[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XII CIUTCH IIX 1. Hypothetically, let's say meat is necessary for survival. It becomes a matter of killing them or dying, then I believe it is justified to kill them. I'm not saying it's right, but it is a matter of survival of the fittest, and it's just the way the world works, that's a fair argument. I still do not justify torturing animals for survival, but to kill them to live is justifiable (not necessarily right). I'm not saying I'm perfect, I'm selfish and greedy enough to value my own life higher than other peoples and animals (not necessarily the people I care about, but others). Like, I would kill someone who threatened my life, but I wouldn't kill someone to survive if they weren't the threat (well, I don't believe that it's right to do). Now let's say that meat isn't necessary for survival, but it has it's health benefits. I think it makes it more justifiable, but far from it, because a healthy diet can easily be obtained from other sources. Now let's say that meat is bad for you, it causes diseases (which to me seems the truth, mixed in with some benefits, such as effective protein intake) then I believe it's not only torturing and killing for greed, it becomes even greedier, because it's also bad for you. 2. You cannot prove there is a true value to anything, that's been proven by the meat - eaters. It's just something that you feel, you know, and I can't put it any better than, "there is a preciousness to all life, aside from your own". People here have shown that they just believe animals are unfeeling creatures, the same as an inanimate object, yet they don't understand that they can feel. Can you tell me that an animal's life is less worthy than yours? I can't tell you that it is precious, but can you tell me that it's not? If you can't, then who are you to take it's life away? 3. No, I'm saying it's worse if they can feel pain. The killing part (the physical act of killing) is ok, if it can't feel pain, but ending it's life, that's not our decision to make. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. 4. Refer to my point 1, the answer is the same. 5. To numb all feeling from an animal, and to do it so that it doesn't suffer it to also completely numb the mind too (it will still experience fear if it can't experience pain). So to do this, is the same as killing it. And since I don't believe plants can feel pain, or such like, I think it's ok to take a plants life (because it's not really alive anyway, it's like a computer in a way). So as long as it's not hurting the eco-system, it's not exactly murder to uproot a plant. 3 (Original 3). It doesn't affect it. If we don't NEED to eat meat, then we can't justify slaughtering them for food. The only reason I've argued that it's not evolutionary to eat meat (check our canines that can't rip through raw meat) is because it's another counter to the argument that we are designed to eat meat. If you can prove you aren't designed to eat meat, then they can't even argue that. But even if we were perfectly capable of eating meat, it still doesn't make it right. Thanks for the questions, I wasn't trying to avoid anything, sorry if it seems that way.[/quote] Super long-ass post alert. 1. What you just said is that you would kill and eat animals if it becomes a convenience for you. Like I said before, you could always just die if you really thought that animals were equal to humans, or if you really thought that killing them for their meat is immoral, or if you really thought that it is greedy to kill something that "feels" when you don't have to. You know what? I eat meat because it is convenient and it tastes good. And what you told me is that the only reason you aren't doing the same is because right now you have something else to eat. You would kill an animal in order to survive if you had nothing else to eat? So be it. I would kill an animal in order to get one meal, even if I would live without doing so. Funny how we all have our own set of morals. Funny how we all have opinions. If you think that it is wrong to kill animals, no matter what, regardless of your justification for doing so, why would you kill one, even if your life depends on it? If you think that it is okay to kill animals if you can justify doing so, then who gets to decide when someone has properly justified the kill? You say you believe there are health-related consequences for eating meat, but in truth, there are health-related consequences for doing most anything. Same for only eating plants. If you don't eat the right kinds in the right amounts with the right preparations, you will suffer for it. If you don't eat the right kinds of meat in the right amounts with the right preparations, you will suffer for it. Whether or not something is considered "healthy" should not be a factor in whether or not it is right to do something. I remember on the Colbert Report when someone said that it was their right to get dysentery if they want. You might not be able to justify yourself eating meat for health reasons, but those are personal reasons you yourself hold, while another may not. So your biggest problem with eating meat is probably the fact that animals are killed in the first place. For the record, killing animals is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. If an intelligent alien race came to Earth, and someone killed on of them, it would not be murder. However, I'm sure that laws would change to include all intelligent being, and not just humans, under the category of possibly being murdered. Like it or not, killing an animal is not murder. Claiming it to be murder is comparing an animal directly to a human being in terms of worth. It is like saying that they are the same thing. Which is something you like to believe, so it is no wonder you would consider it murder. 2. You say you have no justification for your belief that animals are equal to humans; you simply believe that they are. Well, sorry, but if you have no reason for it, you can't actually expect anyone else to care. I don't believe animals are equal to humans, and I [i] do [/i] happen to have a reason for it. I value life based on intelligence, sapience, and consciousness. I value life based on its ability to feel. Are chickens aware of their own ability to feel fear, hunger, pain? Are they aware of themselves at all? Please don't use the "You can't prove that they don't" argument. For no reason should we assume that all life is sapient when we have only a single definite example. 3. So killing it is okay, but ending its life is not? What? Or do you mean that it's fine to kill them if they choose? Oh, alright. How about you find me an animal that can choose whether or not he wants us to kill him. I guess we'll act according to his wishes. And, if by some amazing coincidence, we find an animal that [i] can't [/i] choose between life or death, what do we do then? I'm assuming you'd want us to keep it alive, but for what? If it can't choose between life or death, what consciousness does it have to preserve? If we kill it, we can use its meat, its fur or feathers. I think you already know what the masses have chosen to do in this case. 4. Since you answered them the same even though they weren't the same question, please refer to my number 1. 5. Really? Well, I guess it's a good thing that my point had nothing at all to do with whether or not animals can feel pain if you sedate them! If you remove all pain, all feeling from an animal, is it then okay to kill them? It would be just like a plant, which of course [i] isn't really alive anyway. [/i] By the way, I'd love to know how you can say that plants are less alive than animals, but when someone says that animals aren't as valuable as humans, that's some sort of ignorance. It doesn't exactly hurt an ecosystem to kill a chicken for food. After all, they are domesticated animals. Not killing them would hurt the ecosystem even more. They'd become overpopulated, and conditions would just get worse for them. 6. Your answer to my third question. Well, we don't NEED to eat anything other than meat and plant products (lol?). I could survive on meat, fruit, and certain vegetables without killing any plants. After all, you have said that you can survive on plants and animal products like milk and eggs without killing any animals. Your argument against this is that plants do not "feel" like animals. But you won't accept that other animals do not "feel" like humans. You said because plants do not "feel" like animals, they are like computers, not really alive. You have claimed that people who claim animals are like inanimate objects just "don't understand that they can feel." Well, chickens, cows, and pigs have no metacognition. Humans do. So they don't "feel" like humans. Why don't you consider them to be like computers? You keep saying that animals are equal to humans, but you have never told me why they are. If it's something that you just "know", well, sorry, you can't really use that as an argument. As far as evolution and "design" goes, it could go either way (examples: it's true we can't eat raw meat like most carnivores, but we also can't digest cellulose like most herbivores), but neither answer matters when we have a choice. You think it's wrong to kill animals? You think it's repulsive? Futile? Immoral? That sounds like a good reason for you to restrain from eating meat, but, sorry, it isn't a good reason for everyone to restrain from it. I'm sure we don't have to kill animals brutally or make them suffer longer than is necessary, but your own opinions on killing animals is not any sort of backing for everyone to collectively switch to a vegetarian diet. Sorry to burst your bubble, but just because you have a problem with something, that doesn't mean there's actually a problem with it. 0characterssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss