Meat is murder, tasty, tasty murder . . .

Shenshen

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Also nature has a kind of equalibrium about itself, sure they kill each other but not too many so that they go extinct, in most cases. Humans on the other hand, we just hoover up all resources.

Yes and no... there is equilibrium if the species evolved in the same habitat.
If you introduce a new predator into an ecosystem that isn't used to them, they will drive native species to extinction quickly enough (see cats in New Zealand, for example, and the impact they have on the native birds)

In that way, we behave just like any other predator would.

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Thinking your morals are the only "right" ones, is the attitude of a 5 year old.

If a person thinks it's wrong for them to kill for food that is their right, and nobody can tell them that they are wrong.
Why should everybody subscribe to your way of life? Are you special or something?

Explain to me how it's possible to live without killing something.
If you had a rat infestation, would you call an exterminator?
If a fly was buzzing around you, would you swat it?
If you had lice, would you get that special shamppo to kill them?
What are your views on grains being harvesting on a large scale, which involving small animals being slaughtered? Ones that aren't even eaten.
Do you support pesticide being used on cabbages?
Not to mention that large-scale plant farming requires the displacement of indigenous animals.
...and so on and so forth.

sheesh

Wurly wrote: »

Care to elaborate on this????

Now, i'm a strict vegetarian but don't eat tofu.. I don't support the wanton murder of any animal as I believe all life is sacred. I also grown my own vegetables and take painstaking care so as to not kill any insects. And I am a hypocrite? Really?

you are perfectly entitled to believe what you want. I would question whether it is appropriate for you to judge (you used the words 'wanton' and 'murder') other people using your personal moral viewpoint.

Wurly wrote: »

I think there is a HUGE difference between an insect dying by accident and actually endorsing a pig getting it's throat cut. Your statement is therefore utterly ridiculous.

commercial farming of crops will inevitably lead to the death of insects and animals living in the fields where crops are grown and harvested so its not that ridiculous really you know it happens you support it by buying the product thats fairly close to mandating it. In fairness you do get brownie points for trying!

Wurly wrote: »

I find this thread nauseating in the extreme. How us humans, capable of empathy, can find it okay to just murder animals all over the place for our own consumption. It is nothing but an indulgence.

no ones forcing you to read it and up until recently meat would have been the only source of protein for some people.

Wurly wrote: »

The meat industry is responsible for a lot more problems also. It's not just confined to murder.

As is the rest of the food industry.

Wurly wrote: »

Anyways - i'm sure i'll get shot down for being a hippy etc. Sad that you're labelled as the mad one when you try to protect the rights of beings more vulnerable than yourself.

Feel free to bash this post as i'm sure most of you will. I wont be returning to it anyways.:)

I have no problems with people being vegans or hippies or anything. It's the smug judgement i find a bit grating. we live in the same society and eating meat is pretty universal here. right across europe and the USA the majority of people eat meat. You write as if you just discovered other people ate meat recently and what meat involved.

--Kaiser--

Shenshen wrote: »

We also evolved to live in the African savannah and die aged around 30.

Just because this is how we became what we are now doesn't mean we have an obligation to continue in the same way for all eternity.

We didn't die around age 30. That's an everage life span. Big difference. Modern hunter-gatherers live up to 70 or 80, no problem. With no heart disease, diabtetes, tooth decay or similar modern ailments

TURRICAN

We are not top of the food chain.
Hint: maggots.

--Kaiser--

Shenshen wrote: »

Rrright.... I honestly don't think that's the kind of tiger we were talking about. Cute, though.

I'm not sure about feeding carnivorous pets on a vegetarian or vegan diet. Humans are omnivores, we can survive happily on either diet. Cats and dogs are specialised carnivores.
I've no doubt that we could produce vegetarian pet food that would provide all the nutrients they require in a form they can eat and digest, but I don't know if you can buy that anywhere just yet.
And trying to prepare it yourself would make pet ownership a full-time job...

Cats are obligate carnivores. They cannot live on anything that is not meat. Anyone who says anything different is a moron and a liar.
Dogs are omnivores and don't need too much meat, but are generally healthier with lots (especially bones)

Shenshen

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

We didn't die around age 30. That's an everage life span. Big difference. Modern hunter-gatherers live up to 70 or 80, no problem. With no heart disease, diabtetes, tooth decay or similar modern ailments

"Human mortality rates begin to exponentially increase after about age 30. The body's functional decline, however, starts after the sexual peak, roughly at age 19, and perhaps some functions decline even earlier in life"

"The average human life expectancy worldwide is 66 years, ranging from 39 years in Zambia to 82 years in Japan. Among hunter-gatherers, the average life expectancy was probably around 30 years"

http://genomics.senescence.info/species/entry.php?id=03116

Please keep in mind that we are talking averages.
Infant and child mortality is extremely high in pre-modern societies. If you do survive infancy and childhood, you may well grow to be quite old (around 70 or older), if you don't starve or freeze to death, or are attacked and eaten by another predator.

So while we have the capacity to live beyond 30, I don't think that it's correct to say we evolved to grow this old. Only a minority of all humans ever born live(d) to grow this old.

Cú Giobach

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Explain to me how it's possible to live without killing something.

Who's talking about living a life killing absolutely nothing, you're making up stuff because you can't defend your rather silly stance.

If you had lice, would you get that special shamppo to kill them?
Ones that aren't even eaten.
Do you support pesticide being used on cabbages?
Not to mention that large-scale plant farming requires the displacement of indigenous animals.
...and so on and so forth.

Can you comprehend the mindboggleingly simple concept of somebody lessening their impact, or choosing not to kill something they don't have to. :rolleyes:

If a fly was buzzing around you, would you swat it?

No.

If you had a rat infestation, would you call an exterminator?

No.

What are your views on grains being harvesting on a large scale, which involving small animals being slaughtered?

That people who try to use it as an argument that "people should eat meat" are nuts, and are scraping the bottom of the barrel in an argument they can't win.

Shenshen

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Cats are obligate carnivores. They cannot live on anything that is not meat. Anyone who says anything different is a moron and a liar.
Dogs are omnivores and don't need too much meat, but are generally healthier with lots (especially bones)

What they need is protein, certain vitamins and Taurine.
What form they consume this in is irrelevant.

MadYaker

Shenshen wrote: »

Enough to know that being "bested by a more advanced organism" is a fallacy.

Please elaborate on this. In what way is it a fallacy?

Shenshen wrote: »

You only need to look at the number of people killed by parasites, bacteria and viruses (the most "primitive", "unevolved" living things on the planet) to get a rough idea about where we're at in this cycle.

Microorganisms are the simplest form of life on this planet. But I suppose since they feed off of everything else in a sense they are at the top of the food chain or cycle or whatever you want to call it. However almost all the things eaten by bacteria and fungi are already dead.

Its true that a lot of people are killed by parasites, bacteria and viruses but in the vast majority of those cases the infection is facilitated by malnutrition, which is essentially caused by humans.

--Kaiser--

Shenshen wrote: »

Just because this is how we became what we are now doesn't mean we have an obligation to continue in the same way for all eternity.

Yes, eating meat is essential if this is the only source of protein and certain vitamins available to you.
But unless you're posting from somewhere in the Arctic circle or the Brazilian rain forest, I somehow doubt that that's the case.

We have a choice when it comes to eating animals, we have a wide range of options of where to get our essential nutrients.
The tiger hasn't.
Morality only comes into play once you have options.

This is a more reasonable argument. However it's not possible to live without killing other animals (as I've detailed in a previous post). I'm all for humane rearing and killing of animals - free range eggs and whatnot, I don't eat fois gras or veal. But, wrong to kill an animal? Ridiculous.

Furthermore, humans should eat a diet we spent most of our existence (say 90% of the timeline of Homo Sapiens) eating. Namely, meat, vegetables and fruit.

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Who's talking about living a life killing absolutely nothing, you're making up stuff because you can't defend your rather silly stance.

Can you comprehend the mindboggleingly simple concept of somebody lessening their impact, or choosing not to kill something they don't have to. :rolleyes:

No.

No.

That people who try to use it as an argument that "people should eat meat" are nuts, and are scraping the bottom of the barrel in an argument they can't win.

Rather than ignoring my arguments, how about explaining to me when you think it's OK to kill an animal, and when not. Is it based on their sentience, level of cuteness, what?

Doc Ruby

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Also nature has a kind of equalibrium about itself, sure they kill each other but not too many so that they go extinct, in most cases.

I'm sure the dinosaurs are delighted to hear that. Nature is a far more effective killer than the human race could ever hope to be, there've been more mass extinctions than you have fingers and toes, long before we made an appearance.

On the same topic, there's nothing unnatural or parasitic about people, we could be described as the crowning glory of evolution in fact. We're also the single best hope for the survival of life in the longest term. Except for polar bear based life, they get consigned to the genebank to be opened in case of yeti invasion only.

KTRIC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That people who try to use it as an argument that "people should eat meat" are nuts, and are scraping the bottom of the barrel in an argument they can't win.

Then pull your incisors out of your mouth, they're there for a reason. Stop taking the moral high ground because you think everyone else is wrong. The simple truth is humans are made to eat meat. If you don't want to then so be it but stop the holier than thou shite.

BraziliaNZ

KTRIC wrote: »

Then pull your incisors out of your mouth, they're there for a reason. Stop taking the moral high ground because you think everyone else is wrong. The simple truth is humans are made to eat meat. If you don't want to then so be it but stop the holier than thou shite.

do you think mass production of beef is bad for the planet though?

MadYaker

I can understand perfectly why some people choose to be vegetarians. Humans are omnivores but we can live our lives without eating meat because we have the luxury of being able to pick and choose what we eat. Some people believe that because we have this choice we also have the responsibility to not slaughter animals for food when it isn't necessary.

Comparing us to other omnivores and carnivores such as lions and bears etc and saying "they eat meat so we can too" is ridiculous. They live in the wild where there is a limited supply of food and they have to eat whatever they can get to survive.

That said I love meat and will never give it up!

Edit: yes there is no doubt that mass production of beef, especially from brazil, is very bad for the planet since they are cutting down swathes of rainforest so they have more grassland to raise cattle. Thats why I only eat Irish, organic beef

Shenshen

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This is a more reasonable argument. However it's not possible to live without killing other animals (as I've detailed in a previous post). I'm all for humane rearing and killing of animals - free range eggs and whatnot, I don't eat fois gras or veal. But, wrong to kill an animal? Ridiculous.

Furthermore, humans should eat a diet we spent most of our existence (say 90% of the timeline of Homo Sapiens) eating. Namely, meat, vegetables and fruit.

I don't do ideology, generally speaking.
I would not make a statement that killing an animal, no matter what the circumstances, is always wrong.
I do agree that there is a need to kill animals in research for new drugs, for example. I'm not happy about it, but I accept the necessity.

Personally, I made the choice to try and limit the amount of animals that have to suffer and die for my own nutrition, and so choose to live on a vegetarian diet.

But that is a personal choice, and I don't see any merit in antagonising people trying to "convert" them. I hate it when religious people do it to me, so I won't inflict it on others.
As I refrain from telling the rest of humanity they should follow my diet, I would expect as much courtesy in return (but am frequently disappointed on that)

As I said before, just because this was the only way for us to access all the nutrients we need in the past is not really an argument to continue in the same way, now we have the choice of multiple sources of the exact same nutrients.

KTRIC

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

do you think mass production of beef is bad for the planet though?

Yes it is definitely. Its a natural unbalance to the eco-system which has been proven. Unfortunately its a bi-product of over population and the inevitable demand for red meat.

--Kaiser--

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't do ideology, generally speaking.
I would not make a statement that killing an animal, no matter what the circumstances, is always wrong.
I do agree that there is a need to kill animals in research for new drugs, for example. I'm not happy about it, but I accept the necessity.

Well, you go and make a blanket statement then contradict yourself a sentence later. Really no point in arguing with someone like that

Shenshen

KTRIC wrote: »

Then pull your incisors out of your mouth, they're there for a reason.

To make carnivors point and laugh?

Seriously, there are a number of herbivors out there whose incisors will put us to shame...

Shenshen

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Well, you go and make a blanket statement then contradict yourself a sentence later. Really no point in arguing with someone like that

Er, what?

In what way did I contradict myself?

Rabidlamb

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

we are a parasite on the planet. Beef is really bad for the environment, I probably eat it 3 or 4 times a year, so it's the one thing we should all try and cut down on. Forests destroyed to cater for cattle farms, and methane is far more dangerous than CO2.
I know no one in AH cares, but cutting down on meat would do the lot of us a lot of good in the long run, especially beef.

We'd like to care but cows are just too damn tasty.
We are defenseless against their juicy powers.

MadYaker

Doc Ruby wrote: »

On the same topic, there's nothing unnatural or parasitic about people, we could be described as the crowning glory of evolution in fact. We're also the single best hope for the survival of life in the longest term.

Are you sure about that? At the moment we are doing a pretty good job of destroying this planet. Hundreds of thousands of species have gone extinct due to our activities. We are polluting our atmosphere and our oceans with toxic gases and chemicals. Global temperatures are rising causing the polar ice caps to melt. This is also have adverse effects on the earths climate, longer dry seasons and rising global temperatures.

We have the potential to be the single best hope for the survival of life in the longest term but at the moment its the bacteria that have that crown. They were here before us and they will still be here long after we have destroyed ourselves.

Cú Giobach

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Rather than ignoring my arguments, how about explaining to me when you think it's OK to kill an animal, and when not. Is it based on their sentience, level of cuteness, what?

That is up to each individual to decide.
Not for you to tell them.
My issue with you is that you are just as bad as the "meat is murder gang" because of your belief that there is something inherently wrong with vegetarianism. In fact you are worse because there is at least some bit of logic (not one that I would agree with) to their stance, but yours has no rational basis whatsoever.
Each to their own. People should be allowed to live their life how they see fit without being labelled as "loony bins" or "nuts" by people who live differently and wouldn't live that particular lifestyle. Grow up.

By the way I addressed your point.
Quote: "Can you comprehend the mindboggleingly simple concept of somebody lessening their impact, or choosing not to kill something they don't have to."

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That is up to each individual to decide.
Not for you to tell them.
My issue with you is that you are just as bad as the "meat is murder gang" because of your belief that there is something inherently wrong with vegetarianism. In fact you are worse because there is at least some bit of logic (not one that I would agree with) to their stance, but yours has no rational basis whatsoever.
Each to their own. People should be allowed to live their life how they see fit without being labelled as "loony bins" or "nuts" by people who live differently and wouldn't live that particular lifestyle. Grow up.

Are you having a conversation with yourself? I didn't call anyone 'nuts'. I said anyone who thinks killing animals is wrong has the moral compass of a five year old. Which is an insult to five year olds

Nothingbetter2d

its eating fish and meat that made human brains as evolved as they are...... when is the last time to saw a smart intelligient wilderbeast?

even chimps/bonobos eat meat and they would be next on the evolutionary scale in terms of brain power and can even use sign language to communicate with humans as well as use basic tools & some have been trained to do basic math.


big cats, wild dogs/wolves, bears, killer whales and dolphins eat meat and fish and again are considered intelligient and can work in co'ordinated groups to achieve goals

Doc Ruby

MadYaker wrote: »

Are you sure about that? At the moment we are doing a pretty good job of destroying this planet.

The planet is doing just fine. Maybe some of the things living on it not so much, but how and ever...

MadYaker wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of species have gone extinct due to our activities.

Billions of species went extinct long before we arrived. If we weren't here, billions would still go extinct in future.

MadYaker wrote: »

We are polluting our atmosphere and our oceans with toxic gases and chemicals. Global temperatures are rising causing the polar ice caps to melt. This is also have adverse effects on the earths climate, longer dry seasons and rising global temperatures.

That was happening anyway, albeit a bit slower. Anyway if you think global warming is bad, another ice age would be a lot less forgiving to life in general. To say nothing of the vast quantities of toxins put out by the average volcano.

MadYaker wrote: »

They were here before us and they will still be here long after we have destroyed ourselves.

If we were going to destroy ourselves we'd have done it by now, and the world would have perished in nuclear fire. Ain't gonna happen.

I do agree we have a responsibility to ourselves and future generations to act with a bit more foresight, but that is changing. It will take time and effort, but I'm confident it will all work out for the best. Depicting humanity as some sort of demonic reaver violating the virginity of nature is not just wrong, it doesn't do justice to nature's ability and proven track record to do a lot worse.

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

By the way I addressed your point.
Quote: "Can you comprehend the mindboggleingly simple concept of somebody lessening their impact, or choosing not to kill something they don't have to."

Response to your edit. I don't eat grains, which, despite displacing animals, also means animals get killed during harvest, ones which don't even get eaten. I do however, eat pastured Irish beef and lamb, and free range chickens. These animals have a relatively happy life (certainly happier than a lot of wild animals) then get slaughtered humanely. These animals can also live in realtive harmony with other animals in the area. Frankly I think I have the moral high ground over you (assuming you eat grains and other mass produced food)

BraziliaNZ

KTRIC wrote: »

Yes it is definitely. Its a natural unbalance to the eco-system which has been proven. Unfortunately its a bi-product of over population and the inevitable demand for red meat.

Well do you not think it would be a good idea for us all to eat less red meat? It's causing massive problems

Rabidlamb

Some of the lilly livered hippies in this thread should recognise the slippery slope they stand on.
It's not a big step for them to be convinced that plants feel pain so they should no longer be harvested.
The hole left by religion is responsible for a lot of this crap, some people just love to feel guilty about things.