[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

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XII CIUTCH IIX [/quote]I addressed those holes in earlier posts. +The argument presented assumes domesticated animals will cease to exist +The argument presented assumes humans will be healthier sans meat +The argument presented assumes that more food will be created on a purely vegetarian diet despite: - Most livestock are fed with vegetation unfit for human consumption - High perish rates of vegetation - Overfarming to support human demand All of these are rather [i]huge[/i] holes. Also, hypocritical hypocrite is hypocritical, due to your failure to provide articles or links, and his failure to provide anything peer-reviewed. If you just provide a Google link, you're pretty much providing something agenda-driven. That's why I didn't bother; I'm not doing lab research for a thread on the internet. [Edited on 12.27.2010 4:08 PM PST]

Just woke back up. Wat is this I don't even.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EnHaz Kim [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ANinjaGuardian Holy crap how is this still alive?[/quote] Because, from one poster to another, the known data about the meat industry is completely messed up. Also they assume to know everything there is to know about animals. Most people don't even care to learn how it all works from A to Z. This thread will live on simply because the world is messed up. Can't wait for 2012.[/quote] What ever, I'm still going to eat meat.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ANinjaGuardian Holy crap how is this still alive?[/quote] Because, from one poster to another, the known data about the meat industry is completely messed up. Also they assume to know everything there is to know about animals. Most people don't even care to learn how it all works from A to Z. This thread will live on simply because the world is messed up. Can't wait for 2012.

Because this still has NOT been responded to: Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PETA Employee [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mickey1980 Are any of the animals I eat even capable of metacognition? Didn't think so. Given this, what is the difference between eating a plant and eating an animal? [/quote] Idiocy at its best.[/quote]Is that so? I have yet to see anyone provide me with a link that has a study proving that animals that are commonly eaten (e.g. cows, pigs, chickens, fish) are capable of metacognition. Until then, I'm afraid you should back up your claims with logic or evidence before attacking me. [Edited on 12.27.2010 2:35 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] C0ldfire2015 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EnHaz Kim To the "we are supposed to eat meat" supporters: nowadays we have alternatives, that means everybody has a choice to eat meat or not. When we are presented a choice to either do what's convenient, and a choice to do what's responsible, then it seems that we don't really have a choice anymore. Do we?[/quote] Respnsible meat eating exists you know. But you're going to have a hard time finding it anywhere in the US.[/quote]That's if you're fine with compromise. And yeah, you'd have to hunt for your own meat. Then again, going straight vegan is like an easy "absolute avoidance" of all problematic foods for those who want to be certain that they're doing the responsible thing, all the way. They don't need to justify themselves anymore (in my opinion).

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JthePirate isnt it easier to chew raw meat? i mean i think it is...[/quote] Nah, it's very hard. Humans can't do it, I think there are some eskimo's who can actually chew seal meat, and they have the strongest human jaws in the world, and they can only just do it. They still really struggle with it.

Holy crap how is this still alive?

I could try to be a vegetarian, I've heard it's healthier than eating any meat...but humans do HAVE teeth DESIGNED for eating meat, we have an omnivorous mouth. The point is that you choose what you eat because you are an omnivore, and we ARE able to digest meat, so there is no reason not to eat it. My reason? Survival of the fittest. I live, the animal dies. I don't think it's possible for the entire world to subsist on a vegetarian diet alone, there simply aren't enough non-meat sources of food.

Suicide is the only option.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Nick0matic Oh I checked it all, granted I might have skipped a page or two, but the fact this is a thread with over 2000 replies is making me cringe. I thought it would die at around 40 or at least get locked. So far, the evidence I've seen is googled sources and reasonably 'iffy' or biased sources. I don't need to continue, but it will make you feel better when you respond saying I'm wrong and you're right anyway.[/quote] It got so many replies, is probably because it's a subject people feel strongly about. I provided evidence, so I'm not just mindlessly sprouting bs. Whether it's 'iffy' or not, I still provided evidence.

isnt it easier to chew raw meat? i mean i think it is...

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XII CIUTCH IIX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Nick0matic [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XII CIUTCH IIX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] mahspoonis2big [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gage_1337 But if you really have some links to prove otherwise. Show me.[/quote]I do, in that animals would exist on their own anyway, and in that many livestock eat plants humans do not find fit for consumption, such as grass, or leaves. Honestly there are so many holes in these arguments a logical person doesn't even need to try. But you can keep going if you want, though.[/quote] Bro, he destroyed your argument. This is proved by the fact rather than countering his argument, you just ignored it, said some things that his article has disproved and then told him that his argument is filled with holes.[/quote] This is rich considering you've been doing that for c. 80 pages.[/quote] I've provided evidence for things, you'd know that if you had checked through the thread. If it's too long, you can't post this.[/quote] Oh I checked it all, granted I might have skipped a page or two, but the fact this is a thread with over 2000 replies is making me cringe. I thought it would die at around 40 or at least get locked. So far, the evidence I've seen is googled sources and reasonably 'iffy' or biased sources. I don't need to continue, but it will make you feel better when you respond saying I'm wrong and you're right anyway.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EnHaz Kim To the "we are supposed to eat meat" supporters: nowadays we have alternatives, that means everybody has a choice to eat meat or not. When we are presented a choice to either do what's convenient, and a choice to do what's responsible, then it seems that we don't really have a choice anymore. Do we?[/quote] Respnsible meat eating exists you know. But you're going to have a hard time finding it anywhere in the US.

To the "we are supposed to eat meat" supporters: nowadays we have alternatives, that means everybody has a choice to eat meat or not. When we are presented a choice to either do what's convenient, and a choice to do what's responsible, then it seems that we don't really have a choice anymore. Do we?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Layer of Pipe Whoever thought they had a valid argument here should just shoot themselves. [/quote] lol right your reall stupid tou say studff btt then yo dont make any sense you kil lanuimuls that treal bad mate jsut beacuse irts yor stupid tradition it dunt mean its right does it, moron

Whoever thought they had a valid argument here should just shoot themselves.

2000 [Edited on 12.27.2010 2:15 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] johny mc smooth [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] G O R E25 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] johny mc smooth what about those helpless plants stop acting like animals are the only living things around. people grow fruits and vegetables all year long then massacre every single one of them. after they are sprayed by so many steroids and -blam!- so they don't die before the harvest. we kill things so we live. almost every living thing does that.[/quote] So much fail. Plants don't have a brain or a nervous system of any kind. They are not sentient like animals.[/quote] but they are living.so your saying just because they don't have the same things a animal has they aren't equal?[/quote] Yes, specifically.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Nick0matic [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XII CIUTCH IIX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] mahspoonis2big [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gage_1337 But if you really have some links to prove otherwise. Show me.[/quote]I do, in that animals would exist on their own anyway, and in that many livestock eat plants humans do not find fit for consumption, such as grass, or leaves. Honestly there are so many holes in these arguments a logical person doesn't even need to try. But you can keep going if you want, though.[/quote] Bro, he destroyed your argument. This is proved by the fact rather than countering his argument, you just ignored it, said some things that his article has disproved and then told him that his argument is filled with holes.[/quote] This is rich considering you've been doing that for c. 80 pages.[/quote] I've provided evidence for things, you'd know that if you had checked through the thread. If it's too long, you can't post this.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] o S IE C IR E T [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XII CIUTCH IIX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gage_1337 As a Vegan, my Veganism isn't about trying to feel morally superior to people. It is about trying my best to abstain myself from cruelty and it's about trying to live as lightly on the Earth as possible. One of the reasons I am a vegan is because I abhor all forms of unecessary killing. Killing for mercy, killing in self-defence and killing for survival are acceptable in my opinion. I personally have no problem with a starving man eating meat because the man would likely die if he didn't and is only killing for survival which is a necessary form of killing. However, massively breeding billions of animals to slaughter in-order to feed people living in economically developed locations like Britain and the USA is absolutely not necessary because there is no nutrient in meat that is missing in a vegetarian diet. Necessary killing may be tragic, but I find killing simply for amusement, taste and small convenience vile and abhorrent. That is why I am a vegan.[/quote] Flawless argument.[/quote] There are quite a bit of nutrients you're missing.[/quote] A lot of nutrients.

How is inhumane? How do you think we ate before we became civilized? Dumbass, it's the way of life for us. It's called the "food cycle" get it?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XII CIUTCH IIX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] mahspoonis2big [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gage_1337 But if you really have some links to prove otherwise. Show me.[/quote]I do, in that animals would exist on their own anyway, and in that many livestock eat plants humans do not find fit for consumption, such as grass, or leaves. Honestly there are so many holes in these arguments a logical person doesn't even need to try. But you can keep going if you want, though.[/quote] Bro, he destroyed your argument. This is proved by the fact rather than countering his argument, you just ignored it, said some things that his article has disproved and then told him that his argument is filled with holes.[/quote] This is rich considering you've been doing that for c. 80 pages. [Edited on 12.27.2010 2:01 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] china my counter argument to gace_1337(spelling, i know) Vegetables and fruit also have to refrigirated. Cattle takes less space, thus allowing more space for things like schools, houses, wildlife preserves, parks, etc. once again, humans are ONMIVORES, and are supposed to eat meat. Cattle are fed left-overs from restaraunts, and mostly grain not fit for humans. And the corn-belt does not grow exclusively for cattle.[/quote] It doesn't matter, there is enough vegetables being produced in the world currently to support every single human, without meat. There are food mountains and lakes produced by EU farmers, and they can't use the food because of distribution and it will completely disturb the economies. It's a common myth there isn't enough food in the world. And to the omnivore argument, it's been proven those canines are for fish, not for raw meat (which meat eaters have absolutely no problem eating). Raw meat is almost inedible to humans, they have to cook it to be able to eat it. Any thing designed to eat meat, would be able to eat real meat, don't you think? And how can you be supposed to eat something which is dangerously unhealthy. It has worse effects than smoking or drinking for causing diseases. Heart diseases and cancers are not the result of something you're supposed to eat.

Because agriculture alone cannot support the world population. Millions of people rely on meat. They would starve without it. And the species of animals we eat are only alive because we protect them. If we stop eating them, they will all go extinct without our protection. Throwing livestock into the wild would simply give them a slower, more painful death. Also, there are necessary proteins and nutrients humans need from meat. Not everyone can afford alternatives, and there aren't enough of them to go around anyway. And remember that PETA completely exaggerates the pain pain the animals go through and blow it all out of proportion. You don't need to look very hard to see that their campaigns are riddled with logical fallacies and incorrect facts and statistics.