NationStates Jolt Archive

So I was discussing vegetarianism with one of my friends who is vegetarian, and she told me that she doesn't eat animals because she loves them and doesn't want them to die. I said that I love and respect animals too but I also like to eat them.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

Of course it is. We're designed to eat animals anyway.

no we're not.

since you love animals and love to eat them, id go for "yes"

So I was discussing vegetarianism with one of my friends who is vegetarian, and she told me that she doesn't eat animals because she loves them and doesn't want them to die. I said that I love and respect animals too but I also like to eat them.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

yes. it is possible.

after all, we have to do our part in animal population control. ;)

Very much so. Actually the more animals one eats the more one loves them. By eating animals, consuming their flesh we become one with each other and thus we reach a higher plane of existence sometimes known as the Backyard BBQ. Once experienced it can be said that it resembles reaching the top of a mountain and know all is good.

Eating meat good for you and good for the planet.

Sure; we can love humans and still kill them, too.

Though the argument that you should or shouldn't be a vegetarian simply because you love animals isn't a very good one; or, at least, not a very nuanced one.

Do you eat the same animals that you love?

To be honest, I find most of us in our western prepackaged supermarket lifestyle have absolutely no respect for the animals we consume.

We always grill the things we love.

If you truly love something, set it free. If it comes back, marinade it overnight, grill lightly and serve on a bed of rice. :)

Of course it is. We're designed to eat animals anyway.
We're 'designed' to be omnivores, and as such can happily exist without consuming meat.

As you well know.

Suppose you have a rabbit called Fluffy.
Fluffy dies. Now, what would Fluffy prefer ?
A. Feeding you, his beloved owner.
B. Feeding the worms, insects and bateria in the soil of your garden.
C. Fluffy is not human/dead. Stop pretending otherwise.

Seriously though: at the very least check if the animals were welltreated during their life if you care about them. Once they're dead they tend to not care anymore about what happens to them - but while being tortured to become slightly more tasty or cheaper they probably do.

We're 'designed' to be omnivores, and as such can happily exist without consuming meat.

As you well know.

I've never met a happy vegetarian.

But perhaps that's because I like to cut them into delicious steak. Delicious steak.

Do you eat the same animals that you love?

To be honest, I find most of us in our western prepackaged supermarket lifestyle have absolutely no respect for the animals we consume.
Factory farming for the supply of an over-consuming society does show a complete lack of respect for the thing being consumed, to horror-movie levels. But this can be said truthfully about all the resources we over-consume and the environment we pollute with the wastes of our over-consumption. Ultimately, it can be said of that we have no love and no respect for ourselves, too, since apparently we foul our own nest with such behavior constantly.

That said, however, I do believe it is possible to love animals even if we eat them -- even though modern industrialized societies currently don't act that way.

In another thread, about food, a while ago, I mentioned a chef on the tv show "Top Chef" who, on a tour of an organic farm that raised livestock for food as well as crops, commented that he thinks a loving and respectful relationship between us and our food is all about how we treat it before we eat it.

He said that these animals are bred, born, and raised solely for the purpose of being killed for food. That is their fate, determined and controlled by us. Because of domestication and selective breeding, they would not exist at all if not for that plan of ours. But that does not mean they don't deserve respect while they are alive. They are living creatures, with feelings. They have this life, and while they live it, they deserve to be happy, and it is up to us to make them happy and treat them well. We are responsible for that.

On one end of the spectrum, we have the extreme of modern, industrialized, factory farming, which is so abusive, so filthy, so destructive, I think it should be outlawed.

On the other end of the spetrum, we have the Buddhists of Mongolia, an arid country where very little can be grown in the way of crops, but where the prevailing Buddhist beliefs prevent people from killing living creatures. Those people raise livestock for dairy and wool, and do not kill them, ever. But when the animals die naturally, the people do eat them.

Somewhere between those two extremes, there are a host of approaches to meat/poultry farming that can fit into western culture and express respect and honor for the animals whose lives support ours.

But it requires people to grow the fuck up and THINK about what they are doing.

Suppose you have a rabbit called Fluffy.
Fluffy dies. Now, what would Fluffy prefer ?
A. Feeding you, his beloved owner.
B. Feeding the worms, insects and bateria in the soil of your garden.
C. Fluffy is not human/dead. Stop pretending otherwise.
Fluffy would most probably have trouble grasping many of the above concepts.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

for fun? maybe. seems like a weird reason to eat something you respect, though. this isn't to say that you can't enjoy eating meat while respecting the animals from which it came - after all, numerous societies around the world have eaten animals and prized certain ones as desirable foods while also believing them to be enspirited and morally considerable and such. but eating for fun when combined with respect seems...odd.

They deserve to be happy? Deserve? I don't understand this reasoning. The only thing animals raised solely for meat deserve is a quick slaughter. What happens prior to that is maintainence of the meat, not of the animals "feelings".

I love humans so much that I became a humanitarian (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlew8o9d7bzvtia?from=Main.ImAHumanitarian).

If you truly love something, set it free. If it comes back, marinade it overnight, grill lightly and serve on a bed of rice. :)

and if it doesn't come back, hunt it down, kill it, then Marinade it overnight... :D

We always grill the things we love.

Yay! :D

no we're not.

Humans have incisors and meat processing stomachs, I propose we are.

They deserve to be happy? Deserve? I don't understand this reasoning. The only thing animals raised solely for meat deserve is a quick slaughter. What happens prior to that is maintainence of the meat, not of the animals "feelings".
That's because you are a troll. Probably not just on the net, either. You talk the exact same way about people.

*SNIP*

So there's nothing wrong with fattening up an animal for the slaughter then?

So there's nothing wrong with fattening up an animal for the slaughter then?
Funny, I didn't think I aimed so high that the whole point of that post would have flown over your head like that. Without even mussing your hair. Hm. Do you keep your head particularly low, for the purpose of missing points?

That's because you are a troll. Probably not just on the net, either. You talk the exact same way about people.

So, wait, let me get this straight. I'm a troll because I express unpopular opinions? Or just opinions contrary to your own?

Animals raised for meat are a product. They have a shelf life and handling proceedures designed to minimise damage to the product. Their feelings should not come into consideration here, because fundamentally, they're still getting cut up in the end.

So, wait, let me get this straight. I'm a troll because I express unpopular opinions? Or just opinions contrary to your own?

Animals raised for meat are a product. They have a shelf life and handling proceedures designed to minimise damage to the product. Their feelings should not come into consideration here, because fundamentally, they're still getting cut up in the end.
No, you're a troll because you go out of your way to be hostile, long before you get any provocation. That's make you the provacateur, or in 'net speak, the baiter.

As for the rest of your post -- so short, yet so redundant. You already said that, and I have no interest in exploring your views. You stated them clearly the first time, and there is really nothing to explore in them. I get it -- you don't agree with what I said. Oh, well.

Somewhere between those two extremes, there are a host of approaches to meat/poultry farming that can fit into western culture and express respect and honor for the animals whose lives support ours.

But it requires people to grow the fuck up and THINK about what they are doing.

the ideal is we go back to a 4 field system. 25% of the field would be used to produce cattle fodder at a given time. This fodder would then be used to feed the animals used for milk, eggs, and meat. The meat factory is a result of monoculture agriculture.

The only thing animals raised solely for meat deserve is a quick slaughter. What happens prior to that is maintainence of the meat, not of the animals "feelings".
As nonhuman animals of the cognitive ability of sheep and cattle clearly can be in distress, there is no need to use scare-quotes when discussing their feelings.

No, you're a troll because you go out of your way to be hostile, long before you get any provocation. That's make you the provacateur, or in 'net speak, the baiter.

As for the rest of your post -- so short, yet so redundant. You already said that, and I have no interest in exploring your views. You stated them clearly the first time, and there is really nothing to explore in them. I get it -- you don't agree with what I said. Oh, well.

Then your post explaining your opinion of me was irrelevant.

i only love cute animals. i eat the ugly ones.

apart from lambs... they're cute AND delicious

So, wait, let me get this straight. I'm a troll because I express unpopular opinions? Or just opinions contrary to your own?
Your self-proclaimed amoralist position comes off as rather abrasive at times, I believe.

Animals raised for meat are a product. They have a shelf life and handling proceedures designed to minimise damage to the product. Their feelings should not come into consideration here, because fundamentally, they're still getting cut up in the end.
'Humans raised for slavery are a product. They have a shelf life and handling procedures designed to minimise damage to the product. Their feelings should not come into consideration here, because fundamentally, they're still getting worked to death in the end.'

See the illogicality here?

As nonhuman animals of the cognitive ability of sheep and cattle clearly can be in distress, there is no need to use scare-quotes when discussing their feelings.

Oh, I know they can experience distress, pain, fear, whatever. I just don't think that's important.

Your self-proclaimed amoralist position comes off as rather abrasive at times, I believe.


'Humans raised for slavery are a product. They have a shelf life and handling procedures designed to minimise damage to the product. Their feelings should not come into consideration here, because fundamentally, they're still getting worked to death in the end.'

See the illogicality here?

Oh, please. Don't even bother. Humans are so far removed from meat-animals that this is beyond a strawman.

Oh, I know they can experience distress, pain, fear, whatever. I just don't think that's important.
And do you feel the same way about human distress, pain, fear, etc.?

If so, it would be hard to discuss a whole range of ethical positions and problems with you.

Oh, please. Don't even bother. Humans are so far removed from meat-animals that this is beyond a strawman.
I don't see how it is a strawman.

All you're doing is describing a state of affairs -- that certain animals are bred for consumption -- and putting forward said state of affairs as justification for itself.

And do you feel the same way about human distress, pain, fear, etc.?

If so, it would be hard to discuss a whole range of ethical positions and problems with you.

Largely, yes.

But for the purposes of this argument, you fail by comparing humans with animals raised solely for their meat. They are in no way comparable.

But for the purposes of this argument, you fail by comparing humans with animals raised solely for their meat. They are in no way comparable.
I'd beg to differ:

Humans and (many) nonhuman animals have fears, desires, interests, and can suffer pains, enjoy pleasures.

There are numerous other points of comparison.

So there's nothing wrong with fattening up an animal for the slaughter then?

Funny, I didn't think I aimed so high that the whole point of that post would have flown over your head like that. Without even mussing your hair. Hm. Do you keep your head particularly low, for the purpose of missing points?
To add something that I hope will clue you to the point:

Foie gras. A classic delicacy of French cuisine. Many people swear it is one of the most delicious things in the world. Others denounce it as a grotesque exercise in animal cruelty.

For those who don't know, foie gras is the highly fattened liver of a goose. Fattened to the point of gross dysfunction. If you ever look at a foie gras, you will have a hard time believing it was ever a functioning organ, let alone that it fit inside a goose.

How the liver gets so fattened is a matter of great controversy. Most of the time, it involves force feeding the geese to extreme levels. It makes an animal sick for the sole purpose of producing a tasty morsel which is (a) not necessary for human life and (b) not healthy for humans to eat in general, either.

Even if the production of foie gras involved no animal maltreatment at all I would never eat it, because it just looks like a fancy haute cuisine plate of heart attack, to me. Diseased liver is not appetizing to me, no matter how well cooked it is or how yummy everyone insists it is.

The fact that animal cruelty is or may be also involved just seals the deal. I ain't eatin' it. I'm not going to torture geese just so I can also shorten my own life by self-indulgence.

There is something almost de Sadian about foie gras, to me. And it just happens to be the most graphic example I can think of at the moment of there being something wrong with fattening an animal up for the slaughter.

Now compare that to a goose being raised on a farm on natural feed, in a free range yard, slaughtered in a humane manner, and roasted with caraway seeds and served with a wine and plum sauce, with all its meat and organs recognizable for what they were in life. There is a difference.

I'd beg to differ:

Humans and (many) nonhuman animals have fears, desires, interests, and can suffer pains, enjoy pleasures.

There are numerous other points of comparison.

Humans are not raised for meat. Humans are not a meat product. They are not comparable, and you know it.

I'm now going to gracefully bow out of this thread, as my so-called abrasive nature got me a warning in the last one I was in.

But for the purposes of this argument, you fail by comparing humans with animals raised solely for their meat. They are in no way comparable.

i'm going to need an argument to believe that. do you have one?

Then your post explaining your opinion of me was irrelevant.
It was relevant as an explanation of why your initial remarks to me were irrelevant and were being dismissed.

Humans are not raised for meat. Humans are not a meat product. They are not comparable, and you know it.

So, let me get this straight, the thing that separates humans from meat producing animals is that we don't treat humans as meat producing animals, which separates us from meat producing animals....

Well...

http://donstuff.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/circular-reasoning1.jpg

Funny, I didn't think I aimed so high that the whole point of that post would have flown over your head like that. Without even missing your hair. Hm. Do you keep your head particularly low, for the purpose of missing points?

Don't get me wrong. I respect the idea that animals should not be abused, even if they are destined to be butchered. But that's what this boils down to (excuse the pun), doesn't it? Animals are fattened up for the inevitable slaughter (at least in western society), regardless of whether or not respect is involved.

Don't get me wrong. I respect the idea that animals should not be abused, even if they are destined to be butchered. But that's what this boils down to (excuse the pun), doesn't it? Animals are fattened up for the inevitable slaughter (at least in western society), regardless of whether or not respect is involved.
I am talking about maltreatment of animals. You are asking me if it's okay to plump up a meat animal if we treat it well while doing so. Did I or did I not talk about maltreatment being bad? What do you think my answer is going to be?

Clearly, I think it is bad to maltreat meat animals. I mean, seriously, duh. If making them fat amounts to maltreatment (see comments about foie gras, above), then no shit, I think it's bad.

Asking me, for no apparent reason, to reconfirm the central point of my statements is kind of irritating to me.

Humans are not raised for meat. Humans are not a meat product.
Well observed. Once again, though, you're begging the question.

We're discussing whether certain animals should be used for meat consumption. Pointing out the obvious fact that animals are currently being used for meat consumption isn't an argument for such a practice.

If it were, then the fact that certain humans were (are?) born into slavery would be an argument for slavery. Which it obviously isn't.

They are not comparable, and you know it.
I have clearly demonstrated how they are comparable in my post above.

Humans are not raised for meat. Humans are not a meat product.So if a couple decided to have children just so they could fatten them up and eat them, this would be okay?

I am talking about maltreatment of animals. You are asking me if it's okay to plump up a meat animal if we treat it well while doing so. Did I or did I not talk about maltreatment being bad? What do you think my answer is going to be?

Clearly, I think it is bad to maltreat meat animals. I mean, seriously, duh. If making them fat amounts to maltreatment (see comments about foie gras, above), then no shit, I think it's bad.

Asking me, for no apparent reason, to reconfirm the central point of my statements is kind of irritating to me.

Originally, I planned to reply with something along these lines:

I was stating a fact that animals are raised and butchered for food and that respect (or lack thereof) for these animals is somewhat irrelevant in the process because "respect" has no impact on the product.

However, I now realize this isn't true. The only result I care about is the how the quality of my food is affected. IMO, "respect" and "humane treatment" [sic] are only useful insofar as that the food's quality is not reduced. I realize it's hard to care about the quality of the food when you don't respect the animal it came from.

I really don't feel as strongly about the ethics of how animals are treated prior to being butchered as you do. With that said, I would prefer that my food was killed "humanely" but I would still eat food that has been "mishandled." Like I said, I'm really only concerned with the effect on the quality of the food, as cold as it is.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

The best way to love and respect animals is to eat them! The edible ones, anyway. You're allowing them to fulfill their natural functions with respect to humans' natural functions as omnivores.

Nothing like a thick juicy steak. :D

So let's hear it for Ted Nugent and People for Eating Tasty Animals!

I've never met a happy vegetarian.

But perhaps that's because I like to cut them into delicious steak. Delicious steak.

I'm happy.

I'm happy.

:eek:

Run!!!

I'm happy.

Life's too short to be a vegetarian. But then again, vegetarians live longer so...

I'm happy.

therefore you are not a vegetarian

Life's too short to be a vegetarian. But then again, vegetarians live longer so...

Shoot the vegetarians and serve them as food?

Shoot the vegetarians and serve them as food?

Loaw it.

However, I now realize this isn't true. The only result I care about is the how the quality of my food is affected. IMO, "respect" and "humane treatment" [sic] are only useful insofar as that the food's quality is not reduced. I realize it's hard to care about the quality of the food when you don't respect the animal it came from.

I really don't feel as strongly about the ethics of how animals are treated prior to being butchered as you do. With that said, I would prefer that my food was killed "humanely" but I would still eat food that has been "mishandled." Like I said, I'm really only concerned with the effect on the quality of the food, as cold as it is.

Hmm, I wonder how many people think the same way. Perhaps a poll should be made...

Something like:
Suppose you have Meatproduct A and Meatproduct B. For product A the animals were treated badly during their lifetime, for product B they were treated well. There are no other differences between the two that you know of - price, quality and so on seem the same to you.
Which would you prefer to buy ?

1. Product A
2. Product B
3. Either/both, it does not matter to me
4. Neither, I do not eat/buy meat anyway.

Of course it is. We're designed to eat animals anyway.

No, no, no...We evolved to Eat Meat...there was no design involved, :p

Hmm, I wonder how many people think the same way. Perhaps a poll should be made...

Something like:
Suppose you have Meatproduct A and Meatproduct B. For product A the animals were treated badly during their lifetime, for product B they were treated well. There are no other differences between the two that you know of - price, quality and so on seem the same to you.
Which would you prefer to buy ?

1. Product A
2. Product B
3. Either/both, it does not matter to me
4. Neither, I do not eat/buy meat anyway.


If there really is no other difference, then B. But usually there is a difference. Hard to have free-range veal that has the quality of confined veal, for example.

So I was discussing vegetarianism with one of my friends who is vegetarian, and she told me that she doesn't eat animals because she loves them and doesn't want them to die. I said that I love and respect animals too but I also like to eat them.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

No, not if you do not have to eat the animals to live. I know Native Americans did some prayer crap about thanking the animal, but they probably needed to kill the animal to maintain their lives.

So I was discussing vegetarianism with one of my friends who is vegetarian, and she told me that she doesn't eat animals because she loves them and doesn't want them to die. I said that I love and respect animals too but I also like to eat them.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

If I loved something I would want to eat it.
I love brocolli so I eat a lot of it.

I hate animals so I don't want anything to do with them. They are gross. I don't eat them.

They deserve to be happy? Deserve? I don't understand this reasoning. The only thing animals raised solely for meat deserve is a quick slaughter. What happens prior to that is maintainence of the meat, not of the animals "feelings".

If we all got what we deserved, we would all die. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh1SzmUGCxk

Shoot the vegetarians and serve them as food?

Feed them to animals:p

therefore you are not a vegetarian

None who is truly selfless can be happy.

Eat them if you want. Don't forget, if a big-ass lion was hungry and it came accross you, it would probably eat you. So it's only fair :).

None who is truly selfless can be happy.

"The greatest satisfaction in life is living for others."

-Tolstoy

Eat them if you want. Don't forget, if a big-ass lion was hungry and it came accross you, it would probably eat you. So it's only fair :).

If you're ever chased by a hungry big-ass lion and you're with a friend, just remember: you don't have to outrun the lion. You just have to outrun your friend. :wink:

Eat them if you want. Don't forget, if a big-ass lion was hungry and it came accross you, it would probably eat you. So it's only fair :).

But would a big-ass Cow?


Seems to me like we should only eat Predators, ;)...

Although one wonders if a modern Cow could survive in the wild and not on a farm...

"The greatest satisfaction in life is living for others."

-Tolstoy

Tolstoy was an idiot.

The greatest satisfaction in life is beating the original Sonic the Hedgehog in under 8 minutes.

Tolstoy was an idiot.

The greatest satisfaction in life is beating the original Sonic the Hedgehog in under 8 minutes.

and subsequently modifying the levels as you desire with Debug Mode, lol

"The greatest satisfaction in life is living for others."

-Tolstoy

"As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."

"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."

-Tolstoy

"As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."

"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."

-Tolstoy

touche

But would a big-ass Cow?


Seems to me like we should only eat Predators, ;)...
Cows would kill us all just for laughs, if they could work up the energy. Lazy, vicious bitches, all of them. There is a reason they de-horn them, you know.

Although one wonders if a modern Cow could survive in the wild and not on a farm...
No, a modern cow could not survive in the wild. Cattle have been selectively bred to diminish their natural aggression. Wild cattle are among the most dangerous wildlife. To get an animal that would not attack the farmer on sight, domestic cattle have been made so stupid and unmotivated, they could not survive without us. Also, dairy cows have been modified to produce so much milk so constantly that, if there were no humans to milk them, they would likely die of it or suffer severe infections.

Cows would kill us all just for laughs, if they could work up the energy. Lazy, vicious bitches, all of them. There is a reason they de-horn them, you know.

The "cow problem"? :tongue:

Humans have incisors and meat processing stomachs, I propose we are.Horses have incisors. Hippos have some of the largest canines around. I don't think teeth are the best criteria to judge on whether it's best for a certain animal to be eating meat or not.

Other thinks that you might want to consider are that humans have amalase in their saliva (helps digest complex carbohydrates) -- something that is specific to animals that prefer to eat plants.

Humans also develop coronary heart disease (something which cats and dogs don't develop). Showing that we're not very good at coping with high fat diets -- there's generally more fat in meat than in plants (I'm ignoring processed foods here).

We also have longer small intestines when compared to carnivores and to most omnivores (like dogs). We do, however, only have one stomach and a redundant appendix.

My analysis is that whilst humans can eat meat, they're anatomy and physiology is pretty maladapted to doing so, and it's generally better for a human not to eat meat. But then humans are generally maladapted to doing anything besides thinking.

Humans are omnivores. Eat a varied diet. Enjoy what there is to eat!

Humans are omnivores. Eat a varied diet. Enjoy what there is to eat!

http://www.uh.edu/engines/cannibalism.jpg

When my grandfather retired he, literally, bought a farm, as well as a very small herd of cattle. He proceeded to name them. Once or twice a year, he would pick one of his precious herd and have it butchered, the meat was distributed throughout the family, and while we all knew that we were eating "Phantom" or "Longtail"*, we also knew that we all had a hand in raising and caring for these big, slow bovines. Whether it was hunting the calving cows down during the spring, cutting and baling the hay in the summer, or feeding them that same hay during the winter, it was reciprocal relationship. Something, I feel, we should all have a little bit more of with our food--even if that means just growing some tomatoes on pots on the back porch. It's good for our health, and for our appreciation of who and what we are, and how we feed ourselves.



*the names have been changed to protect the innocent, although not too much.

When my grandfather retired he, literally, bought a farm, as well as a very small herd of cattle. He proceeded to name them. Once or twice a year, he would pick one of his precious herd and have it butchered, the meat was distributed throughout the family, and while we all knew that we were eating "Phantom" or "Longtail"*, we also knew that we all had a hand in raising and caring for these big, slow bovines. Whether it was hunting the calving cows down during the spring, cutting and baling the hay in the summer, or feeding them that same hay during the winter, it was reciprocal relationship. Something, I feel, we should all have a little bit more of with our food--even if that means just growing some tomatoes on pots on the back porch. It's good for our health, and for our appreciation of who and what we are, and how we feed ourselves.

I bought a package of ground beef the other day. I named it "Sally of Borg," since I figured that although it was made from a conglomeration of biological matter from all sorts of different animals, I like to imagine that there's one nameable identity in there who just needs to be separated from the collective long enough to develop cow-equivalent emotions and ideas.

I bought a package of ground beef the other day. I named it "Sally of Borg," since I figured that although it was made from a conglomeration of biological matter from all sorts of different animals, I like to imagine that there's one nameable identity in there who just needs to be separated from the collective long enough to develop cow-equivalent emotions and ideas.

Hey! I'm waxing poetic about my youthful days on the farm. Shhhhh!

Hmm, I wonder how many people think the same way. Perhaps a poll should be made...

Something like:
Suppose you have Meatproduct A and Meatproduct B. For product A the animals were treated badly during their lifetime, for product B they were treated well. There are no other differences between the two that you know of - price, quality and so on seem the same to you.
Which would you prefer to buy ?

1. Product A
2. Product B
3. Either/both, it does not matter to me
4. Neither, I do not eat/buy meat anyway.

...

...
1. Product A
2. Product B
3. Either/both, it does not matter to me
4. Neither, I do not eat/buy meat anyway.
Would it matter to you if it was your life being affected by it? The same kinds of abusive farming techniques that I described as being disrespectful of the food animals also raises the risk of contamination and sickness to the human public.

http://www.hfa.org/factory/index.html
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/cesspools/cessinx.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp
http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/factsheets/water.asp

This is why, in my first post, I said that an attitude that shows no respect, honor or love for the animals we eat, also shows the same towards ourselves. I described it as fouling our own nest.

Truly, we are what we eat.

Truly, we are what we eat.

Does this mean we should eat humans? :confused:

Does this mean we should eat humans? :confused:

Sure.

Suppose you have Meatproduct A and Meatproduct B. For product A the animals were treated badly during their lifetime, for product B they were treated well. There are no other differences between the two that you know of -price, quality and so on seem the same to you.
Which would you prefer to buy ?

1. Product A
2. Product B
3. Either/both, it does not matter to me
4. Neither, I do not eat/buy meat anyway.

If there truly is no difference at all, then B. This rarely being the case, however, I'd have to go with option 5: Whichever one gives me the most meat for the least money.

Would it matter to you if it was your life being affected by it?

That is another question. I am curious to see if people actually care about the wellbeing of the animal for the sake of the animal, if there are no costs or benefits to that (other than the warm feeling of eating something that was not tortured).

Second step would be determining what would persuade people to change their answer. If one picks B now, would one pick A if it was cheaper ? If one picks A now, would they pick B if it was healthier ?

Perhaps I should create a different topic so an actual poll can be added, but let us see what people state here first.

If you're ever chased by a hungry big-ass lion and you're with a friend, just remember: you don't have to outrun the lion. You just have to outrun your friend. :wink:

Sigged.

When my grandfather retired he, literally, bought a farm, as well as a very small herd of cattle. He proceeded to name them. Once or twice a year, he would pick one of his precious herd and have it butchered, the meat was distributed throughout the family, and while we all knew that we were eating "Phantom" or "Longtail"*, we also knew that we all had a hand in raising and caring for these big, slow bovines. Whether it was hunting the calving cows down during the spring, cutting and baling the hay in the summer, or feeding them that same hay during the winter, it was reciprocal relationship. Something, I feel, we should all have a little bit more of with our food--even if that means just growing some tomatoes on pots on the back porch. It's good for our health, and for our appreciation of who and what we are, and how we feed ourselves.



*the names have been changed to protect the innocent, although not too much.

I've just read chapter 11 of Grapes of Wrath last night. It talks about the loss of connection with the land. How the farm lives alone apart from when a labourer comes once a month to work the land with a tractor and then goes off again to work some other farm. Through this he loses respect for what he is doing with the land and himself.

So I was discussing vegetarianism with one of my friends who is vegetarian, and she told me that she doesn't eat animals because she loves them and doesn't want them to die. I said that I love and respect animals too but I also like to eat them.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

I'd say to some extend it is.
Personally, I'm vegetarian not so much because I've got a problem with animals being killed, but I do have a problem with they way they're being kept and treated while alive.
Our society consumes meat in such quantity that it's no longer financially feasible to treat animals decently while they're still alive, and that is a problem for me.

So I was discussing vegetarianism with one of my friends who is vegetarian, and she told me that she doesn't eat animals because she loves them and doesn't want them to die. I said that I love and respect animals too but I also like to eat them.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.

The plains Indians ate buffalo constantly, and they practically worshiped them.

If she claims she loves them, ask her, how many cows does she keep as pets?

Suppose you have a rabbit called Fluffy.
Fluffy dies. Now, what would Fluffy prefer ?
A. Feeding you, his beloved owner.
B. Feeding the worms, insects and bateria in the soil of your garden.
C. Fluffy is not human/dead. Stop pretending otherwise.

Seriously though: at the very least check if the animals were welltreated during their life if you care about them. Once they're dead they tend to not care anymore about what happens to them - but while being tortured to become slightly more tasty or cheaper they probably do.

Heh. My wife keeps threatening to purchase a Pug(small ugly dog) the way I have managed to curtial her spending on this particular purchase, is to suggest that when a Pug does arrive in our house, it would be very quickly curried and eaten.

She can not quite work out how serious I am and so no Pug in our house!:D

So I was discussing vegetarianism with one of my friends who is vegetarian, and she told me that she doesn't eat animals because she loves them and doesn't want them to die. I said that I love and respect animals too but I also like to eat them.

Is it possible to love and respect animals, but also eat them for fun? Because I like to do both.
Sure, you can love something you eat. I love chocolate.

That is another question. I am curious to see if people actually care about the wellbeing of the animal for the sake of the animal, if there are no costs or benefits to that (other than the warm feeling of eating something that was not tortured).

Second step would be determining what would persuade people to change their answer. If one picks B now, would one pick A if it was cheaper ? If one picks A now, would they pick B if it was healthier ?

Perhaps I should create a different topic so an actual poll can be added, but let us see what people state here first.
Okay. I'll try not to anticipate the process.

The plains Indians ate buffalo constantly, and they practically worshiped them.

The plains Indians had no other choice if they wanted to stay alive. The plains Indians did not torture the animals day and night.

I'd say to some extend it is.
Personally, I'm vegetarian not so much because I've got a problem with animals being killed, but I do have a problem with they way they're being kept and treated while alive.
Our society consumes meat in such quantity that it's no longer financially feasible to treat animals decently while they're still alive, and that is a problem for me.

I am not only a vegetarian: I also make sure that all my dairy products come from humane farms. The way animals are treated by our society is truly disgraceful, and I too believe that they often live lives worse than death.

The plains Indians had no other choice if they wanted to stay alive. The plains Indians did not torture the animals day and night.

Source?

yes. it is possible.

after all, we have to do our part in animal population control. ;)

Hey, that's a great way to keep the human population under control too!

Source?

:tongue: That the Plains Indians did not have farming, or that they did not torture their prey?

:tongue: That the Plains Indians did not have farming, or that they did not torture their prey?

:wink: The latter.

:wink: The latter.

The Bible.