Poll: I love steak...am I a terrible person
- Thread starter Froggy Slayer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let me answer your question in the best possible way.
--ahem--
John Wayne ate steak, and when has John Wayne been wrong?
--ahem--
John Wayne ate steak, and when has John Wayne been wrong?
So, the current fad is "Mention my doing something that other people don't like and ask if it makes me a bad person so other people can come on, refute it, and make me feel better about myself"?
You guys might want to try trimming its name. A bit long-winded.
You guys might want to try trimming its name. A bit long-winded.
I'm going to join in with everyone else saying these two things:
No, it does not make you a bad person for liking steak. But it does make you a bad person for eating MY STEAK.
I like my steak rare, as pink and red as possible on the inside. Hell, I need to just murder a cow and start eating it on the spot. I feel its the only way I'll be truly satisfied.
No, it does not make you a bad person for liking steak. But it does make you a bad person for eating MY STEAK.
I like my steak rare, as pink and red as possible on the inside. Hell, I need to just murder a cow and start eating it on the spot. I feel its the only way I'll be truly satisfied.
That is the exact video I thought of when I saw the title of this thread.Eri said:
CAPTCHA: move along
I guess those really weren't the droids I was looking for. Huh.
The problem with beef production is not the meat itself, its what we choose to feed the cows.
Do some research on permaculture. Cows allowed to feed naturally on hedgerows, instead of being fed an artificially balanced grain-based diet are both a more effective use of land and produce very little methane, contributing far less to climate change. I'd almost go as far as to argue this should be humanity's #1 priority at present: getting our shit together with sustainable farming practices.
You will, however, be a bad person if ever the choice between sustainable and unsustainable beef is offered at the supermarket and you pick the latter.
Do some research on permaculture. Cows allowed to feed naturally on hedgerows, instead of being fed an artificially balanced grain-based diet are both a more effective use of land and produce very little methane, contributing far less to climate change. I'd almost go as far as to argue this should be humanity's #1 priority at present: getting our shit together with sustainable farming practices.
You will, however, be a bad person if ever the choice between sustainable and unsustainable beef is offered at the supermarket and you pick the latter.
Nope, if you can offend a vegan than do so. All their arguments get beaten by one little line...
"It tastes good."
"It tastes good."
I don't think this is a serious question. The only way I could see you being a bad person for this was if you found a cow with a calf, shot the cow right there, cut yourself a stake and left the rest.
Steak is delicious when cooked properly. Problem is when the cook decides to experiment and I end up with a steak and a damn forest of seasoning sitting on top of it.
Steak is delicious when cooked properly. Problem is when the cook decides to experiment and I end up with a steak and a damn forest of seasoning sitting on top of it.
In some places (outback Australia) this is simply untrue.Esotera said:
Given the huge area, which can't grow much other than native trees and grasses, it makes sense to have cattle reared there. The feed they consume leaves us with more net food than trying to make that grain into something humans would want to eat.
Also, eating meat once or twice a week is certainly not enough for most people; especially not on a budget diet, in a country where meat is quite affordable.
Grilled steak isn't very good.game-lover said:
Baked steak is literally wasted; It may as well be chicken nuggets.
Fried steak is the only steak.
Before anyone becomes insane, I do not mean deep fried. I mean normal, in-a-pan/on-a-hotplate-with-some-butter-or-olive-oil fried.
Hi, I'm new here 
There are two arguments in this thread that I think needs addressing.
The first one is that it's simply natural for humans to eat meat (which is obviously true), and therefore it is also morally okey for us to do so. We have always done it, all the other animals do it, and so on..
Now,in almost any other historical or geographical context this would be true. But most of us live in the western world and all of us live in the 21st century. We have the opportunity to not eat meat and still live good lives (as it is hard to argue that the enjoyment of a meal is so valuable it will ruin our quality more then we now ruin the cows quality of life). We also know, with the help of modern science, that especially factory farming actually harm the animals that are being farmed (the are subject to extreme stress and pain), and that meat production is one of the most contributing factors to global warming. Not only that, we also know that we are able, nutritionally to be healthy without meat.
Are you a bad person for eating steak? No, that is a bad approach to questions of right and wrong. But if "Do not cause unnecessary harm" is our ethical framework (Which I think is a good framework, but that is another argument) it is hard to argue that eating meat is not morally wrong.
The second is that if it's "okey for you, then it's okey". If that's how you think about this ethical question, then that's how you have to approach all of them. RubyT said as much earlier. If so, then all ethics breaks down and becomes completely subjective. If we want to say what is right and wrong for all of us, and we often do (think about laws for example) then it must be alright to say that someone is doing something that is wrong.
I hope someone bothers to read this awfully long post.. Sorry :/
There are two arguments in this thread that I think needs addressing.
The first one is that it's simply natural for humans to eat meat (which is obviously true), and therefore it is also morally okey for us to do so. We have always done it, all the other animals do it, and so on..
Now,in almost any other historical or geographical context this would be true. But most of us live in the western world and all of us live in the 21st century. We have the opportunity to not eat meat and still live good lives (as it is hard to argue that the enjoyment of a meal is so valuable it will ruin our quality more then we now ruin the cows quality of life). We also know, with the help of modern science, that especially factory farming actually harm the animals that are being farmed (the are subject to extreme stress and pain), and that meat production is one of the most contributing factors to global warming. Not only that, we also know that we are able, nutritionally to be healthy without meat.
Are you a bad person for eating steak? No, that is a bad approach to questions of right and wrong. But if "Do not cause unnecessary harm" is our ethical framework (Which I think is a good framework, but that is another argument) it is hard to argue that eating meat is not morally wrong.
The second is that if it's "okey for you, then it's okey". If that's how you think about this ethical question, then that's how you have to approach all of them. RubyT said as much earlier. If so, then all ethics breaks down and becomes completely subjective. If we want to say what is right and wrong for all of us, and we often do (think about laws for example) then it must be alright to say that someone is doing something that is wrong.
I hope someone bothers to read this awfully long post.. Sorry :/
