NationStates Jolt Archive

Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

If baby Jesus didn't want us to eat meat, he would have told us.

And this gives me an idea.

Didn't Jesus eat fish?

The feind!

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.

As for the rest, I have not come to a conclusion that satifies me completely yet, and until I do I will not advance a definite position on this question.

People are omnivores, do you know what that means? We eat both meat and plants.

Nerdy Individuals']1.Biblical Proof
Right..
2.Scientific Proof
Well I eat meat, I'm still alive.
3.Common Sense proof
Common sense tells me steak tastes great.
4.Any other reasoning
Don't force your beliefs on me.

Firstly, rights are a human invention, so we're lucky they apply to all humans in the first place (in some cases they still don't, even).

Secondly, scientific evidence is a pretty broad way to put it, so let's go with, say, biology. Humans = omnivores. A diet of meat, grain, fruit, root beer, etc. There are several other species out there who are in fact omnivores, so voila, we have precedent.

Would you try to convince a lion to eat bean sprouts?

I like eating meat, and am willing to pay for it, as well, human society does not need to protect non-human entities. Human societies were designed for the needs of humans, not animals and we have been eating animals for quite some time too.

Perhaps a slight stretch:

In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

I believe that, if we were designed soley to be herbivores, we would not have canines for tearing through meat.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:
2.Scientific Proof


homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivore. "Omnivore" includes eating meat. homo sapiens sapiens can consume meat and derive nutritional benefit from doing such. homo sapiens sapiens is also anatomically built for such consumption; note the construction of the teeth, how how they provide for the tearing and chewing of meat, as well as the construction of the gastrointestinal tract which can handle the consumption of the same.

Nerdy Individuals']
4.Any other reasoning
that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

Murder is a legal concept invented and enforced among homo sapiens sapiens for homo sapiens sapiens. The definition of such does not, at the moment, include non-human species. As such, non-human species can be killed needlessly, pointlessly, with excessive cruelty, however, they cannot be "murdered." Also, the consumption of meat as a food product does not necessarily require that "torture" be involved. If simply killing and eating an animal constitutes "torture," then all omnivores and carnivores on the planet engage in "torture" making it so that 1) homo sapiens sapiens is not engaging in any actually abnormal behavior, and 2) the definition of "torture" is far to generalized, thus diluting, if not completely eliminating, the ability of the word to describe and condemn actual unjust or immoral acts.

I like eating meat, and am willing to pay for it, as well, human society does not need to protect non-human entities. Human societies were designed for the needs of humans, not animals and we have been eating animals for quite some time too.

You're kidding, right?! Humans don't need to protect animals??? Since when? I mean sure, we do breed certain animals to be our food, but then again, there're plenty of them. What about the animals humans have endangered through the process of developing society?

You tell me, with a strait face, that society doesn't need to protect something it's responsible for. (namely, endangering the animal species in question, whatever it may be)

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

3.Common Sense proof

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
It makes them taste better, and common sense tells me I like tastier foods.


*Brushes off hands

You're kidding, right?! Humans don't need to protect animals??? Since when? I mean sure, we do breed certain animals to be our food, but then again, there're plenty of them. What about the animals humans have endangered through the process of developing society?

You tell me, with a strait face, that society doesn't need to protect something it's responsible for. (namely, endangering the animal species in question, whatever it may be)

Protecting them is not essential to our survival, therefore we have no NEED to protect them. While in many chains of logic, something which is destroyed by someone is needing of protection by someone else, there is no ownership or dominion, no real responsibility short of sentiments we as humans fabricate about the natural world.

Animals have rights, the rights to be tender and delicious.

Animals have rights, the rights to be tender and delicious.

Not "rights." Duties.

Protecting them is not essential to our survival, therefore we have no NEED to protect them. While in many chains of logic, something which is destroyed by someone is needing of protection by someone else, there is no ownership or dominion, no real responsibility short of sentiments we as humans fabricate about the natural world.

Actually, it would depend on what the animal species in question was. I'm no expert biologist (or whatever particular "ologist" pertains to this), but I'm sure there are quite a few animal species that are essential to human survival; or, more matter-of-factly, the survival of the planet.

Like decomposers, or whatever. Of course, those are mainly, like, bacteria and stuff, so we couldn't ever wipe them out completely by demolishing a forest, but you get the point.

It's stupid, we put all the wrong animals on the endangered species list. Who cares about the rare Siberian Tiger which does virtually nothing to the balance and stability of the ecological system when compared to various Microbes, insects and snails.

But no, we attempt the 'survival of the cutest' rather then the 'survival of the most necessary'

Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked here, but like all the previous posters said, we're Omnivores, that's how we were created/evolved etc, and all you vegetarians who say you're saving the environment... no you're not, you're EATING the environment, you're saving LIVESTOCK, that is BRED for CONSUMPTION. People may not like it but that is unfortunately how it is.

How about this: Would you eat a sentient cow, one capable of rational thought and speech, if it's one and only desire was to be eaten? (Hooray for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy! And another book that I forget the name of...)

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof

Leviticus. Specifically the kosher rules. If god said "dont eat these kind of animals", it allows for the eatting of other kinds of animals.

2.Scientific Proof

Humans require certain proteans that are most easily found in meat. Additionally we have developed sharp teeth useful for cutting through meat, and not the large, round teeth that plant eaters evolved into.

3.Common Sense proof

It tastes good.

4.Any other reasoning

Those shall suffice. Cept for the biblical one which I PERSONALLY find BS, but for some people it's nice to have religious justification.

Actually, it would depend on what the animal species in question was. I'm no expert biologist (or whatever particular "ologist" pertains to this), but I'm sure there are quite a few animal species that are essential to human survival; or, more matter-of-factly, the survival of the planet.

Like decomposers, or whatever. Of course, those are mainly, like, bacteria and stuff, so we couldn't ever wipe them out completely by demolishing a forest, but you get the point.

Yes, I know what you mean. Bacteria, things like that, they're not really in danger of being wiped out by humans, and probably couldn't be if we tried. I was referring to the largely inedible (but cute and therefore endearing to vegetarians) creatures which skitter about on the plains and in the woods. You know, dog food.

Yes, I know what you mean. Bacteria, things like that, they're not really in danger of being wiped out by humans, and probably couldn't be if we tried. I was referring to the largely inedible (but cute and therefore endearing to vegetarians) creatures which skitter about on the plains and in the woods. You know, dog food.


I'm sure there has to be at least one of those that is essential to human life. Now if only I could think of one...

Edit: Upon further thought: Snails. They are just big enough to be wipe-outible (not a word, I know ;) ). They have to have some major human-saving quality. And besides, the poor things are eaten by the French. That has to be one of the worst imagenable ways to die. I mean really, would you like to be eaten by a Frenchman???

Animals have rights, the rights to be tender and delicious.
There's a place for all God's creatures...

Right next to the mashed potatoes.

---

Also, am I the only one getting the feeling this guy is a troll? Maybe just this one, but the one on Abortion too? Looks a bit suspicious.

I'm sure there has to be at least one of those that is essential to human life. Now if only I could think of one...

Edit: Upon further thought: Snails. They are just big enough to be wipe-outible (not a word, I know ;) ). They have to have some major human-saving quality. And besides, the poor things are eaten by the French. That has to be one of the worst imagenable ways to die. I mean really, would you like to be eaten by a Frenchman???

At least the french eat them when they're dead. I'd be more afraid of goony fourth-graders with salt shakers.

Also, am I the only one getting the feeling this guy is a troll? Maybe just this one, but the one on Abortion too? Looks a bit suspicious.

What's suspicious? Starting threads that ask questions is not "trolling."

At least the french eat them when they're dead. I'd be more afraid of goony fourth-graders with salt shakers.

Oo, forgot about them.

I wonder what causes that? (snails' deathly allergy to salt, that is) And what causes little kids to want to do something so vile. I might do that to a slug, but not a poor snail.

Oo, forgot about them.

I wonder what causes that? (snails' deathly allergy to salt, that is) And what causes little kids to want to do something so vile. I might do that to a slug, but not a poor snail.

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the mucous which surrounds their skin, which they also breathe through. Ever gotten salt in a cut on your arm? imagine getting salt in a cut in your lung.

What's suspicious? Starting threads that ask questions is not "trolling."
Yea, but only 7 posts with 2 threads on controversial threads, and one criticizing the Scientific Method? But maybe I'm just a bit paranoid... :p

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
Go back to PETA please.

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the mucous which surrounds their skin, which they also breathe through. Ever gotten salt in a cut on your arm? imagine getting salt in a cut in your lung.

Those poor things. If I ever see someone trying to do that to a snail or a slug (cos the slug thing was joke), I'm gonna beat the crap outta them.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

I think instead of looking for a reason why we should do it, you should look for a compelling reason why we shouldn't. Otherwise the fact that we've always done it without any real ill effects is reason enough to go on.

Oh, and some cultures depend almost totally on meat and animal products to survive. So it's an imperative for them.

Edit: Upon further thought: Snails. They are just big enough to be wipe-outible (not a word, I know ;) ). They have to have some major human-saving quality. And besides, the poor things are eaten by the French. That has to be one of the worst imagenable ways to die. I mean really, would you like to be eaten by a Frenchman???

I like snails, but I prefer them in black bean sauce to the french preparation.

I like snails, but I prefer them in black bean sauce to the french preparation.

Eww. I tried one once in French class, didn't like it one bit. But apparently, the Office Ladies couldn't get enough of 'em. Go figure.

Eww. I tried one once in French class, didn't like it one bit. But apparently, the Office Ladies couldn't get enough of 'em. Go figure.

Well they have to be live before you cook them of course, the canned ones just don't taste right. But I look at them as just another mollusc. It's like eating clams, mussels or winkles.

You're kidding, right?! Humans don't need to protect animals??? Since when? I mean sure, we do breed certain animals to be our food, but then again, there're plenty of them. What about the animals humans have endangered through the process of developing society?

You tell me, with a strait face, that society doesn't need to protect something it's responsible for. (namely, endangering the animal species in question, whatever it may be)
I don't really care about animals, I care about humans within our society. Now of course, there can be a link between human welfare and that of the environment, however, when such occurs still our interest is in regards to our own well-being, not that of an animal. Society doesn't inherently need to protect anything outside of human existence, one could argue that many interesting rocks have been crushed by human action but that is hardly of interest. If mankind could wipe out every other species on this planet without harming its present or future interests that would be fine with me, however it cannot.

http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html

I think this is about all you need to know about my opinion. And I own the shirt.

I don't really care about animals, I care about humans within our society. Now of course, there can be a link between human welfare and that of the environment, however, when such occurs still our interest is in regards to our own well-being, not that of an animal. Society doesn't inherently need to protect anything outside of human existence, one could argue that many interesting rocks have been crushed by human action but that is hardly of interest. If mankind could wipe out every other species on this planet without harming its present or future interests that would be fine with me, however it cannot.


I still think it sounds a bit irresponsible.

I still think it sounds a bit irresponsible.
Umm.... how is that irresponsible? Human society exists for the purpose of humanity, and it always has existed for human interests. It has no other purpose than to please humanity and we have no inherent duties to the environment. We never have, the entire reason we are concerned about it is for about two reasons: 1) The environment's welfare affects our own in terms of resources and possible problems. 2) We like looking at the pretty plants and shooting the pretty animals. So, I would say that it is not an irresponsible view as it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to me.

Umm.... how is that irresponsible? Human society exists for the purpose of humanity, and it always has existed for human interests. It has no other purpose than to please humanity and we have no inherent duties to the environment. We never have, the entire reason we are concerned about it is for about two reasons: 1) The environment's welfare affects our own in terms of resources and possible problems. 2) We like looking at the pretty plants and shooting the pretty animals. So, I would say that it is not an irresponsible view as it seems perfectly reasonable and rational to me.

It's irresponsible because, generally, when you screw something up you're expected to fix it, or at least try.

Screwing over an animal species just cos you want the land it lives on (or because you want to eat them, like the Dodo for example) isn't any different than invading another country because you want it's land (effectively screwing over the population).

Ok, so there are probably differences, but the basic idea remains.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
The other animals have no rights. They cannot contract with us nor communicate with us. They would not respect our rights.

I think that's sufficient.

And we can't murder animals. Murder is a term implying rights.

It's irresponsible because, generally, when you screw something up you're expected to fix it, or at least try.

Screwing over an animal species just cos you want the land they live on (or because you want to eat them, like the Dodo for example) isn't any different than invading another country because you want it's land (effectively screwing over the population).

Ok, so there are probably differences, but the basic idea remains.
You state a duty to these creatures. I claim that this does not exist and never has existed. Once again, I reaffirm that human society exists for humanity and as such animals can be killed until the ground stinks of corpses so long as society benefits from this act. Frankly, it is not irresponsible, we never took responsibility for the lives of these creatures but rather to the lives of humans. If we reject any amount of benefit to humans in favor of benefit to animals then we are being irresponsible because such is a failure to perform duties. It is not irresponsible to act consciously and purposefully towards the benefits of the individuals within a society because such acts are in fact fulfilling the highest responsibility for the society.

You state a duty to these creatures. I claim that this does not exist and never has existed. Once again, I reaffirm that human society exists for humanity and as such animals can be killed until the ground stinks of corpses so long as society benefits from this act. Frankly, it is not irresponsible, we never took responsibility for the lives of these creatures but rather to the lives of humans. If we reject any amount of benefit to humans in favor of benefit to animals then we are being irresponsible because such is a failure to perform duties. It is not irresponsible to act consciously and purposefully towards the benefits of the individuals within a society because such acts are in fact fulfilling the highest responsibility for the society.

We do, in fact, have an inherent obligation, as the only sentient species on the planet, to take at least a moderate amount of care of the lesser species.

It's like if I had a retarded brother (which, I don't). I have every right to tell him to screw himself and leave him to fend for himself. But I won't because I have the brains to know that leaving him to his own devices is quite stupid and irresponsible of me. He can't really protect himself from people who might want to harm him while he's out roaming the streets, and he probably wouldn't know it if someone was about to (there are several ways some one who wasn't mentally handicapped could be put in the same position, only a mentally handicapped person would be in even more danger). (I realise this analogy probably makes no sense, but it made sense to me when I started it...)

We have been blessed with the intelligence to rule this planet, and as such we DO have a responsibility to take care of the lesser beings. It could just as easily be another species dominating Earth, and they would have the same responsibility.

I know Planet of the Apes fits in here somewhere, but I'm too tired to figure it out.

Those poor things. If I ever see someone trying to do that to a snail or a slug (cos the slug thing was joke), I'm gonna beat the crap outta them.

I don't think a snail is worth getting your ass kicked. :p

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
1) It's a load of crap
2) Wrong realm
3) Because it tastes sooo goood
4) Fuck it, we are natural born killers and eaters of fleshy things, and I am damned if I am going to stop being a top carnivore just because it makes a bunch of anaemic kids uncomfortable.

Animals rights? Whatever. At the end of the day, it's a one-way road to being food.

Right. So, the problem here (IMHO) is that we have two different mindsets. One is a mindset in which all beings (or at least humans and animals) have the same (or at least relatively similar) value, and the other is one in which they do not. By looking at each others' points of view, it should be pretty easy to see where everyone is coming from.

Obviously, if you value animal life in the same kind of way that you value human life, seeing people consume/torture animals would require that you try to do something about it, right? Just like if I thought you were doing the world harm by not beleiving in Big Bird as the one true god, I would have to try to convert you. I could be accepting of your views, but this does not mean I could stand idly by while you destroyed the world (in my opinion).

At the same time, if you don't believe that animals have the same kind of worth as humans, there's likely no power in the universe that can convince you to care much about this topic. Most people don't even bother thinking about it much, and putting themselves in the position of the animal in question is way too much to ask. They simply have a different set of ethics, and don't want to be preached to, just like you don't want to hear about the glory of Big Bird.

It's extremely frustrating for both sides.

By the way, I've never heard a good argument (that couldn't be refuted a hundred ways), including the "biology" argument, as to why we should eat meat. I have to chalk it up, basically, to people just not caring about it.

1) It's a load of crap
2) Wrong realm
3) Because it tastes sooo goood
4) Fuck it, we are natural born killers and eaters of fleshy things, and I am damned if I am going to stop being a top carnivore just because it makes a bunch of anaemic kids uncomfortable.

Animals rights? Whatever. At the end of the day, it's a one-way road to being food.
That's right! We're the most effective killing machines ever! w00t us!

That's right! We're the most effective killing machines ever! w00t us!

That's Debatable.... *Starts thread about it*

The other animals have no rights. They cannot contract with us nor communicate with us. They would not respect our rights.

Actually some gorillas have been taught to communicate with humans through sign language.

By the way, I've never heard a good argument (that couldn't be refuted a hundred ways), including the "biology" argument, as to why we should eat meat. I have to chalk it up, basically, to people just not caring about it.

Why is "we can digest meat and have teeth for eating it" not a good argument?

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

1. You are kidding, right? What on earth difference would biblical proof make to the discussion of the fact that humans are omnivores? And how would it apply to all those folks who came BEFORE the bible, and survived by eating meat, and to all those folks who came AFTER it and know the bible to be a load of hooey anyway?

2. We are omnivores. (see other posts about teeth and digestive systems...)

3. See 2

4. Such as...? 2 pretty much covers it.

Torture/murder are loaded words designed to illicit an emotional response. If you are pro-vegetarianism, just say so. Those of us who are omnivores can discuss it rationally without all the "Meat is murder" nonsense that is, technically, wrong anyway. Murder refers specifically to one human killing another on purpose. Torture (the way you are using it) indicates that the people killing animals get some sort of perverse pleasure out of it. While I know that the beef industry in the USA can be rather brutal, I don't think the folks working the slaughterhouses do it that way for any other reason than economy (both of money and time). If you can provide better (more efficient, cheaper) ways of processing the amount of meat needed to keep this nation alive, let's hear it. If you can prove that NOT eating meat is a better (more efficient, cheaper) way to keep this nation alive, let's hear that. But lay off the rhetoric... it is not impressive.

That's Debatable.... *Starts thread about it*
I'll yell at you in your thread.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

1. Who cares?
2. We have incisors designed for biting through flesh. Hence we evolved to eat it.
3. Animals aren't sentient. We have no responsibility to animals except in so far as it is good for people.
4.Animals AREN'T people too.

We do, in fact, have an inherent obligation, as the only sentient species on the planet, to take at least a moderate amount of care of the lesser species.

It's like if I had a retarded brother (which, I don't). I have every right to tell him to screw himself and leave him to fend for himself. But I won't because I have the brains to know that leaving him to his own devices is quite stupid and irresponsible of me. He can't really protect himself from people who might want to harm him while he's out roaming the streets, and he probably wouldn't know it if someone was about to (there are several ways some one who wasn't mentally handicapped could be put in the same position, only a mentally handicapped person would be in even more danger). (I realise this analogy probably makes no sense, but it made sense to me when I started it...)

We have been blessed with the intelligence to rule this planet, and as such we DO have a responsibility to take care of the lesser beings. It could just as easily be another species dominating Earth, and they would have the same responsibility.

I know Planet of the Apes fits in here somewhere, but I'm too tired to figure it out.
We have absolutely NO responsibility to the other forms of life on this planet. It isn't like a retarded brother because the animals and plants are not really considered our kin. We eat the stupid things. Not only that but even a retarded brother isn't an inherenet responsibility, it is an assumed one. If you were a eugeni-Nazi, you might feel you have the moral duty to exterminate inferior humans, this would include your brother. In doing this are you being irresponsible or are you fulfilling responsibility? I would say the latter as you are fulfilling your duty to your core beliefs... I just thank goodness that there are protections against eugeni-Nazis.

Pretty much the argument comes down to this: you have an absolute moral belief, as shown by your insistence of the whole responsibility thing and I deny that as being true. It falls no differently than a claim of responsibility to the sun, the Vulcans, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. I would state that because your claim of responsibility cannot be truly proven that it can be disregarded as I have no reason to care for your beliefs no matter how odd I may see them.

This leaves me to prove my claim that society is out for its own benefit. Well for this I will use the preamble for the constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now note, all of the things listed, all of the reasons to form this union are involved with the welfare of the people involved. So essentially, this society was formed for the benefit of its members. Now, if one believes in enlightenment ideals then "consent of the governed" and etc, shows the duty of all societies to its constituents. However, I will not make an assumption of belief and simply claim that individuals are members of societies because they see it to be in their benefit often historically for the benefit of defense. The only others in societies are slaves who are not considered members but rather considered to be servants to members. In modern society slavery is illegal so it hardly applies to modern society.

Even if another intelligent species existed and had the ability to kill humanity as it pleased that wouldn't change the moral nature of these things. They would have an obligation to their kind to kill humanity as they saw fit.

Why is "we can digest meat and have teeth for eating it" not a good argument?

It's a fairly debated topic, actually. I think the current thinking is: Humans are actually meant to be scavengers (plants/bugs and such). Compare your canines to those of a carnivore/omnivore... compare your stomach acidity, length of your intestine, etc. to that of a true carnivore/omnivore. That kind of thing. To be fair, some people think that's a bunch of bull as well.

On the other side, we don't really have all the stuff common to a typical herbivore, either, which is why (I think) the current thinking is that we are meant to be scavengers with a *very* low meat diet. We aren't equipped with the tools necessary (except for our brains) to catch it.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

1) Genesis 9:3 "Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants."
2) Humans have canine teeth, built for ripping flesh
3) First humans were hunter-gatherers
4) It tastes good.

It's a fairly debated topic, actually. I think the current thinking is: Humans are actually meant to be scavengers (plants/bugs and such). Compare your canines to those of a carnivore/omnivore... compare your stomach acidity, length of your intestine, etc. to that of a true carnivore/omnivore. That kind of thing. To be fair, some people think that's a bunch of bull as well.

Humans cant digest cellulose, which plant cell walls are made of. Humans have both incisors and canines, which is common in omnivores. Take a look at the appendix, it is a vestigial remnant of our herbivorous ancesors that possibly allowed them to digest plants easier.

On the other side, we don't really have all the stuff common to a typical herbivore, either, which is why (I think) the current thinking is that we are meant to be scavengers with a *very* low meat diet. We aren't equipped with the tools necessary (except for our brains) to catch it.

You dont know that. The first humans could have, once they developed tools the necessary biological tools evolved away. I actually have a theory about artificial evolution being our downfall, but thats not the topic.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
Well, "because we can" is one reason, whether or not you happen to agree with it.

Or how about, "Because human beings must consume organic material to live, and thus humans are going to be killing SOMETHING if they plan to survive. Therefore, it is arbitrary to identify animal life as having special moral status relative to plant life, and vegitarianism boils down to personal preference."

Vegitarians kill living things in order to survive; so do non-vegitarians. The only difference is that vegitarians state that certain forms of life deserve to be protected against harm by humans, while other forms of life do not deserve this protection. Personally, I don't see any moral reason why I should assume that animal life deserves more protection than vegitable life. Thus, I make my dietary choices based only on practical considerations, and not based on the "moral standing" of the living material I am consuming.

Humans cant digest cellulose, which plant cell walls are made of. Humans have both incisors and canines, which is common in omnivores. Take a look at the appendix, it is a vestigial remnant of our herbivorous ancesors that possibly allowed them to digest plants easier.

Agreed. At the same time, our jaw was not designed to help us capture prey, nor were our fingernails. Our intestines are too long to process meat without putrification. Our entire mouths don't seem to be designed for it, and our large intestine is more similar to herbivores than carnivores. We don't, however, have the ability to ferment plantmatter in a complex stomach, nor is our intestine quite as long as in some herbivores. Again, I'm told this points to us being biological scavengers.

To me, that's not so important, though, since we can easily live on a non-animal based diet. The only inconvenience seems to be that the rest of society thinks we're crazy for doing it, and there aren't as many pre-processed foods out there.

You dont know that. The first humans could have, once they developed tools the necessary biological tools evolved away. I actually have a theory about artificial evolution being our downfall, but thats not the topic.

I'm afraid this is outside of my realm of expertise. ;)

To me, that's not so important, though, since we can easily live on a non-animal based diet. The only inconvenience seems to be that the rest of society thinks we're crazy for doing it, and there aren't as many pre-processed foods out there.

There are alot of necessary vitamins and proteins in an omnivorous diet that vegetarian diets lack. Example: B12

Vitamin B12's primary functions are in the formation of red blood cells and the maintenence of a healthy nervous system.

...

The only reliable unfortified sources of vitamin B12 are meat, dairy products and eggs.

While yes, dairy products and eggs are vegetarian, the vegans are the ones with the problem.

There are alot of necessary vitamins and proteins in an omnivorous diet that vegetarian diets lack. Example: B12



While yes, dairy products and eggs are vegetarian, the vegans are the ones with the problem.

B12 is not produced by animals... it is produced by bacteria with Cobolt as a base, I believe. Animals get it by eating "dirty" food or from bacteria producing it in their digestive system. We get some of it the same way. There are quite a few debates out there about why some of us seem to have trouble absorbing it. Then, of course, there's the "statistic" that there are fewer B12 deficient vegans than omnivores, but I have no proof to back that up.

B12 is not produced by animals... it is produced by bacteria with Cobolt as a base, I believe. Animals get it by eating "dirty" food or from bacteria producing it in their digestive system. We get some of it the same way. There are quite a few debates out there about why some of us seem to have trouble absorbing it. Then, of course, there's the "statistic" that there are fewer B12 deficient vegans than omnivores, but I have no proof to back that up.

Vitamin B12 is needed for cell division and blood formation. Neither plants nor animals make vitamin B12. Bacteria are responsible for producing vitamin B12. Animals get their vitamin B12 from eating foods contaminated with vitamin B12 and then the animal becomes a source of vitamin B12.

Its actually quite interesting how we developed a dependency on B12 knowing that neither animals nor plants make it. But either way the fact that it is provided by meat says something.

Vegitarians kill living things in order to survive; so do non-vegitarians. The only difference is that vegitarians state that certain forms of life deserve to be protected against harm by humans, while other forms of life do not deserve this protection. Personally, I don't see any moral reason why I should assume that animal life deserves more protection than vegitable life. Thus, I make my dietary choices based only on practical considerations, and not based on the "moral standing" of the living material I am consuming.

This isn't quite the case. Even if you were to put plants and animals on the same level, you kill more plant by eating animals than you ever will by eating plants. In most cases it's a matter of trying to minimize harm. It is, of course, impractical to completely get rid of it.

Its actually quite interesting how we developed a dependency on B12 knowing that neither animals nor plants make it. But either way the fact that it is provided by meat says something.

Indeed. There is also the possibility that we are losing the ability to absorb it naturally because of the huge amout that most people get from meat (I've seen the argument before, but it's hard to know whether any given person can be considered a 'reliable' source of information. In fact, I would argue that there's a lot of guesswork going on out there about B12).

Again, to me this is of little importance since it's easy to get vegan sources of B12, just like non-vegan foods are fortified with stuff everyone else doesn't get enough of.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:


3.Common Sense proof


that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

They taste good.

Killing animals is a sticky issue...I will say this: Do it responsibly. Going out and shooting up a bunch of animals for no good reason is stupid and irresponsible, and anyone who does it should go to jail. Going out and killing a deer and turning it into meat to eat is perfectly acceptable; besides, I rather like venison.

As I would tell people who want to go hunting, this is the cardinal rule: You kill it, you grill it. It's probably cheaper than buying it at the store, anyway.

By the way, Kazus (in case you check back on this), I would like to express my appreciation at the way you've approached this discussion. It's not often I can chat about this without the other person becoming extremely defensive. Admittedly, it may be my own passion for the subject that sometimes drives this defensiveness, but I'm trying to work on that.

Lesse, begin semi-coherent ramble.

The human body is designed to be omnivorus, as other posters have pointed out; not perfect for either animal or plant consumption, but suitable for both. Not to mention the dietary needs of humans likely outstripped the abilities for scavenging to supply.

We also used to have a vegitarian cousin back in the day, a good deal larger than our ancestors too. But they tended to be less social and timid compared to our omnivorus ancestors, and thus went extinct.

Humans, being ill equipped for fights on their own, had to develop tools. Not only that, but they had to work in groups to effectively hunt. This required high levels of socialization and communication. These needs required a more developed brain, and as time went on, man evolved to meet these needs more and more efficiently. (There is also a theory that protein consumption spurred development too)

Thus the act of hunting (and later domestication) drove the development of mankind. Indeed our bodies have seen observable changes caused by these behaviors (Appendix becoming a vestigial organ, the development of lactose tolerance, etc). Without hunting and the consumption of meat in human history, we likely wouldn't be here talking about assigning man-made concepts to other members of the animal kingdom, let alone using computers to comunicate with people half-way round the world.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof The bible says that animals with cloven hooves that chew their cud can be murdered and eaten. It also says that insects have four legs.
2.Scientific Proof E=MC^eat a hamburger
3.Common Sense proof If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
4.Any other reasoning If a cow had the chance it would eat you and everyone you love.

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

[QUOTE='[NS]Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:
2.Scientific Proof
QUOTE]

First, humans cannot make certain amino acids, like linoleic and alpha-linolenic acid, which are needed to make hormones and other things. Some of these amino acids are most abundant in the meat of herbivores. It is possible to get them from eating ceratain seeds and plants, but these are harder to find and you may need to eat more servings to get the same benefit.

Second, humans and many mammals cannot digest cellulose. However, we can readily digest sugars, proteins and fats. Since plants contain high amounts of cellulose and sugars, but low amounts of protein and fats, we get less energy from eating vegetables than we do from eating the same amount of meat. Ever wonder why elephants have to keep eating for 16-20 hours a day? It's because they can only digest 40% of what they eat.

Eating meat is more efficient and nature gave us the tools to eat it, therefore it we should eat meat.

Eating meat is more efficient and nature gave us the tools to eat it, therefore it we should eat meat.

Actually the energy conversion is more efficient in a vegetarian diet.

Some of you seem to have the idea that nature is nice and friendly. That's wrong; nature is harsh. Ever seen a pack of hyenas take down its prey and eat it live? Ever seen a baboon eat a baby vervet monkey? Nature is all about survival of the fittest.

Are we ruining the earth? I don't think so. If we dramaticaly alter the balance of an ecosystem, we may eventually find that it can no longer support us. At which point we will become extinct and other organisms will evolve to take our place. I doubt we could actually wipe out life on earth.

Clarification:

Scientific proof means prove to me that animals aren't deserving of rights due to their biology, not the fact that it tastse good or we are omnivours so have the urge to eat flesh.

Second we are adressing to issues: the torture of animals and the eating of animals.

Nerdy Individuals']Clarification:

Scientific proof means prove to me that animals aren't deserving of rights due to their biology, not the fact that it tastse good or we are omnivours so have the urge to eat flesh.

Second we are adressing to issues: the torture of animals and the eating of animals.

1. Animals lack a developed frontal lobe in their brains.

2. Torture makes the meat taste better.

Nerdy Individuals']Clarification:

Second we are adressing to issues: the torture of animals and the eating of animals.

please deffine "torture of annimals". if you mean keeping them in poor conditions and ill treatment at or prior to slaughter than i agree. however if you are attempting to imply that keeping annimals is torture the i dissagree. Please clarify.

Nerdy Individuals']Clarification:

Scientific proof means prove to me that animals aren't deserving of rights due to their biology, not the fact that it tastse good or we are omnivours so have the urge to eat flesh.

Science cannot evaluate whether or not something "deserves" rights, unless you first provide the criterion. Science cannot tell you what is morally right or morally wrong; morality is subjective human judgment.

Actually the energy conversion is more efficient in a vegetarian diet.
There is more available energy in a kilogram of meat than in a kilogram of leaves. Much of the weight of the leaves is cellulose, which we don't digest. Some archaeologists theorize that the switch to a meat-heavy diet made it possible for the human brain to evolve because the brain requires quite a bit of energy to function. Our herbivorous ancestors couldn't get enough nutrition from vegetables to fuel such a brain.

Nerdy Individuals']Clarification:

Scientific proof means prove to me that animals aren't deserving of rights due to their biology, not the fact that it tastse good or we are omnivours so have the urge to eat flesh.

Second we are adressing to issues: the torture of animals and the eating of animals.

That's philosophy, not science, secondly

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU

We have tortured:rolleyes: /eaten Animals since the earliest records of our civilization. Eating meat is established, so if you think that eating meat is wrong, you're the one who must provide due evidence to the contrary.

But, I'll humor you so here: Like many posters have already pointed out. Rights are a human construct with their basis in human civilization, rights only apply to animals so much as each society decides they do. I am a believer in natural rights (Inherent rights, not rights granted by nature) and the doctrine of these cannot apply to animals because animals could not construct these principles.

I would still like to know what is meant by "torture". I don't agree with the torture of animals, under any circumstances. Torture, to me, is needless cruelty. Of course, I have no problem with killing and eating animals - although I think I would have a hard time doing the killing myself as long as there are others willing to do it for me.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:


3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

3. My body feels great after I consume meat.
4. I think I need meat, and it tastes great.

Therefore it supports killing of animals for human consumption, as it is logical and right thing to do. Since humans are quite a lot animals should be specially bred and raised in large quantities and then killed for the benefit of humans.

Nerdy Individuals']Clarification:

Scientific proof means prove to me that animals aren't deserving of rights due to their biology.

Yeah, right:rolleyes: . Indeed there is no scientific proof that animals don't deserve rights due to their biology. I should add that there is no scientific proof that you deserve any rights due to your biology (including freedom, right to live, own property and free speech). So shut up, because there is no scientific proof that you are allowed to speak.

Sorry, but rights are no question of science. Scientific proofs regarding biology were discussed before.



Nerdy Individuals']
Second we are adressing to issues: the torture of animals and the eating of animals.

Eating of animals (I think is described by others) is good.
Torture is not, but nobody has told that it should be supported.

There is more available energy in a kilogram of meat than in a kilogram of leaves.

But at what cost? Its easier to get that kilogram of leaves than it is that kilogram of meat.

But at what cost? Its easier to get that kilogram of leaves than it is that kilogram of meat.

Insects are probably the most efficient source of food in raw number of dollars spent rearing them (i.e., $0.00). I love 'em, but then again, I'm an oddball when it comes to insect consumption..

If you're interested, though, I know which ants taste best (beside honey ants) and I make a mean BBQ mealworm trailmix. :)

Nerdy Individuals']Clarification:

Scientific proof means prove to me that animals aren't deserving of rights due to their biology, not the fact that it tastse good or we are omnivours so have the urge to eat flesh.

Second we are adressing to issues: the torture of animals and the eating of animals.

As to your first point, science cannot prove philosophy... so no scientific proof is possible there.

Second... you have not defined "torture" as it applies to animals. I think we all agree that needless brutality towards animals is a bad thing. Harming them for the fun of it is inappropriate. The meat industry in this country does neither. Yes, they are brutal, and the treatment of the animals is not pleasant... but once again, this is a matter of economy. The population in the USA is fast closing in on 300,000,000. The worldwide population exceeds 6,500,000,000. How do you propose to feed them all? Of necessity, the meat industry has developed fast, cheap ways to raise, slaughter and process meat. If it were to suddenly stop, we would be faced with massive starvation.

Vegetarinaism is a choice, much like religion or clothing styles. And, like those things, it is NOT a moral imperative.

Would I like to see cattle treated in a nicer way? Sure. Would I like to see the children who would starve because of the increased costs that would entail? No thanks. Of the two, I would take torture of cows any day of the week. And to flip your question around... where is the proof that some non-sapient bovine, raised specifically to be food, has more rights than a hungry child?

But at what cost? Its easier to get that kilogram of leaves than it is that kilogram of meat.
Considering how many toxic plants are out there it may not be all that much easier to get. We can't happily munch on poison ivy like deer and rabbits. We need certain specific plants.

Plus one can always scavenge from corpses, raid the nests and burrows of small animals, and groups of primitive hominids shouldn't have too much trouble hunting adult small animals.

I support the rights of animals.


































To be grilled, fire roasted, barbqued, toasted, fried, battered, served raw, or stewed.


And the right to be served next to mash potatoes?

But at what cost? Its easier to get that kilogram of leaves than it is that kilogram of meat.

Leave's don't taste good when grilled over an open fire. They tend to crinkle and turn a burnt color.

You're kidding, right?! Humans don't need to protect animals??? Since when? I mean sure, we do breed certain animals to be our food, but then again, there're plenty of them. What about the animals humans have endangered through the process of developing society?

You tell me, with a strait face, that society doesn't need to protect something it's responsible for. (namely, endangering the animal species in question, whatever it may be)

If killing off something that isn't a dog or cat won't absolutely screw the human race, then why bother?

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?


There's no need to torture or murder them. Just kill em dress em age the meat and prepare so asto suit the individual diner's taste.

You must use the wrong butcher or something..

By the way, I've never heard a good argument (that couldn't be refuted a hundred ways), including the "biology" argument, as to why we should eat meat. I have to chalk it up, basically, to people just not caring about it.

Why would anyone argue that we should eat meat? I dont want you to eat or refrain from eating meat. I should eat meat. No "we" about it though.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
Scientific proof is that we're omnivores so we need to eat a combination of flora and fauna. We don't need to torture nor do we. If we don't eat meat we'll have to deal with nutritional deficiencies.

To all you vegans out there, the animal is already dead. Do you think you're honoring it by throwing it in the garbage?

How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a leaf?

1. The bible says that eating meat is okay.

2. We cannot digest plant matter as efficiently as herbivores. It's much more efficient to get a bunch of guys, a bunch of pointy sticks, and to chase some deers around until we are close enough to jam the pointy sticks into them than it is to eat a bunch of plant matter, alot of which is impossible to digest once, requiring the dangerous(in terms of disease) act of ingesting freshly laid fecal matter for a second go around. Which do you prefer? Jamming things into deers, eating a literally painful amount of plants, many of which you don't know if they are safe or toxic, or eating poop? I'll stick to pointy sticks over eating them, thank you.

3. We can't digest plant matter efficiently enough to survive on it outside the walls of our resource-leaching society. We'd need pointy sticks and lots of them.

4. I gave three reasons why eating Bambi is okay. Give me three reasons why it's not.


However, I don't support excess killing nor do I support inhumane treatment of animals. It makes meat taste nasty (because pf all the stress hormones in it) and, for everything else, it's wasteful. Are we so self centered to believe that we, and we alone, are the only ones that matter? We have towns. So what? Those towns are wasting valuable resources that can benefit us in other ways. Our sole survival tools are our thumbs and our brains and television is robbing us of the latter.

It is my philosophical stance that we are not the only ones who should benefit, but that we are merely gears needed to keep the machine of Earth from becoming an uninhabitable wasteland and, frankly, we're destroying the other gears, as if we were that important in the first place.

Here's my stance on meat.
Meat from animals in humane treatment tastes better than stress filled meat from abused animals.

Keep the cow happy and you'll have a Black Angus instead of government mystery meat.

There's a significant difference between the animal 'rights' movement, and the animal 'welfare' movement.

It's really only a marginal fringe of society that contends that animals have 'rights', that should be equatable to humans. These people contend that killing an animal is no different than killing a human, and so forth; based primarily on whether or not a species is capable of suffering.

The animal 'welfare' movement still supports the idea that humans will domesticate animals for their personal advancement, i.e. food, clothing, etc. However, they fight for the better treatment of animals; no needless cruelty, reduction of factory farming, no killing of animals for non-survival purposes (make-up testing, luxurious fur coats, etc.)

The animal welfare movement makes sense. Those who contend that we have zero responsibility to the other species of the planet lose any sort of credibility if they try to pretend that we would somehow have a responsibility to other humans on the planet. There's no 'human club' that we all signed up for. We agree to treat each other humanely (and of course this doesn't always work), because we want to avoid needless suffering. The same should apply to the animal world as well.

Animals are more than property. Most people would make a bigger deal out of someone shooting their dog over someone shooting a tire on their bike (depending on how nice the bike is I suppose). This is natural, because we have lived alongside domesticated animals since before the dawn of recorded history. They are our companions, as well as our way of life. We have responsibilities, as well as priveleges.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a good steak. I'm sure there's something we can do about making sure that the cow wasn't needlessly suffering beforehand.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

There's room for ALL of God's creatures. Right next to my mashed potatoes.

And the right to be served next to mash potatoes?

Damn! Beat me to it! :p

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

1. Biblical proof - already cited.
2. Scientific proof - already cited.
3. Common sense proof - we need to eat protein to survive, animals are an efficient source of protein, much more so than plants, it's common sense to include animal products, including meat, in our diets.
4. Any other reasoning - precedent - the human race has been eating meat and other animal products since before recorded history.

And concerning the poster's title. I question the validity of the concept of animal "rights". To have rights implies that you have an understanding of rights and the responsibilities entailed by them. To this date, I have seen no evidence that animals have this understanding. They have protections, but no rights.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

There is a serious flaw in this question because in order to answer it, one has to agree that people routinely torture/murder animals so that people can eat their flesh. By the same logic, one could ask for biblical/scientific/common sense/any other reasoning proof that it is acceptable to:

rape women in order to procreate
steal money from people that haven't paid their taxes
flamebait in a public forum


Now, I think the better question would be to ask for proof that supports the slaughter of animals so that people can eat their flesh, in which case there are at least 50 biblical references and an unquantifiable amount of scientific/common sense proofs that support it.

People don't know that meat that lacks large amounts of stress hormones tastes better than meat from a stressed out cow? I'm no hippy. If I was, I wouldn't know which tastes better, now would I?

The animal welfare movement makes sense. Those who contend that we have zero responsibility to the other species of the planet lose any sort of credibility if they try to pretend that we would somehow have a responsibility to other humans on the planet. There's no 'human club' that we all signed up for. We agree to treat each other humanely (and of course this doesn't always work), because we want to avoid needless suffering. The same should apply to the animal world as well.

Do we slaughter, cook, and eat other human beings as a major source of food, too?

Do we slaughter, cook, and eat other human beings as a major source of food, too?

That is not the same at all.

That is not the same at all.

What is not the same at all?

We clearly and obviously treat animals differently from human beings, and most animal welfare advocates acknowledge this, and have no problem with it. That's why they're distinct from the animal rights advocates, and that's why many of them aren't vegetarians.

How, then, can it be argued that because we have obligations to humans, it follows that we have obligations to animals, when we have already accepted that there is some difference in moral worth between the two? Why are classifications based on species (or based on the characteristics that divide the species) morally relevant in some cases, but unacceptably arbitrary in others?

What is not the same at all?

We clearly and obviously treat animals differently from human beings, and most animal welfare advocates acknowledge this, and have no problem with it. That's why they're distinct from the animal rights advocates, and that's why many of them aren't vegetarians.

How, then, can it be argued that because we have obligations to humans, it follows that we have obligations to animals, when we have already accepted that there is some difference in moral worth between the two? Why are classifications based on species (or based on the characteristics that divide the species) morally relevant in some cases, but unacceptably arbitrary in others?

Q1: I don't know.
Q2: That is just how things work.

Do we slaughter, cook, and eat other human beings as a major source of food, too?

Of course not.

But we use humans in a variety of ways, and have decided over the centuries that some methods of using them are more acceptable than others. Notice, that we don't have slaves picking cotton anymore. That isn't because there was some rule written into our DNA that said we owed slaves their freedom. It's because we decided it was unethical.

Needless cruelty to animals is also unethical. People act with outrage to animal abuse if it's the family dog or cat, but turn a blind eye if it's their food, or clothing. It's possible to obtain our food and clothing in less reprehensible ways. Like cotton, not picked by slaves.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
Can anyone give me one good reason to even listen to such nonsense?

Can anyone give me one good reason to even listen to such nonsense?

Inspires you to fire up the BBQ?

Needless cruelty to animals is also unethical. People act with outrage to animal abuse if it's the family dog or cat, but turn a blind eye if it's their food, or clothing. It's possible to obtain our food and clothing in less reprehensible ways. Like cotton, not picked by slaves.

That is exactly the point I was driving at. Too many animal welfare advocates reject animal rights because it denies them the opportunity to eat meat, but reject the notion of animals having no moral value because they like complaining about other people's unethical treatment of pets and large sea animals.

You seemed to be advocating exactly the same position. Would you be okay with eating a dish of human meat, as long as the human wasn't suffering needlessly beforehand? If it's alright to deny animals the right to life because it satisfies your eating tastes, why isn't it alright to deny animals the right to comfortable lives when denying them that right satisfies the wishes of those seeking to minimize costs in factory farms?

That is exactly the point I was driving at. Too many animal welfare advocates reject animal rights because it denies them the opportunity to eat meat, but reject the notion of animals having no moral value because they like complaining about other people's unethical treatment of pets and large sea animals.

You seemed to be advocating exactly the same position. Would you be okay with eating a dish of human meat, as long as the human wasn't suffering needlessly beforehand? If it's alright to deny animals the right to life because it satisfies your eating tastes, why isn't it alright to deny animals the right to comfortable lives when denying them that right satisfies the wishes of those seeking to minimize costs in factory farms?

Okay, first of all, my argument is based on society deciding what is ethical, and what is not ethical, and then acting on it.

Society decided a long time ago that cannibalism is wrong, and I tend to agree.

However, we evolved as hunter-gatherers, and are omnivores. We have been eating meat as a species for at least tens of thousands of years, if not much, much longer. Most of society still feels okay about eating meat.

It's a matter of admitting our biology, and coming to grips with trying to be as humane as possible. We're not saints, but we could clean up a little.

Inspires you to fire up the BBQ?
Nahh. Don't need any additional inspiration. While on vacation at the beach this last week, I had ribs, hamburgers, steaks, fish ... the list is long, but delicious! :D

Nahh. Don't need any additional inspiration. While on vacation at the beach this last week, I had ribs, hamburgers, steaks, fish ... the list is long, but delicious! :D

You're making me hungry. I think I'm off to the pub for some grilled meat of some sort. Preferably with beer.

I need to take care of my beer and wings rights.

Okay, first of all, my argument is based on society deciding what is ethical, and what is not ethical, and then acting on it.

Most of society still feels okay about eating meat.

Are you arguing that whatever society decides is ethical, is in fact ethical? Even if it's, say, genocide?

Society decided a long time ago that cannibalism is wrong, and I tend to agree.

I tend to agree as well.

However, we evolved as hunter-gatherers, and are omnivores. We have been eating meat as a species for at least tens of thousands of years, if not much, much longer.

So? The fact that we do eat meat, and have for the duration of the existence of our species (and probably far longer), does not mean that we ought to eat meat.

It's a matter of admitting our biology,

Our biology can lead us to committing all kinds of atrocities. That doesn't make them acceptable. For that matter, it could well be argued that our biology is behind the pursuit of profit that motivates the corporations who run factory farms to lower costs at the animals' expense.

and coming to grips with trying to be as humane as possible. We're not saints, but we could clean up a little.

So meat-eating is immoral, but we can do it anyway?

I think Penn Jillette summed up animal rights best:
"The difference between me and Teller and PETA is that Teller and I would kill every last chimpanzee on the planet earth, strangle them all to death with our bare hands if it would save the life of one dying junkie."

Also, the human sense of taste has evolved so that things neccesary for nutritional well-being taste pleasant. Fruit tastes good because of the fructose within, vegetables for the glucose, grains for the carbohydrates, and meat for the lipids and amino acids. Yum yum!

i was tempt to read everyones arguement but then i got bored.

simple.


animals eat meat. humans are animals, i'm human , so i eat meat.
a=b=c.

the more meat you eat, the stronger you get, higher uo the food chain you stay. you got to eat as much kinds of animals you can to let know who's boss. i'd eat you if someone poured tobasco souce on you.

If we were really concerned with making the earth habitable for our children's children, we'd walk down the street instead of driving there in SUVs the size of houses and milage that's in feet per tank instead of miles per gallon, stop South American farmers from destroying the Amazon(the soil there is freak'n poor. Of course you'll need to burn down more forest. It's not designed for nutrient-leeching crops), use abstinence instead of risking broken condoms, harmful pill side effects, abortians gone horribly wrong, and boyfriends who are pissed because their girlfriends made them get neutered, and bomb overpopulated countries because the earth can only support so many leeche, er I mean people.

No. We eat meat because we were born programmed to want meat amino acids, not to prevent cow overpopulations. Alaska shoots wolves not to prevent overpoulation, but to allow human hunters to blast a few more animals to kingdon come. I mean, wolves kill just enough to eat. It's people that shoot them just because we can.

The former is basic biology. The latter is just an example of human ego and an urge to kill(way back, it was the main source of meat getting) that went unchecked after killing for food became obsolete.

Nerdy Individuals']Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?
Torture and murder? Hahahahahahahahaha! Although some practices aren't very fair, many are.

Are you arguing that whatever society decides is ethical, is in fact ethical? Even if it's, say, genocide?

Somebody has to decide what is ethical and what is not. Who if not society? Society may choose to make genocide acceptable, where as I may not. But society as a whole has to make the decision and act on it for there to be sweeping changes. Ethics is a matter of opinion. I'm not one to contend that there is a universal truth, and my view happens to be the correct one.

So? The fact that we do eat meat, and have for the duration of the existence of our species (and probably far longer), does not mean that we ought to eat meat.?

The fact that we are biologically evolved to eat meat means we ought to eat meat. It's that simple.

Of course, we eat far more of it than we ought to, and the animal rights and animal welfare activists are right when they show how much of a waste devoting all of that land towards raising livestock is. If we ate a lot less meat, we could;

a) Introduce legislation to ban or limit the excesses of factory farming
b) Encourage far greater yields of healthy, organic fruits and vegetables
c) Create an environment where we still have meat as part of our menu, but the livestock live better lives, and people live healthier ones.

Our biology can lead us to committing all kinds of atrocities. That doesn't make them acceptable. For that matter, it could well be argued that our biology is behind the pursuit of profit that motivates the corporations who run factory farms to lower costs at the animals' expense.?

I would argue that isn't a matter of biology, and more a matter of society. The excesses of factory farming and the like can be changed with legislation and consumer habits. I put the emphasis on legislation, because in our capitalistic system (which isn't a matter of biology, and I would argue anyone who would say that it is) most people will purchase food that is relatively convenient and inexpensive. If given a choice between two 'meats' of the same price, only one was treated brutally, and one lived free-range, I would venture most would choose the free range. But our economic system doesn't make it easy for the average consumer. And only mass vegetarianism would kill the industry that thrives on factory farming.

People aren't going to stop eating meat en masse. We're hardwired to eat the stuff. Better to concentrate on what is possible, and quit making people feel guilty for what is a basic biological drive.

So meat-eating is immoral, but we can do it anyway?

I never said eating meat was immoral. It's natural. The life that some of these animals live prior to consumption is immoral. That can be, and should be, changed.

Why does no one care about Animal Lefts?

Why does no one care about Animal Lefts?

They taste better the first time around.

Much like Mikesburg, I dislike factory farming as well, but not from an animal rights perspective but an environmental and medical perspective.

Factory farms put economic efficiency ahead of environmental efficiency. I'm not really a traditionalist, but I do remember from economics class learning about how the traditional farming methods have a natural balance within them that factory farms don't, such as for example the animal waste decomposing in the soil (to work as a natural fertilizer or something like that) the traditional way, but being disposed of (by being watered-down and shot into the air causing some major pollution and a real stench to the surrounding area for human beings in that area) with the factory farming method.

Also, animals have more exercise space in the traditional method, and that exercise gives them more muscle and less fat, meaning factory-farmed meat has less protein and more fat than organically-farmed meat.

Here in Malaysia (holiday, seeing dad) everyone eats meat or fish, every day. in the past week I have had pizza (with pepperoni), lamb, pork (four times!), fish (twice), and crab. Being a vegetarian is totally uncared for. When I was sitting there ripping apart a lamb chop one day, I suddenly realised something.

'Jesus christ. This used to be a living, breathing, animal.'

So what did I do?

Damnit, I kept eating. Because it tastes good, because these animals probably don't even know they're alive, and hell, if they do, is there a way you can prove it to me? Secondly, if they are, I'd rather not pay extra money to raise the chicken or the pig or the cow 'nicely.' I'd rather have my food cheaper, and to hell with the 'rights' of the animal. We humans earned our rights. What have they done? Have animals stood on two legs and created machines to fly? Have they created nuclear power? How about built the eiffel tower? No.

Can anyone give me:

1.Biblical Proof
2.Scientific Proof
3.Common Sense proof
4.Any other reasoning

that supports the torture/murder of animals so that people can eat their flesh?

Got one.
1.) Jesus gave the 5000 fish, no?
2.) There are certain properties in meats that cannot be found in non meats. I'm not exactly sure what. Iron, perhaps? Protein?
3.) They're there for us to eat.
4.) It tastes good.