the meat.

Besides, all those bambi heads annoy the PETArds.

SOY AND CELERY? EAT CHEESE AND WHEAT. SCREW SOY AND CELERY
Hey kid, do you know what cheese is made from?

I'm down with the food chain. The reason we need to mass-produce meat is because we don't have any natural predators, so our population is always expanding.

I must admit I'm a little biased to the meaty side, because I'm such a carnivore. I'd probably eat people if I got the chance... :D

"It's PEOPLE! Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!"

Cheese is made from cream or milk, with some kinds having rennet in them.

a) we humans can live long and healthy lives without eating meat, so clearly there's nothing unatural about it, and
Some can. If you have a nut allergy, good luck. Getting the full protein and B-complex vitamins the body needs to survive isn't easy with that.

b) humans are unique in the sense that they have the capacity for a sense of ethics.Prove it. Just because we can't communicate well with animals doesn't mean they have no sense of ethics. There's some evidence that certain higher order animals, including orangutangs and elephants behave in ways that seem to indicate some sort of rudimentary ethics.

Oh, and for the person who said you kill fewer animals by eating meat than wheat, remember that the meat needs to eat too, and typically it's less efficient than if we just ate the grains directly.

Meat, in moderation, is natural and healthy.
Meat, in the way western society eats it, really isn't.

Eating an already dead animal isn't cruel. It may be cruel to kill it, although I personally don't have a problem with that as long as it's done in a respectful and painless way.

yeah, we are agreed: i'd rather the animal not be tortured.

hunting is okay, so long as you shoot to kill and not to maim. it's probably less painful for the deer (or whatever) to die in a few minutes from a gunshot wound than over the course of a month from starvation... if we just let the deer population go un unchecked, some/many/more of them probably would starve to death.

we are part of the food web, the top predator (except anyone unarmed in India and parts of Africa)

What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?
I eat animals because NOT eating them is cruel...to my taste buds. :D

I'm a vegetarian. I figure if I can go without causing unnecessary death in other animals while living a perfectly healthy life, then why not?

I don't encourage others to avoid meat, I simply won't cook meat for anyone.

Could care less one way or the other. I like meat I'm going to eat it, but I don't care if others don't want to, it doesn't effect me. So long as they treat me with the same curtisy(sp) and they do not harp at me not to eat meat.

I'm a vegetarian. I figure if I can go without causing unnecessary death in other animals while living a perfectly healthy life, then why not?

I don't encourage others to avoid meat, I simply won't cook meat for anyone.



HERE HERE! :cool:

Also a vegetarian. Not for political reasons, I've simply never been keen on the taste of it. I don't mind if others eat meat, I just don't like it myself.

a question for vegetarians.. it is now possible to grow meat in the lab from just a few cells quite efficiently free from animal suffering. If it was proven to be safe would you eat it?

a question for vegetarians.. it is now possible to grow meat in the lab from just a few cells quite efficiently free from animal suffering. If it was proven to be safe would you eat it?
Well I certainly wouldn't, but that's not why I'm a vegetarian. Now, if they could grow meat in a lab quite efficiently that my body was able to process and properly digest without sickness and vomitting, I'd be all over that :cool:

It's kinda funny that we live in a society now where that's a choice. Only a few generations ago, especially in the US, were people desperate for any kind of food, because times were so bad.

I fish a lot, and gutting them is part of the path to the dinner plate. I've also prepared chickens from feather to fryer. I find it odd that something that was a fact of life is now sickening to many.

Animals are delicious. But my philosophy on killing animals is: If you kill it, you'd better make use of it. Don't kill just for the sake of killing.

But what about the PLANTS?! How do we know THEY don't have feelings?! We trample them, we build houses out of their bodies, we drain their blood and put it on pancakes! THE HORRER!!

Eating meat isn't too bad. But I make sure I only eat free range products. Which includes eggs, milk and any type of meat. :)

But what about the PLANTS?! How do we know THEY don't have feelings?! We trample them, we build houses out of their bodies, we drain their blood and put it on pancakes! THE HORRER!!
I think you may have just spoiled my favourite breakfast.....icky

Animals are delicious. But my philosophy on killing animals is: If you kill it, you'd better make use of it. Don't kill just for the sake of killing.
Whole heartedly agree.

I love Vegans! more meat for the rest of us


What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?

One cannot live life without killing something. Every second that you breath, you kill thousands of bacteria, it's just a matter of minimizing the amount, sentiosness of the creatures you kill.

But what about the PLANTS?! How do we know THEY don't have feelings?! We trample them, we build houses out of their bodies, we drain their blood and put it on pancakes! THE HORRER!!
IIRC many years ago I saw a NOVA(?) on TV that took an EEG and hooked it up to one of two living, potted cabbage plants.

The researchers walked people past the two plants with little response.

They then did it again, but had one of the walkers pull up the un-monitored cabbage and dice it with a cleaver. Potted Cabbage "B"s EEG went bonkers.

They then walked the people through again, in a different order. When the "cabbage murderer" walked into the room the EEG wen off the charts.

So, Cabbages got feelings and don't want to be eaten either. Go figure.

mmmm, Just had a burger ....mmm

I like eating meat, it is yummy.

But in the end it comes down to personal morals, when I look into the eyes of a chicken i see a dumb animal that would only be of any use in the oven. but when I look at a different animal, like a dog I see that it can have purpose, protection and companionship.

To me what I do with an animal depends on its usefullness, if it has none it is food, if it has some purpose like protection or travel let it be so.

Finally, its their fault for not inventing pointy sticks first!!!

IIRC many years ago I saw a NOVA(?) on TV that took an EEG and hooked it up to one of two living, potted cabbage plants.

The researchers walked people past the two plants with little response.

They then did it again, but had one of the walkers pull up the un-monitored cabbage and dice it with a cleaver. Potted Cabbage "B"s EEG went bonkers.

They then walked the people through again, in a different order. When the "cabbage murderer" walked into the room the EEG wen off the charts.

So, Cabbages got feelings and don't want to be eaten either. Go figure.
That is the FREAKIEST thing I ever heard.

Note to self: Leave no cabbagey witnesses....

Simonist']That is the FREAKIEST thing I ever heard.

Note to self: Leave no cabbagey witnesses....
Thus I find the "don't eat meat 'cause fish got feelings too" argument specious.

IMO Don't eat meat if you don't want to. But don't make it some sort of quasi-religious Political issue either. (not speaking to you personally...) ;)

I don’t eat meant because its unhealthy and the thought of consuming rotting flesh makes me sick. However, I don’t have a moral opposition to eating it.

I love meat. Meat is delicious and nutritious. I alos love veggies. I really could care less what the heck the animal thinks. After all, I need to eat. Do you really think a wolf or a lion or what have you thinks, "Huh, I better not kill this deer/antelope/whatever because it might have feelings?"

And soy sucks. I hate soy. With a passion.

Vegan :D
Flame on

I don’t eat meant because its unhealthy and the thought of consuming rotting flesh makes me sick. However, I don’t have a moral opposition to eating it.

Er, I have nothing against your decision not to eat meat, and I'll agree that most people, at least in North America, eat way more meat than is good for them, but it seems a bit odd for you to consider eating something, that humans are a least half built for, unhealthy.

Explain, perhaps?

The rotting meat thing works well enough, though. :D

Er, I have nothing against your decision not to eat meat, and I'll agree that most people, at least in North America, eat way more meat than is good for them, but it seems a bit odd for you to consider eating something, that humans are a least half built for, unhealthy.

Explain, perhaps?

The rotting meat thing works well enough, though. :D

I think its debatable how healthy meat is in general... You've gotta do some research on it and you'll find more cons than you'd think. Farm raised meat is unhealthy for a bunch of other reasons of which I'm sure you're mostly aware. In addition, the way people eat meat (in the US at least) is way out of control- definitely far into the realm of unhealthy.

Er, I have nothing against your decision not to eat meat, and I'll agree that most people, at least in North America, eat way more meat than is good for them, but it seems a bit odd for you to consider eating something, that humans are a least half built for, unhealthy.

Explain, perhaps?
Because not everyone’s digestive system is designed to eat meat. When I ate it, I would get terrible gas and stomach pains. I didn’t know what was wrong with me. When I stopped eating meat, the digestive problems ceased. The same thing happened to my mother.

Because not everyone’s digestive system is designed to eat meat. When I ate it, I would get terrible gas and stomach pains. I didn’t know what was wrong with me. When I stopped eating meat, the digestive problems ceased. The same thing happened to my mother.

Yea... besides that how many people do you know that can digest raw meat like all the other omnivores....? We're not made to digest milk proteins either. Silly kids... cow's milk's for calves.

Because not everyone’s digestive system is designed to eat meat. When I ate it, I would get terrible gas and stomach pains. I didn’t know what was wrong with me. When I stopped eating meat, the digestive problems ceased. The same thing happened to my mother.

Perfect explanation, thank you.

EDIT: But really, humans are so weird with what they can digest. I mean, we're not entirely properly built to eat meat, and we're not entirely properly built to eat plants. Technically we can't even digest most plants themselves, we just eat their 'babies'.

I love meat. Meat is delicious and nutritious. I alos love veggies. I really could care less what the heck the animal thinks. After all, I need to eat. Do you really think a wolf or a lion or what have you thinks, "Huh, I better not kill this deer/antelope/whatever because it might have feelings?"

And soy sucks. I hate soy. With a passion.

"couldn't care less", for goodness' sake! It's "couldn't"! Do you never stop to think about the meaning of what you write?

Oh, and your point is nonsense. Wolves and lions

a) lack a sense of ethics, and

b) are carnivores, whereas humans are omnivores.

Oh, and your point is nonsense. Wolves and lions

a) lack a sense of ethics, and

b) are carnivores, whereas humans are omnivores.

just wanted to add a little...

c) are, for all practical purposes, unable to eat anything else

Veggie here. Became one about 6 months ago.

I feel healthy both in body and soul since then.

For those who say that you cannot get certain proteins from a vegetarian diet..I think I don't need them. I am not planning to become a body builder or anything. I live a normal life with a bit of sports and some treadmill and keep myself fit. Ever since I gave up meat and eggs, I have never felt myself wanting when I do my workouts or sports. In fact, I have felt better ever since I gave up meat.

I also do not agree that we should be eating meat just because we are able to eat meat and that somehow it is "natural". We have a choice. It is our choice to eat meat. Everyone incurs karma for making that choice out of their freewill. Thou shall not kill - applies for animals too.

Hindu scriptures say that when you kill another being to satisfy material pleasure, you incur the karma by which you would have to undergo the same treatment in your next life and expend that karma.

Do unto others as you would have them unto you - means exactly that.

Besides, it has been proved that raising animals for meat consumes more resoures in terms of land, water etc due to the inefficiency in energy conversions.

So looking at it from ethical, religious, ecological and health POV, vegetarian diet is the best. :)

Please, eat a baby seal for charity. :(

Mmm...but who can turn down that steak, or ribs, or those endless varieties of chicken. Or fish/shrimp, however it's done (mmm I'm going to go get some sushi on saturday :) ). Those cute little animals just taste so very good!

Now, there is a difference between enjoying meat and eating nothing but meat. But I couldn't stand to live without it.

So looking at it from ethical, religious, ecological and health POV, vegetarian diet is the best.

I look on it more as a thing of "dine in moderation"

Mmmmmmmmmmmm...Bloody meat, dripping in blood and juices...mmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Bloody meatness mmmmmm

Humans: Top of the food chain
Everything Else: Below us on the food chain

The world is an all you can eat buffet so enjoy it while it lasts. Who knows when we'll be bumped to number 2 on the chain.

Certainly it could be made less cruel. And personally I believe that everyone who eats meat should be required to watch at least one slaughterhouse documentary. If they still decide to eat meat afterwards, that's their prerogative.

I was eatting a steak fajita while watching Peta's "meet you meat". It didn't bothered me. Does that count?

What about the poor, poor carrots? I ate a carrot, a living thing, once when I was a child. I can still hear the screams at night...

What about the poor, poor carrots? I ate a carrot, a living thing, once when I was a child. I can still hear the screams at night...

Sence you mention it...

http://biggercheese.com/comics/0521.png

:D

People who think that eating meat is unethical are idiotic. Ethics does not extend to animals. Animals are a resource, and humans can do anything they wish with them, including kill them in order to digest them.

I eat meat because I like to eat meat. I couldn't give a damn what pain or suffering the animal went through. It's a resource, as simple as that, it's not a human. It has no right to life.

Actually wild wolves eat fruits and berries when they find any, and during WWI Hagenbeck's zoo fed their predators veggies (and no meat). They didn't get any sicker than sitting in cages had already made them.

My dad had a book that was called something like 'Eating Right for your Blood Type'

Basically what it said was the different blood types produce different levels of stomach acid, and so therefore are built to eat different types of food.

My daughter is an A-, and she survives mostly on veggies. A two year old who will tear into a pile of carrots or cucumber slices or broccoli, but only sometimes eats meat or pasta. I'm an O-, so the only times I really feel full and satisfied is if I've got a belly full of meat. Bs are more for the carbs... potatoes, pasta, etc. I forgot what AB is, I keep wanting to read that book again...

Some people feel really good after dropping meat from their diets, might be that they're not an O. Some people really need meat. Of course there are like allergies and stuff to take into effect, but there's a simple way to see what sort of diet you should be on - and maybe that'll explain why your brother's wife feels so heavy and grumpy after a big steak dinner while he feels energized and satisfied.

Idea of Food Chain: Bunk. Seriously, anyone who thinks that the 'food chain' is accepted theory is sadly mistaken. You learn this in modern high school. Do some study.

Yeah, I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons. The idea that other animals are a 'resource' for human exploitation makes me sick. That sort of hubris is responsible for many, many things that are wrong with this world, and if new attitudes don't start becoming more prevalent, basically, we're screwed in a number of ways.

Killing animals for food is simply inflicting unncecessary death and suffering. Not because we need it, but because we like it. Humans have progressed to a point where we longer need meat to get the sustenance we need, so frankly, we shouldn't be doing it anymore. There are cultures where people DO need it, because they don't have the technology to get by without it. I can't say I like that, but I can understand doing it, because it is necessary for survival. But people living in modern societies, with all the technology we have available, continuing to eat meat is just arrogance and blatant selfishness.

That said, I'm not one of those people who walks into restaurants and randomly yells at people about being murderers for eating meat or anything like that, but if someone asks my opinion, I'm not going to hold back. I do sometimes come off as pretty militant, but but only when people ask me my opinion first, so I see it as their fault if they get offended.

Killing animals for food is simply inflicting unncecessary death and suffering.
So what? That's a cost humans are willing to pay, the desire for meat is vastly more important than the death of farmed animals. These animals would not even exist where it not for the meat industry.

Meat is both healthy and natural for humans to eat. It is also tasty. That is really all the reason one needs to kill animals for food as far as I'm concerned. Animals are a resource and humans can do with them what they please.

Also, your claim that eating meat is unethical is illogical. Ethics has nothing to do with eating food, provided the animals aren't exploited in a way that wantonly causes "pain and suffering". The level of "suffering" that is most cost effective is the "ethical" amount.

Humans who eat meat aren't selfish, simply because you can't be selfish unless you infringe on a human's rights, not an animal's. An animal has no inherent rights.

Idea of Food Chain: Bunk. Seriously, anyone who thinks that the 'food chain' is accepted theory is sadly mistaken. You learn this in modern high school. Do some study.

Yeah, I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons. The idea that other animals are a 'resource' for human exploitation makes me sick. That sort of hubris is responsible for many, many things that are wrong with this world, and if new attitudes don't start becoming more prevalent, basically, we're screwed in a number of ways.

Killing animals for food is simply inflicting unncecessary death and suffering. Not because we need it, but because we like it. Humans have progressed to a point where we longer need meat to get the sustenance we need, so frankly, we shouldn't be doing it anymore. There are cultures where people DO need it, because they don't have the technology to get by without it. I can't say I like that, but I can understand doing it, because it is necessary for survival. But people living in modern societies, with all the technology we have available, continuing to eat meat is just arrogance and blatant selfishness.

That said, I'm not one of those people who walks into restaurants and randomly yells at people about being murderers for eating meat or anything like that, but if someone asks my opinion, I'm not going to hold back. I do sometimes come off as pretty militant, but but only when people ask me my opinion first, so I see it as their fault if they get offended. AMEN!

Originally Posted by Revasser
Idea of Food Chain: Bunk. Seriously, anyone who thinks that the 'food chain' is accepted theory is sadly mistaken. You learn this in modern high school. Do some study.

The food chain is "bunk"? What kind of crazy school did you go to?

What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?

I don't care how food animals are treated. They're going to die relatively soon, anyways, so I don't place any meaning on their lives.

Hah, coincidentally, I'm interviewing for a job as a butcher this weekend.. I'm pretty psyched, since it'll mean sweet discounts on good stuff. I won't be involved in the killing process, though, so I can't offer any insight on how animals are treated in U.S. slaughterhouses..

I have slaughtered animals for my own consumption before, though, humanely of course. Believe me, anything smaller than about 110 lbs (let's say, goats and smaller) feel nothing after a solid shot from an 8-lb sledge.. it's "lights out," instantly.

So what? That's a cost humans are willing to pay, the desire for meat is vastly more important than the death of farmed animals. These animals would not even exist where it not for the meat industry.

Meat is both healthy and natural for humans to eat. It is also tasty. That is really all the reason one needs to kill animals for food as far as I'm concerned. Animals are a resource and humans can do with them what they please.

Also, your claim that eating meat is unethical is illogical. Ethics has nothing to do with eating food, provided the animals aren't exploited in a way that wantonly causes "pain and suffering". The level of "suffering" that is most cost effective is the "ethical" amount.

Humans who eat meat aren't selfish, simply because you can't be selfish unless you infringe on a human's rights, not an animal's. An animal has no inherent rights.

Wow. I guess arrogance really does come easily to some people. I have to work at mine.

Saying 'these animals would not exist were it not for the meat industry' is a ridiculous claim. They would not exist in quite their current state, becase we force them to breed in certain ways, but saying they would not exist at all is ludicrous.

Meat can be healthy, not because of its instrinsic healthiness, but because of the specific nutrients that can be derived from it. These nutrients can also be acquired in other ways. As for it being natural, sure, but what right to we have to claim that as a reason for it when we strive so hard to separate ourselves from nature? Whether or not it is tasty is up to the individual and entirely irrelevant.

Eating meat being unethical is not logical? How did you come to THAT conclusion? My ethics tell me that it is wrong, yours tell you differently, obviously. Just because your sense of ethics differs from mine does not mean mine is illogical.

To me, it doesn't matter if that's a cost humans are willing to pay, because they aren't the ones paying it. Maybe when humans are voluntarily being farmed and breeding in ways that produce the best meat for some other animal to eat, you'd have a point, as it stands, you do not.

Also, your definition of exploitation and wanton pain and suffering obviously differs from mine. I see keeping animals in tiny pens until they are stunned and then have their throats cut and left to bleed out while they are still alive as wanton pain and suffering.



The food chain is "bunk"? What kind of crazy school did you go to?


The kind of school that actually taught modern biology? The food 'chain' is an outdated concept. It implies simple top-to-bottom linearity, whereas modern research shows this is be incorrect.

Edit: You say an animal has no inherent rights; the law in most western countries would disagree with you.

Jeez, I posted this days ago, then outta the wood work POP front page. JEEZ!

Jeez, I posted this days ago, then outta the wood work POP front page. JEEZ!

Don't post threads if you don't want necromancy performed on them every now and again ;)

All this crap about vegtible's feeling is anoying the hell outta me! REAL good logic, a vegtible is alive, so why can't I eat something more sentiant, like a cow? STUPID! That's as dumb as saying "Gee whiz, a cow has feelings so therefor it's wrong to eat it. Therefor I should also eat humans...gee i'm smart!". IDIOT!

Don't post threads if you don't want necromancy performed on them every now and again ;)
I don't mind it really. It's just a kinda WOW thing.

Wow. I guess arrogance really does come easily to some people. I have to work at mine.
Arrogance has nothing to do with what you eat, are all vegetarians so condecending?

Saying 'these animals would not exist were it not for the meat industry' is a ridiculous claim. They would not exist in quite their current state, becase we force them to breed in certain ways, but saying they would not exist at all is ludicrous.

It is really quite simple. The animals are bred for eating. They would therefore not exist otherwise. So who cares if they die? That is the whole point for why they exist in the first place, to die.

We can expand this further. Species like domestic chickens, cows, etc, were bred by humans for the express purpose of being a resource. A domestic chicken as we know it would not exist in the wild, none of the entire species would exist if humans did not have a desire for eggs and meat that they produce.

Meat can be healthy, not because of its instrinsic healthiness, but because of the specific nutrients that can be derived from it. These nutrients can also be acquired in other ways.
That is at the least debatable. For example, every single amino acid can be gained from animal meat, while you need to eat special complements of plants to gain every essential amino acid. But I digress.


As for it being natural, sure, but what right to we have to claim that as a reason for it when we strive so hard to separate ourselves from nature?
Humans have the right because they can. The natural diet of a human is just as good a justification as any other. Simple as that.

Whether or not it is tasty is up to the individual
That's right, and if you think it is tasty to eat meat that is really all the justification you need. The "animals rights" matter not one iota.


My ethics tell me that it is wrong, yours tell you differently, obviously.
How about you tell me why it is "unethical", without refering to emotive statements. Otherwise it is an illogical belief.


Maybe when humans are voluntarily being farmed and breeding in ways that produce the best meat for some other animal to eat, you'd have a point, as it stands, you do not.
A stupid argument, humans are not an animal bred to be eaten by another animal. This is just a pointless statement by you.

I see keeping animals in tiny pens until they are stunned and then have their throats cut and left to bleed out while they are still alive as wanton pain and suffering.
No it isn't. It is the most cost effective amount of "pain and suffering" for large scale meat production. Wanton "pain and suffering" would be if I went out and stabbed chickens for kicks.


The kind of school that actually taught modern biology? The food 'chain' is an outdated concept. It implies simple top-to-bottom linearity, whereas modern research shows this is be incorrect.
This is rubbish. The term "food chain" simply denotes the sequence of transfer of matter from organsim to organism. Food chains intertwine locally because most animals, though not all, will have several sources of food.

Prove that this is an outdate concept.

You say an animal has no inherent rights; the law in most western countries would disagree with you.
No, not at all. These are not inherent rights. These are simply rights legislated by governments for various reasons. They may be removed at any time because an animal has no inherent right. Humans on the other hand have inherent rights according to the UN Charter on Human Rights. I've yet to see a similar one for animals, and I never will. That's because people eat meat.

Let me elaborate further. What would you say is the most inherent, the most basic, the most fundamental, human right? The right to life? Seems reasonable, without the right to life what right do you have?

Do animals have the right to life? No. Animals can be killed for food, because they are overpopulating an area, because they are a pest, becuase they are terrorising sheep, etc, etc, etc.

So if animals do not even have the most basic inherent right, the right to life, what inherent right do they have? Answer: None.

"Gee whiz, a cow has feelings so therefor it's wrong to eat it. Therefor I should also eat humans...gee i'm smart!". IDIOT!
Be very careful with using value-laden words such as "feelings" in this context or it will destroy your credibility. A cow feels pain but it does not have "feelings" in any meaningful sense (by this I mean a human sense). Obviously pain is a feeling, but the word "feelings" conotes certain concepts that are common only to higher order animals.

A cow is simply a domestic animal bred for providing meat and milk. Simple as that.

What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?We were made for eating both plants and animals. Let's not discriminate against either ;)

I eat meat and I'm proud of it! I fully respect those with opposite views to me, I would never eat horse meat(unless I was starving and no alternative and it would want to be in the most extreme circumstances) because I love horses, this is contradicting myself but hey thats my opinion.

Arrogance has nothing to do with what you eat, are all vegetarians so condecending?

Not all vegetarians, I'm sure. I'm only personally condescending to people who I think deserve to be talked down to.



It is really quite simple. The animals are bred for eating. They would therefore not exist otherwise. So who cares if they die?


Please. Sheep and cows existed long before we started controlling their breeding for our own purposes. Why would they have simply ceased to exist if we hadn't intervened? Many people care if they die. Humans wouldn't exist if they weren't bred by other human beings, so cares if they die, right?



That is at the least debatable. For example, every single amino acid can be gained from animal meat, while you need to eat special complements of plants to gain every essential amino acid. But I digress.


So you conceed the point that you do not NEED to eat meat to acquire these amino acids, it's just easier that way?



Humans have the right because they can. The natural diet of a human is just as good a justification as any other. Simple as that.


I could go and start mindlessly stabbing other people in the street, does this give me the right? The vast majority of meat that is eaten these days is not part of the natural diet of a human because it is so artificially influenced. The massive quantities of hormones in fast food chicken, for example, cannot be found in chickens that are left to develop naturally.



That's right, and if you think it is tasty to eat meat that is really all the justification you need. The "animals rights" matter not one iota.

This is somewhere where we differ. That's all the justification YOU need. I need considerably more.


How about you tell me why it is "unethical", without refering to emotive statements. Otherwise it is an illogical belief.

I thought I already did that? It is inflicting pain and suffering on another animal (humans are also animals, if case you've forgotten), where that pain and suffering is unncessary for survival. We no longer need to use other animals for that purpose, so we shouldn't be doing, thus it is unethical.

If you claim that non-human animals are incapable of suffering or feeling pain, you obviously have not had much experience with life.



A stupid argument, humans are not an animal bred to be eaten by another animal. This is just a pointless statement by you.

And neither were other animals before humans started to do it. You said "that's a price humans are willing to pay". Humans aren't the ones paying that price. Until humans ARE the ones paying that price, whether they are willing to pay it or not is irrelevant.


No it isn't. It is the most cost effective amount of "pain and suffering" for large scale meat production. Wanton "pain and suffering" would be if I went out and stabbed chickens for kicks.


Going out and stabbing chickens for kicks is wanton because it is patently unnecessary and cruel. In modern societies, killing animals for food on large scale like that is unnecessary and cruel, therefore, I consider it to be 'wanton'.


This is rubbish. The term "food chain" simply denotes the sequence of transfer of matter from organsim to organism. Food chains intertwine locally because most animals, though not all, will have several sources of food.

Prove that this is an outdate concept.


If you mean 'food chain' as a simple line from top to bottom, then it most certainly outdated. If you mean it is a term to describe a more complex, non-linear process, then I simply misunderstood what you meant.

But the fact remains that humans are not 'on top' of THE food chain. There are other animals that routinely feed on us. The modern idea of a 'food chain' is more of a 'food web', where is no 'top'. Seriously, if you didn't learn this in high school, you either never took early high school science, or you went to high school many years ago. I'll try and find a link for you.


No, not at all. These are not inherent rights. These are simply rights legislated by governments for various reasons. They may be removed at any time because an animal has no inherent right. Humans on the other hand have inherent rights according to the UN Charter on Human Rights. I've yet to see a similar one for animals, and I never will. That's because people eat meat.

Let me elaborate further. What would you say is the most inherent, the most basic, the most fundamental, human right? The right to life? Seems reasonable, without the right to life what right do you have?

Do animals have the right to life? No. Animals can be killed for food, because they are overpopulating an area, because they are a pest, becuase they are terrorising sheep, etc, etc, etc.

So if animals do not even have the most basic inherent right, the right to life, what inherent right do they have? Answer: None.


All of this can also be said of humans. If this is true, humans also have no inherent rights, correct? They can be killed and eaten just like any other animal.

Arrogance has nothing to do with what you eat, are all vegetarians so condecending?
Do animals have the right to life? No. Animals can be killed for food, because they are overpopulating an area, because they are a pest, becuase they are terrorising sheep, etc, etc, etc.

So if animals do not even have the most basic inherent right, the right to life, what inherent right do they have? Answer: None.
Humans are overpoulating the earth MUCH more then animals. Imagine a politician: "We have decided to kill off one million random humans to decreese our much-to-large population. As an added bonus, we will eat the humans 'cause they're SO tasty!" See what I mean?

What are your view on not eating animals because it's cruel?
Speaking as a vegetarian, I've not got a problem with it.
There's a world of difference between me and a cow. Besides, eating meat kills far fewer animals than eating grain does.
Oh, yeah, of course it does.
Sorry for the sarcasm...
You know how much of the world's grain harvest is consumed by animals being bred for meat? Approximately 50%. Go check if you don't believe me.
Therefore, cut animal breeding for meat by 50%, that provides 50% more grain for people to eat. How much would that cut world hunger by? Sod providing shitloads of aid, money, etc. to all those starving Africans, just stop using all the bloody grain they produce to feed your precious hamburgers.
[/rant]
Yeah, that's why I stopped eating meat.

Do you have any idea how much of our oil goes into these cows?

Not all vegetarians, I'm sure. I'm only personally condescending to people who I think deserve to be talked down to.
Mature.

Please. Sheep and cows existed long before we started controlling their breeding for our own purposes.
There are wild species of the domestic variants we eat but the ones we eat would not exist if not for use by humans.

Many people care if they die. Humans wouldn't exist if they weren't bred by other human beings, so cares if they die, right?
I wont say this again. Animals are not humans. They have no rights. They cannot reason like a human can. If you can't make this simple distinction then this discussion is absurd. You may as well refuse to eat all organic matter.

So you conceed the point that you do not NEED to eat meat to acquire these amino acids, it's just easier that way?
I've conceeded no point. I've said its easier to eat meat, that is definitely enough of a reason to do so.

I could go and start mindlessly stabbing other people in the street, does this give me the right?
You obviously don't understand the concept of rights. You do not have an inherent right to violate other people's rights. Animals are not people, so they have no rights to violate. No legal system in the world recognises an animal's right to life. All legal systems in the western world recognise a fundamental human right to life.

The vast majority of meat that is eaten these days is not part of the natural diet of a human because it is so artificially influenced. The massive quantities of hormones in fast food chicken, for example, cannot be found in chickens that are left to develop naturally.
Irrelevant.

This is somewhere where we differ. That's all the justification YOU need. I need considerably more.
Who cares? If you are trying to say something is unethical you need to prove more than "its not justification enough for me".

I thought I already did that? It is inflicting pain and suffering on another animal (humans are also animals, if case you've forgotten), where that pain and suffering is unncessary for survival.
But why is inflicting pain and suffering on animals unethical? It isn't. It is when it is inflicted on humans though.

If you claim that non-human animals are incapable of suffering or feeling pain, you obviously have not had much experience with life.
I didn't though, I only claimed their suffering was acceptable when it served the purpose of providing food.

And neither were other animals before humans started to do it. You said "that's a price humans are willing to pay". Humans aren't the ones paying that price. Until humans ARE the ones paying that price, whether they are willing to pay it or not is irrelevant.
Emotive nonesense. It was clear that I meant humans consider an animal's suffering in the quest to produce large amounts of meat as acceptable. It is a price "they are willing to pay". Animals don't have a say in the matter. They can't even reason so why would they have a say?

In modern societies, killing animals for food on large scale like that is unnecessary and cruel, therefore, I consider it to be 'wanton'.
It's also unneccessary to live in homes, or wear clothes, or use this computer, or drive a car, but you still do it. All of these have costs. How many animals die due to the chemical efluent leaked into rivers to make the plastic on your computer? How many animals die because of the immisions which are a by-product of your polyester shirt? How many animals die so you can live in your city?

It is a price humans are willing to pay. It's not cruel, its simply acceptable. An "animal's rights" are simply not even worth considering.

If you mean 'food chain' as a simple line from top to bottom, then it most certainly outdated. If you mean it is a term to describe a more complex, non-linear process, then I simply misunderstood what you meant.
I mean "food chain" in the real way not in the warped political way you use to justify your ideology.

But the fact remains that humans are not 'on top' of THE food chain. There are other animals that routinely feed on us. The modern idea of a 'food chain' is more of a 'food web', where is no 'top'.
Where does this pointless rambling come from? So what? So some animals can prey on humans, is there a point? I doubt it.

All of this can also be said of humans. If this is true, humans also have no inherent rights, correct? They can be killed and eaten just like any other animal.
You know of western laws where humans can be killed and eaten do you? Because I know of many where animals can be.

Why do you think that is the case? Answer: Because animals don't have any inherent rights.

Thought I should add:
I don't agree with the cruelty present in some forms of meat production, namely veal production, goose liver pate production, or chicken production. Most other meat production isn't cruel to the animals, at least, not until they kill the buggers.

Humans are overpoulating the earth MUCH more then animals. Imagine a politician: "We have decided to kill off one million random humans to decreese our much-to-large population. As an added bonus, we will eat the humans 'cause they're SO tasty!" See what I mean?

That's a very good point. We don't do this to humans because humans have developed the right to life, which is a human construct.

Animals, however, have no such right.

But think off it this way....
If a vegetable was alive at one point, its the same as eating a freashly dead rabbit.

I eat meat, though not much of it. Vegetarian/vegan threads always bother me, 'cause either extreme is just ridiculous. There's no way I'd be able to become a vegetarian...I just can't stand the taste of most vegetables. Well, most food in general. I'm picky like that. And that's probably a major reason why most people aren't vegetarians. To many people, vegetables just don't taste good enough to want to eat. It's a chore. And eating food that doesn't taste good day in and day out is just depressing... Who gives a crap if you'll live longer? I'd rather live a tasty life and die younger, instead of wanting to hang myself over my millionth plate of zucchini when I'm 80 years old.

The argument that humans eating meat isn't natural is a bunch of crap, in my opinion. If we're not meant to eat it, why does it taste so damn good? And we're part of the planet too, you know. What we do is natural. I don't feel sorry for the cows, though I prefer seafood over anything else. Cows are dumb. Very dumb. I used to live down the road from a cattle farm. They'll never know what hit 'em. And they'll never figure out what's going on and try to escape. Same with chickens. Octopi are known to be pretty intelligent...but they're tasty too. Can't you see? Aren't we part of the natural order? Humans just affect it on a much larger scale.

I don’t eat meant because its unhealthy and the thought of consuming rotting flesh makes me sick. However, I don’t have a moral opposition to eating it.

If its kept chilled or preseved in any other way then it wont rot for a while

-snippity
Ok, so you don't like vegetables. I do. More than I like meat, in fact. So I stopped eating meat altogether. And as a vegetarian you don't have to eat just vegetables; soya, pasta, rice. I can go on.

[QUOTE=Revasser]Wow. I guess arrogance really does come easily to some people. I have to work at mine.

Saying 'these animals would not exist were it not for the meat industry' is a ridiculous claim. They would not exist in quite their current state, becase we force them to breed in certain ways, but saying they would not exist at all is ludicrous.

Meat can be healthy, not because of its instrinsic healthiness, but because of the specific nutrients that can be derived from it. These nutrients can also be acquired in other ways. As for it being natural, sure, but what right to we have to claim that as a reason for it when we strive so hard to separate ourselves from nature? Whether or not it is tasty is up to the individual and entirely irrelevant.

Eating meat being unethical is not logical? How did you come to THAT conclusion? My ethics tell me that it is wrong, yours tell you differently, obviously. Just because your sense of ethics differs from mine does not mean mine is illogical.

To me, it doesn't matter if that's a cost humans are willing to pay, because they aren't the ones paying it. Maybe when humans are voluntarily being farmed and breeding in ways that produce the best meat for some other animal to eat, you'd have a point, as it stands, you do not.

Also, your definition of exploitation and wanton pain and suffering obviously differs from mine. I see keeping animals in tiny pens until they are stunned and then have their throats cut and left to bleed out while they are still alive as wanton pain and suffering.



The kind of school that actually taught modern biology? The food 'chain' is an outdated concept. It implies simple top-to-bottom linearity, whereas modern research shows this is be incorrect.[QUOTE]

Which would be a food web, with producers and consumers like the food chain, only more of them.

Yes, it is. Because the animal would not have been killed had you not been there to eat it. You are the cause of it being killed. If there were no meat-eaters, there would be no meat.

No. One day I will be dead, and then I will not be there to eat it. Do you think there will be ANY change in slaughtering animals when this happens, because that happens? It's naive if you think meat is killed-to-order, and equally so if you think one meat-eater = everyone who eats meat.

Saying *I* am the cause of it being killed because I am a *meat eater* is roughly equivalent to me saying *you* are the cause of Stalin's purges because you are a *human being*. I mean if it wasn't for human beings, Stalin wouldn't have killed millions of people! ;)

But think off it this way....
If a vegetable was alive at one point, its the same as eating a freashly dead rabbit.

Yes.

Many Hindu sects hold that by killing a vegetable to eat it, you do incur the karma of that (especially if you are doing it for satisfying material pleasures without God consciousness). But it is a far lesser karma than killing an animal which is on the higher plane than a plant.

There are Hindus and Jains who do not eat the roots of plants, like onions, garlic etc, because they believe that by taking the root off, they are killing the plant.

Yes I am aware of those belefes. Would you eat a primate other then a human I ask?

Yes I am aware of those belefes. Would you eat a primate other then a human I ask?

Why wouldn't a omni/carnivore do so? It's just be another animal.

i dont know why we shouldnt eat animals. dont you think there are some animals that would eat us if they could? its just survival.

Really? What makes you think they're not as sentiant as humans? They have a sense of humour, they stage fights where the tiny-winy chimp, beats up the big-huge one, as he and the crowd roar with laughter. It might be the fact that they don't have cars, and guns, and polution perhaps? I can answer that question easly: It is simply because they do not have writing, they have a spoken languge, mabey not NEARLY as advanced as our's, but still, they do, they have tools, but without writing they can not become more advanced every generation, because they cannot pass thier knowlage down. That means their languge cannot evolove because they cannot record it. Smarter or dumber, they are still just as sentiant I say.

i dont know why we shouldnt eat animals. dont you think there are some animals that would eat us if they could? its just survival.
Do you think yourself any better then an animal? Then why do you compare yourself with them?

uhhh, yes. i can reason better, i can communicate better, i have Religion, i have thumbs. need something else?

From a horribly synical view, without meat eatting there would probably be a lot less animals. Some cows, sheep and virtually all pigs, amoungst other animals, are bred almost totally for their meat. Without meat humanity would have no (or far less) use for these animals. As a comedien (forgetten the name) once said, "If people started eatting pandas they'd find a way to get them breeding".

also, you can't compare a human dying to an animal dying. Humans, for the most part, are awear that they will eventually die and thus one of the worst parts of death os simply the fear of it. As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) animals have no fear of death. Obviously they have instincts of self preservation, but a cow doesnt stand around wondering if it's making the best of it's life.


In my opinion if an animal lives and dies humanly, then I have no problem with it. Brutal killing of animals and battery farming is a totally different subject.

Really? What makes you think they're not as sentiant as humans? They have a sense of humour, they stage fights where the tiny-winy chimp, beats up the big-huge one, as he and the crowd roar with laughter. It might be the fact that they don't have cars, and guns, and polution perhaps? I can answer that question easly: It is simply because they do not have writing, they have a spoken languge, mabey not NEARLY as advanced as our's, but still, they do, they have tools, but without writing they can not become more advanced every generation, because they cannot pass thier knowlage down. That means their languge cannot evolove because they cannot record it. Smarter or dumber, they are still just as sentiant I say.
You're welcome to believe what you wish, but I have never heard of a single scientist calling any other animal, save humanity, sentient. I'm willing to safely bet that we won't here any scientists calling any other terrestrial species sentient for millions of years, either.

For your information, btw, spoken language evolved first. It was only after centuries, likely thousands of years, of spoken word that the written form of language was developed. So, yes, their "language" can evolve.

Really? What makes you think they're not as sentiant as humans? They have a sense of humour, they stage fights where the tiny-winy chimp, beats up the big-huge one, as he and the crowd roar with laughter. It might be the fact that they don't have cars, and guns, and polution perhaps? I can answer that question easly: It is simply because they do not have writing, they have a spoken languge, mabey not NEARLY as advanced as our's, but still, they do, they have tools, but without writing they can not become more advanced every generation, because they cannot pass thier knowlage down. That means their languge cannot evolove because they cannot record it. Smarter or dumber, they are still just as sentiant I say.

Wow, tell me what university you work at. Cause, I mean somone as smart as yourself would have to work as a scientist or something to come up with all of these brilliant conclusions.

Aside from the politcal arguments, tell me why its more wrong for a huiman to eat a prey animal than it is for another preditor or omnivore?

You're welcome to believe what you wish, but I have never heard of a single scientist calling any other animal, save humanity, sentient. I'm willing to safely bet that we won't here any scientists calling any other terrestrial species sentient for millions of years, either.
Hmm. I had thought that 'sentience' was supposed to be the ability to feel and perceive, and that the thing that humans are that animals are most likely not is 'sapient' (higher consicousness, self-awareness, etc)?

I owned a chicken once. I grew very fond of it, and kept it as a pet. When I realised that my chicken was.. holy shit! A chicken! I linked it to my little pet and realised I might've well been eating good ol' Timmity!

I never are meat again.

I eat meat, though not much of it. Vegetarian/vegan threads always bother me, 'cause either extreme is just ridiculous. There's no way I'd be able to become a vegetarian...I just can't stand the taste of most vegetables. Well, most food in general. I'm picky like that. And that's probably a major reason why most people aren't vegetarians. To many people, vegetables just don't taste good enough to want to eat. It's a chore. And eating food that doesn't taste good day in and day out is just depressing... Who gives a crap if you'll live longer? I'd rather live a tasty life and die younger, instead of wanting to hang myself over my millionth plate of zucchini when I'm 80 years old.

The argument that humans eating meat isn't natural is a bunch of crap, in my opinion. If we're not meant to eat it, why does it taste so damn good? And we're part of the planet too, you know. What we do is natural. I don't feel sorry for the cows, though I prefer seafood over anything else. Cows are dumb. Very dumb. I used to live down the road from a cattle farm. They'll never know what hit 'em. And they'll never figure out what's going on and try to escape. Same with chickens. Octopi are known to be pretty intelligent...but they're tasty too. Can't you see? Aren't we part of the natural order? Humans just affect it on a much larger scale.
Quoted for turth, this is really what it boils down to for me. Humans are a intelligent self aware speices, this makes them superior to the animals that aren't. If someone could make a case for an animal displaying these same charicteristic, I would refain from eating them, hell, if one could show a speices to be semi-sentient I would be willing to refrain from eating that speices.

Hmm. I had thought that 'sentience' was supposed to be the ability to feel and perceive, and that the thing that humans are that animals are most likely not is 'sapient' (higher consicousness, self-awareness, etc)?

Sentience is the ability to be aware of one's own existance, as an intelligent creature. Sapience is defined as being wise. Animals are neither, last I have heard.