Should you feel guilty for eating meat?

[nuba km]

snip

1. actually in certain cases, you don't get a tooth ache, the tooth doesn't hurt at all but is still in a condition were if nothing is done soon it might be lost. So the greater suffering would still be going to the dentist but it makes more sense to go to the dentist and keep a full set of teeth then to avoid it due to the greater pain. Also technically if you killed everyone at birth it would be less pain then what they experience through out live, so if we followed the though process of minimise suffering over advantages and disadvantages, we would all be drowning babies and ending this species. In fact if you whipped out all life on the planet with a couple of nukes it would be less suffering then what life would have to endure until the natural conclusion of this planet.

2. k

3. What makes a person valuable in a moral sense is the same as what makes a person valuable as morals are technically as meaningless as right and wrong or right and left, they are merely concepts to simplify things.

4. well the reason a scientist that cures cancer is more valuable then a pig is the same reason why a scientist who cures cancer is more valuable then a person who sits around all day eating. It is on the whole how much it benefits both the long term and short-term survival of the species and the individual.

5. well whether it should or shouldn't is what we are debating about so lets just leave number 5 alone to avoid creating and arguception.

6. self I mean the individual the target and those closely effected, i.e. the small scale elements.

 

[Valencrow]

There is no way to live without eating something that lives. Eat balanced meals and thank the plants and animals who provided you with energy for one more day. We re-engineered them for a reason and it would be a shame to throw away 50,000 years of work.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

Also technically if you killed everyone at birth it would be less pain then what they experience through out live, so if we followed the though process of minimise suffering over advantages and disadvantages, we would all be drowning babies and ending this species. In fact if you whipped out all life on the planet with a couple of nukes it would be less suffering then what life would have to endure until the natural conclusion of this planet.

That is a good point. Which is why I don't think that morality is all about minimizing suffering. I am a preferance utilitarian so I also think we should do our best to maximize the pleasure of other according to their preferances. My vegetarian lifestyle is a product of the fact that I don't think a persons pleasure from one meal outweighs the pain the animal went through, and the pleasure it could have had. What I have been trying to say is that the ability to suffer is what makes you morally relevant.

3. What makes a person valuable in a moral sense is the same as what makes a person valuable as morals are technically as meaningless as right and wrong or right and left, they are merely concepts to simplify things

I don't know if I get what you are saying here. Morals are not technically meaningless. They are a way for us figure out how to treat each other. It is one of the most important ascpects of being human. It is simplified because that is the way we make it posible for us to discuss this complex and important topic. That does not make it meaningless, far from it.

4. well the reason a scientist that cures cancer is more valuable then a pig is the same reason why a scientist who cures cancer is more valuable then a person who sits around all day eating. It is on the whole how much it benefits both the long term and short-term survival of the species and the individual.

I agree that survival is important, but it is not the be all, end all of morality.

self I mean the individual the target and those closely effected, i.e. the small scale elements.

So then I have given you a good reason that eating meat is a bad thing? Unless you disagree that animals have preferances, which is very unintuitive and quite clearly false.

 

[nuba km]

Also technically if you killed everyone at birth it would be less pain then what they experience through out live, so if we followed the though process of minimise suffering over advantages and disadvantages, we would all be drowning babies and ending this species. In fact if you whipped out all life on the planet with a couple of nukes it would be less suffering then what life would have to endure until the natural conclusion of this planet.

That is a good point. Which is why I don't think that morality is all about minimizing suffering. I am a preferance utilitarian so I also think we should do our best to maximize the pleasure of other according to their preferances. My vegetarian lifestyle is a product of the fact that I don't think a persons pleasure from one meal outweighs the pain the animal went through, and the pleasure it could have had. What I have been trying to say is that the ability to suffer is what makes you morally relevant.

3. What makes a person valuable in a moral sense is the same as what makes a person valuable as morals are technically as meaningless as right and wrong or right and left, they are merely concepts to simplify things

I don't know if I get what you are saying here. Morals are not technically meaningless. They are a way for us figure out how to treat each other. It is one of the most important ascpects of being human. It is simplified because that is the way we make it posible for us to discuss this complex and important topic. That does not make it meaningless, far from it.

4. well the reason a scientist that cures cancer is more valuable then a pig is the same reason why a scientist who cures cancer is more valuable then a person who sits around all day eating. It is on the whole how much it benefits both the long term and short-term survival of the species and the individual.

I agree that survival is important, but it is not the be all, end all of morality.

self I mean the individual the target and those closely effected, i.e. the small scale elements.

So then I have given you a good reason that eating meat is a bad thing? Unless you disagree that animals have preferances, which is very unintuitive and quite clearly false.

I think we have hit the point which shows why we won't agree on a conclusion, morality is the concept of 'what action is the best action' with best being the one that has the most advantages for everyone involved, but every person puts a different value on each effect. For example (with pulling random as numbers out of no where) you may give pain a -10 where I would give it a -3. This results in both of us agreeing the outcome of events but being unable to agree on which is better. I think that because we at least give the animal a life equal to the one it would have in the wild its fine to eat it as there aren't many down sides to eating it, I also think even if we make the animal suffer more then it would in the wild it doesn't really matter much as that animal wouldn't have achieved anything close to the average human, as I value contribution to the species over the ability to feel pain. While you just think that we should treat them better then in the wild because you wouldn't want to be treat that badly just to be eaten, as you value the ability to feel pain over contribution to the species. It is like asking someone if they want to be deaf or blind, everyone thinks their answer is the better one and doesn't see if the other person agrees on the ups and downs how they could reach a different conclusion.

So unless either of us can give a mind blowing argument neither of us are going to change their opinion right now, though hopefully each of us leave this debate wiser then before.

 

[TheTJackson]

No. Everything dies, if we died first, they'd eat us.

 

[Lexodus]

No. It's fucking ridiculous to feel guilty for eating something you're supposed to eat.
If you've got an attack of conscience, why not campaign for better living (and dying) conditions for animals?

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

So unless either of us can give a mind blowing argument neither of us are going to change their opinion right now, though hopefully each of us leave this debate wiser then before.

I think you are right. We'll leave the debate here. But it has been a good one, and thank you for not being an internet douchbag, but a sane rational person it's possible to talk to!

 

[Karoshi]

We all consume life, whether in form of plants or animals. What makes animals that much different from plants? Both strive and grow, both are trying to live and give on their genes. Of course, animals are more advanced creatures, but where is the point, at which one should say "Oh no, this life form is too advanced for us to kill and eat"?

I realize why some might have guilty conscience over killing animals, but imo, it's all part of the great circle of life.

 

[Sandjube]

People are supposed to eat meat, it tastes good for a reason your body is hardwired to like it.

We are? My body must have jumped out of the human making machine too early or something because meat tastes pretty stupidly bad to me, to be honest.

Fair enough to the rest of your point, though, and have a good day.

 

[1337mokro]

Let me just jump in here.

Actually. Ants farm other species.

They build farms for fungus and house those leaf lice insects, the actual name escapes me, but anyway there are Herder Ants who basically cultivate these insects for the sweet dew they excrete. Once a lice gets to old or doesn't produce enough dew any more they are killed and eaten. They store the dew in their bodies and feed the Soldier ants with it whose mandibles are to big for them to eat anything else.

I think you rather missed the point he was trying to make.

Also I only eat meat that I cooked myself, I am literally revolted by the "meat" they serve in fast food places, it's more rubber than actual meat. It is also possible to get "free range" meat which means the animals were not kept in small cramped cages. On top of that avoiding any veal or pork already cuts out the worst of the Biofarm industry.

Okay, so know you're trying to miss the point.

I don't feel guilty about cultivating an animal to feed me. It's a skill humans have attained through figuring out that hunting after the herds was a pain in the ass. That is also why we started farming. So we have food near us and don't need to hunt after it.

So because it takes skill to "cultivate" animals for us to feed on, the way we do it is automatically justified as well? That's a strange argument to make. It took a great deal of skill for the Stalin administration to secretly kill off 20 billion human beings but that certainly doesn't make it right.

Don't you feel it's kinda weird saying no other animal keeps animals when no other animal cultivates fast stretches of land for food either? Think about how many innocent animals were driven out of their homes all so you could have your Soy Bread.

That's a psuedo-argument. It's an Ad hominem in which you try to prove that he is being inconsistent in his reasoning, but he isn't. See even if it's true that animals are being affected negatively by farming practices, that negative impact is not even comparable to that of the meat industry which slaughters approximately 9 billion animals for food each year.

See it's a stupid argument saying because Humans do something and animals don't it must be wrong.

Well from what I understand, that's not what he is trying to say. He said that it's stupid to justify our meat industry by saying that i'ts natural for animals to eat each other. It relies on the faulty premise that our slaughterhouses are even comparable to, for a example, a lion killing a gazelle for food.

He said: Last time I checked, we're the only species that "produces" meat in an industrial fashion so comparing us to a pack of lions is ridiculous.

I answered: Ants herd and cultivate animals to.

How is that missing the point?

I am giving an example to counteract his assertion that Humans are the only animals in the entire world to cultivate lifestock, to house them in special chambers and to kill them en mass when they need to and transport the produce over long distances to feed other people (or ants in this case).

I got his point and I gave an example of why "Nature does it so it is okay" vs "Only Humans do it so it's wrong" is stupid because both sides are not actually arguments.

Slaughterhouses are wrong? So if I go out with a weapon, any weapon and kill something and eat it does that make it right? I wouldn't mind personally shooting or beheading a cow I bought. Does that make it right again? Cause that's how nature does it right? 1 animal vs the other?

You are basically using the arguments of Nature vs Humans I was ridiculing. In the end you still killed something to feed yourself, you did it on a smaller scale but how does that detract from the fact?

The answer is simple it doesn't.

You kill an animal to eat. Whether you do it personally, a la natural, or by making it profitable for others to do it for you. Both argument carry no weight.

I think it is you who missed the point here.

 

[Flames66]

It is a fond hope of mine to eventually track, hunt, kill and eat my own prey. I fee no guilt eating animals as we are all part of the same system. I would much prefer to hunt it myself, picking the weakest animal to strengthen their pack overall and hunting them with the respect they deserve.

 

[loc978]

If modern human society weren't there, most species on this planet would find it easier to thrive, and I would hunt for meat using what tools I could fashion from rocks, plants and animal parts... vegetarianism is made viable by the same society that mass-produces meat... so no, I feel no guilt. With or without modern society, I am an omnivore.

I do think we should all be made immediately, viscerally aware of where meat comes from as children, though. I "helped" slaughter a cow that I had "helped" feed when I was four years old. I truly think it gave me a bit better insight about such things throughout my life.

Also, wild game > farm-raised meat. I would prefer to catch and kill all of my own meat, but they don't make a hunting license big enough.

 

[Reynaerdinjo]

We all consume life, whether in form of plants or animals. What makes animals that much different from plants? Both strive and grow, both are trying to live and give on their genes. Of course, animals are more advanced creatures, but where is the point, at which one should say "Oh no, this life form is too advanced for us to kill and eat"?

I realize why some might have guilty conscience over killing animals, but imo, it's all part of the great circle of life.

Animals and plants are totally different forms of life. Plants do not have brains or advanced nervous systems. The more developed those systems are, the more we should value their life. That's why killing a fly isn't as morally wrong as killing a human. In a fly, those systems are pretty basic and while they might feel 'pain', it's definitely not the same pain that we feel.

We are starting to learn more and more about the brain and it's capabilities, and not just the human brain but those of animals as well. There is a lot of scientific evidence that suggests that developed animals like dogs, cows and pigs are capable of feelings that are very close to our feelings of physical pain. Even mental pain like stress can affect these animals, for example when they see another animal suffering.

I think it's dishonest and wrong to pretend to not know these things and equate plants with animals.

 

[TomWiley]

Let me just jump in here.

Actually. Ants farm other species.

They build farms for fungus and house those leaf lice insects, the actual name escapes me, but anyway there are Herder Ants who basically cultivate these insects for the sweet dew they excrete. Once a lice gets to old or doesn't produce enough dew any more they are killed and eaten. They store the dew in their bodies and feed the Soldier ants with it whose mandibles are to big for them to eat anything else.

I think you rather missed the point he was trying to make.

Also I only eat meat that I cooked myself, I am literally revolted by the "meat" they serve in fast food places, it's more rubber than actual meat. It is also possible to get "free range" meat which means the animals were not kept in small cramped cages. On top of that avoiding any veal or pork already cuts out the worst of the Biofarm industry.

Okay, so know you're trying to miss the point.

I don't feel guilty about cultivating an animal to feed me. It's a skill humans have attained through figuring out that hunting after the herds was a pain in the ass. That is also why we started farming. So we have food near us and don't need to hunt after it.

So because it takes skill to "cultivate" animals for us to feed on, the way we do it is automatically justified as well? That's a strange argument to make. It took a great deal of skill for the Stalin administration to secretly kill off 20 billion human beings but that certainly doesn't make it right.

Don't you feel it's kinda weird saying no other animal keeps animals when no other animal cultivates fast stretches of land for food either? Think about how many innocent animals were driven out of their homes all so you could have your Soy Bread.

That's a psuedo-argument. It's an Ad hominem in which you try to prove that he is being inconsistent in his reasoning, but he isn't. See even if it's true that animals are being affected negatively by farming practices, that negative impact is not even comparable to that of the meat industry which slaughters approximately 9 billion animals for food each year.

See it's a stupid argument saying because Humans do something and animals don't it must be wrong.

Well from what I understand, that's not what he is trying to say. He said that it's stupid to justify our meat industry by saying that i'ts natural for animals to eat each other. It relies on the faulty premise that our slaughterhouses are even comparable to, for a example, a lion killing a gazelle for food.

He said: Last time I checked, we're the only species that "produces" meat in an industrial fashion so comparing us to a pack of lions is ridiculous.

I answered: Ants herd and cultivate animals to.

How is that missing the point?

I am giving an example to counteract his assertion that Humans are the only animals in the entire world to cultivate lifestock, to house them in special chambers and to kill them en mass when they need to and transport the produce over long distances to feed other people (or ants in this case).

I got his point and I gave an example of why "Nature does it so it is okay" vs "Only Humans do it so it's wrong" is stupid because both sides are not actually arguments.

Slaughterhouses are wrong? So if I go out with a weapon, any weapon and kill something and eat it does that make it right? I wouldn't mind personally shooting or beheading a cow I bought. Does that make it right again? Cause that's how nature does it right? 1 animal vs the other?

You are basically using the arguments of Nature vs Humans I was ridiculing. In the end you still killed something to feed yourself, you did it on a smaller scale but how does that detract from the fact?

The answer is simple it doesn't.

You kill an animal to eat. Whether you do it personally, a la natural, or by making it profitable for others to do it for you. Both argument carry no weight.

I think it is you who missed the point here.

Oh geez, I don't know where to start.

Well firstly, if he says that humans are the only animal that has a meat industry, and you reply with the fact that there are ants which grows and eats animals as well, you clearly missed the point. Because he wasn't trying to prove that humans are the only animals capable of cultivating meat in such a fashion, he used it as an example to show how redicoules the "nature does it so we just do the same"-argument really is.

It doesn't matter that there are some formicidae species doing something comparable because that's aside the point.

Secondly, what are you actually saying that because there are animals who kill and eat each other, this justifies the meat industry? I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing against here. I'm not saying that eating meat is wrong. Hunting and killing animals to feed on is natural for omnivorious predators like us.

However, this doesn't in any way, shape or form justify the meat industry as it looks today. The meat industry is not natural by any stretch of the imagination, and the number of animals involved, together with how they are treated in their lives leading up to their slaughtering, is undoubtedly unethical, regardless of whether it's right to eat meat or not.

What we have to discuss here is the impact and magnitude of the meat industry, rather than some sort of confused, philosophical stance on whether or not killing animals to eat them is justified to begin with.

 

[Revolutionary]

No I Really Shouldn't. Here's Why.
Also trying to push beliefs on others through guilting really rustles my Jimmies.

 

[1337mokro]

No I Really Shouldn't. Here's Why.
Also trying to push beliefs on others through guilting really rustles my Jimmies.

Let me just jump in here.

Actually. Ants farm other species.

They build farms for fungus and house those leaf lice insects, the actual name escapes me, but anyway there are Herder Ants who basically cultivate these insects for the sweet dew they excrete. Once a lice gets to old or doesn't produce enough dew any more they are killed and eaten. They store the dew in their bodies and feed the Soldier ants with it whose mandibles are to big for them to eat anything else.

I think you rather missed the point he was trying to make.

Also I only eat meat that I cooked myself, I am literally revolted by the "meat" they serve in fast food places, it's more rubber than actual meat. It is also possible to get "free range" meat which means the animals were not kept in small cramped cages. On top of that avoiding any veal or pork already cuts out the worst of the Biofarm industry.

Okay, so know you're trying to miss the point.

I don't feel guilty about cultivating an animal to feed me. It's a skill humans have attained through figuring out that hunting after the herds was a pain in the ass. That is also why we started farming. So we have food near us and don't need to hunt after it.

So because it takes skill to "cultivate" animals for us to feed on, the way we do it is automatically justified as well? That's a strange argument to make. It took a great deal of skill for the Stalin administration to secretly kill off 20 billion human beings but that certainly doesn't make it right.

Don't you feel it's kinda weird saying no other animal keeps animals when no other animal cultivates fast stretches of land for food either? Think about how many innocent animals were driven out of their homes all so you could have your Soy Bread.

That's a psuedo-argument. It's an Ad hominem in which you try to prove that he is being inconsistent in his reasoning, but he isn't. See even if it's true that animals are being affected negatively by farming practices, that negative impact is not even comparable to that of the meat industry which slaughters approximately 9 billion animals for food each year.

See it's a stupid argument saying because Humans do something and animals don't it must be wrong.

Well from what I understand, that's not what he is trying to say. He said that it's stupid to justify our meat industry by saying that i'ts natural for animals to eat each other. It relies on the faulty premise that our slaughterhouses are even comparable to, for a example, a lion killing a gazelle for food.

He said: Last time I checked, we're the only species that "produces" meat in an industrial fashion so comparing us to a pack of lions is ridiculous.

I answered: Ants herd and cultivate animals to.

How is that missing the point?

I am giving an example to counteract his assertion that Humans are the only animals in the entire world to cultivate lifestock, to house them in special chambers and to kill them en mass when they need to and transport the produce over long distances to feed other people (or ants in this case).

I got his point and I gave an example of why "Nature does it so it is okay" vs "Only Humans do it so it's wrong" is stupid because both sides are not actually arguments.

Slaughterhouses are wrong? So if I go out with a weapon, any weapon and kill something and eat it does that make it right? I wouldn't mind personally shooting or beheading a cow I bought. Does that make it right again? Cause that's how nature does it right? 1 animal vs the other?

You are basically using the arguments of Nature vs Humans I was ridiculing. In the end you still killed something to feed yourself, you did it on a smaller scale but how does that detract from the fact?

The answer is simple it doesn't.

You kill an animal to eat. Whether you do it personally, a la natural, or by making it profitable for others to do it for you. Both argument carry no weight.

I think it is you who missed the point here.

Oh geez, I don't know where to start.

Well firstly, if he says that humans are the only animal that has a meat industry, and you reply with the fact that there are ants which grows and eats animals as well, you clearly missed the point. Because he wasn't trying to prove that humans are the only animals capable of cultivating meat in such a fashion, he used it as an example to show how redicoules the "nature does it so we just do the same"-argument really is.

It doesn't matter that there are some formicidae species doing something comparable because that's aside the point.

Secondly, what are you actually saying that because there are animals who kill and eat each other, this justifies the meat industry? I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing against here. I'm not saying that eating meat is wrong. Hunting and killing animals to feed on is natural for omnivorious predators like us.

However, this doesn't in any way, shape or form justify the meat industry as it looks today. The meat industry is not natural by any stretch of the imagination, and the number of animals involved, together with how they are treated in their lives leading up to their slaughtering, is undoubtedly unethical, regardless of whether it's right to eat meat or not.

What we have to discuss here is the impact and magnitude of the meat industry, rather than some sort of confused, philosophical stance on whether or not killing animals to eat them is justified to begin with.

You know I'll just wait for the guy in question to respond. You're basically trying to tell me what someone else meant to say whilst absolutely talking past the point.

I don't see how you can misinterpret me saying "Nature does it so it's good or Humanity does it so it's bad are equally stupid arguments" in meaning that I think the meat industry is justified cause animals kill each other. I think what I said was the exact opposite, that nature does it nor humanity does it are valid arguments. But I could be wrong. You are after all a mind reader who can divine what people actually meant... even if what they wrote down is the exact opposite.

It's quite funny to see someone going around telling other people they missed the point when he himself has ran past the point about 5 kilometres ago and is still going.

If he meant something else by what he said he can respond to it himself. Though I doubt he meant something else seeing as is entire post is dedicated to saying one thing namely : "Humans are the only ones to cultivate and mass produce meat animals, so nature does it is not a valid argument because humans don't kill animals in the wild or in 1 on 1 engagements."

 

[TomWiley]

No I Really Shouldn't. Here's Why.
Also trying to push beliefs on others through guilting really rustles my Jimmies.

Let me just jump in here.

Actually. Ants farm other species.

They build farms for fungus and house those leaf lice insects, the actual name escapes me, but anyway there are Herder Ants who basically cultivate these insects for the sweet dew they excrete. Once a lice gets to old or doesn't produce enough dew any more they are killed and eaten. They store the dew in their bodies and feed the Soldier ants with it whose mandibles are to big for them to eat anything else.

I think you rather missed the point he was trying to make.

Also I only eat meat that I cooked myself, I am literally revolted by the "meat" they serve in fast food places, it's more rubber than actual meat. It is also possible to get "free range" meat which means the animals were not kept in small cramped cages. On top of that avoiding any veal or pork already cuts out the worst of the Biofarm industry.

Okay, so know you're trying to miss the point.

I don't feel guilty about cultivating an animal to feed me. It's a skill humans have attained through figuring out that hunting after the herds was a pain in the ass. That is also why we started farming. So we have food near us and don't need to hunt after it.

So because it takes skill to "cultivate" animals for us to feed on, the way we do it is automatically justified as well? That's a strange argument to make. It took a great deal of skill for the Stalin administration to secretly kill off 20 billion human beings but that certainly doesn't make it right.

Don't you feel it's kinda weird saying no other animal keeps animals when no other animal cultivates fast stretches of land for food either? Think about how many innocent animals were driven out of their homes all so you could have your Soy Bread.

That's a psuedo-argument. It's an Ad hominem in which you try to prove that he is being inconsistent in his reasoning, but he isn't. See even if it's true that animals are being affected negatively by farming practices, that negative impact is not even comparable to that of the meat industry which slaughters approximately 9 billion animals for food each year.

See it's a stupid argument saying because Humans do something and animals don't it must be wrong.

Well from what I understand, that's not what he is trying to say. He said that it's stupid to justify our meat industry by saying that i'ts natural for animals to eat each other. It relies on the faulty premise that our slaughterhouses are even comparable to, for a example, a lion killing a gazelle for food.

He said: Last time I checked, we're the only species that "produces" meat in an industrial fashion so comparing us to a pack of lions is ridiculous.

I answered: Ants herd and cultivate animals to.

How is that missing the point?

I am giving an example to counteract his assertion that Humans are the only animals in the entire world to cultivate lifestock, to house them in special chambers and to kill them en mass when they need to and transport the produce over long distances to feed other people (or ants in this case).

I got his point and I gave an example of why "Nature does it so it is okay" vs "Only Humans do it so it's wrong" is stupid because both sides are not actually arguments.

Slaughterhouses are wrong? So if I go out with a weapon, any weapon and kill something and eat it does that make it right? I wouldn't mind personally shooting or beheading a cow I bought. Does that make it right again? Cause that's how nature does it right? 1 animal vs the other?

You are basically using the arguments of Nature vs Humans I was ridiculing. In the end you still killed something to feed yourself, you did it on a smaller scale but how does that detract from the fact?

The answer is simple it doesn't.

You kill an animal to eat. Whether you do it personally, a la natural, or by making it profitable for others to do it for you. Both argument carry no weight.

I think it is you who missed the point here.

Oh geez, I don't know where to start.

Well firstly, if he says that humans are the only animal that has a meat industry, and you reply with the fact that there are ants which grows and eats animals as well, you clearly missed the point. Because he wasn't trying to prove that humans are the only animals capable of cultivating meat in such a fashion, he used it as an example to show how redicoules the "nature does it so we just do the same"-argument really is.

It doesn't matter that there are some formicidae species doing something comparable because that's aside the point.

Secondly, what are you actually saying that because there are animals who kill and eat each other, this justifies the meat industry? I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing against here. I'm not saying that eating meat is wrong. Hunting and killing animals to feed on is natural for omnivorious predators like us.

However, this doesn't in any way, shape or form justify the meat industry as it looks today. The meat industry is not natural by any stretch of the imagination, and the number of animals involved, together with how they are treated in their lives leading up to their slaughtering, is undoubtedly unethical, regardless of whether it's right to eat meat or not.

What we have to discuss here is the impact and magnitude of the meat industry, rather than some sort of confused, philosophical stance on whether or not killing animals to eat them is justified to begin with.

You know I'll just wait for the guy in question to respond. You're basically trying to tell me what someone else meant to say whilst absolutely talking past the point.

I don't see how you can misinterpret me saying "Nature does it so it's good or Humanity does it so it's bad are equally stupid arguments" in meaning that I think the meat industry is justified cause animals kill each other. I think what I said was the exact opposite, that nature does it nor humanity does it are valid arguments. But I could be wrong. You are after all a mind reader who can divine what people actually meant... even if what they wrote down is the exact opposite.

It's quite funny to see someone going around telling other people they missed the point when he himself has ran past the point about 5 kilometres ago and is still going.

If he meant something else by what he said he can respond to it himself. Though I doubt he meant something else seeing as is entire post is dedicated to saying one thing namely : "Humans are the only ones to cultivate and mass produce meat animals, so nature does it is not a valid argument because humans don't kill animals in the wild or in 1 on 1 engagements."

If you think that's what he said, I'm still pretty sure you missed his point.

 

[TomWiley]

No I Really Shouldn't. Here's Why.
Also trying to push beliefs on others through guilting really rustles my Jimmies.

Yep. Nothing says "I know what I'm talking about" more than a link to a youtubers vlog.

 

[Conza]

I was brought up as a vegetarian in India and then in my late twenties when i came to Europe i started to eat meat. Also in Europe it is easier to be a non-vegetarian as the vegetarian choices can be pretty boring. And I must admit that I like the taste of meat and seafood, etc.

But lately I have been questioning if I should feel guilty for eating meat, seafood (anything that has a life). Do you guys ever wonder about things like: balance of the eco system, food chain, humans are at the top of the food chain so its justified, etc? Do humans really need meat to survive or we just eat it for pleasure? I eat it for its taste and I know some meat/seafood are supposed to be really good for our health. Also primitive man/Neanderthals used to hunt for food...but i guess they used to hunt anything for survival. The modern man does not need to kill/hunt for survival as there is abundance of vegetables and fruits available to eat.

Anyway to cut the long story short, I'm very confused if eating meat/seafood is justified and that we shouldn't feel guilty for killing living things for our consumption. What do you guys think?

Your open and honest opinions on this subject are welcomed.

The arguments for vegetarianism and veganism are many and extensive, but the short answer is, you should not feel guilty.

Basically everything we can eat, had life at one stage, the vegetation was growing through the soil, water and photosynthesis, just as the animals were growing from the vegetation and other animals, as we animals too grow from other animals and vegetation.

There's nothing wrong with being an omnivore, and for the most part, there's nothing wrong with being a herbavore either, I would advise against carnivorism, as I don't think it's varied enough for humans to survive healthily on, and herbavorism from a young age may limit growth and development if the vitamins found in meat aren't substituted adequetely.

I love meat, and glad I can still buy it and eat it, yes occassionally I think its sad if the animals are given a horrible life before their killed as opposed to a free range one, but I think we're doing alright, even if we could improve our practices more in some parts of the world.