Why I think eating Meat is A-ok

[Vault101]

So what, your point is that animals aren't the angels we like to think they are, and therefore, we shouldn't feel the need to treat them morally (seeing as moral is a human concept)

For that logic to work, animals would have to be more cruel than human beings, not just as cruel - and it could certainly be argued that animals aren't just as cruel seeing as they're relatively limited intelligence makes it impossible for them to destroy the world we are.

But even if animals are just as cruel as we humans have proved ourselves to be, and I don't think I need any examples when it comes to human cruelty towards animals, that still doesn't justify the meat industry. Because then we would be on the same moral level, so to say.

Animals are called animals because... THEY'RE ANIMALS.

So humans aren't animals? And where would you say the limit goes? Is it a question of intelligence?

no thats not exactally my argument

I was more going against the (brainwashing) Ideas PETA loves to preach, that if you took nastly ol humans out of the equation nature and animals would all be dancing around like bambi

which isnt the case, as I said before they turn it into a black and white issue when it is anything BUT

I dont belive in unessicary cruelty against animals

Okdioki.

But isn't eating meat an unnecessary cruelty? Given the meat industry?

well...(personally)

abandoning a dog in the street is unessicary cruelty

not looking after your pets in unesessary cruelty

fox traps and the like are unessicary cruelty

abusing animals just for "fun" is unessicary cruelty

but slaurghtering animals bred for the purpose of being slaurghtered, and eating them.....no I dont think so

but of coarse thats just how I feel about it, Im sure many would say otherwise

 

[CarlMin]

So what, your point is that animals aren't the angels we like to think they are, and therefore, we shouldn't feel the need to treat them morally (seeing as moral is a human concept)

For that logic to work, animals would have to be more cruel than human beings, not just as cruel - and it could certainly be argued that animals aren't just as cruel seeing as they're relatively limited intelligence makes it impossible for them to destroy the world we are.

But even if animals are just as cruel as we humans have proved ourselves to be, and I don't think I need any examples when it comes to human cruelty towards animals, that still doesn't justify the meat industry. Because then we would be on the same moral level, so to say.

Animals are called animals because... THEY'RE ANIMALS.

So humans aren't animals? And where would you say the limit goes? Is it a question of intelligence?

no thats not exactally my argument

I was more going against the (brainwashing) Ideas PETA loves to preach, that if you took nastly ol humans out of the equation nature and animals would all be dancing around like bambi

which isnt the case, as I said before they turn it into a black and white issue when it is anything BUT

I dont belive in unessicary cruelty against animals

Okdioki.

But isn't eating meat an unnecessary cruelty? Given the meat industry?

well...(personally)

abandoning a dog in the street is unessicary cruelty

not looking after your pets in unesessary cruelty

fox traps and the like are unessicary cruelty

abusing animals just for "fun" is unessicary cruelty

but slaurghtering animals bred for the purpose of being slaurghtered, and eating them.....no I dont think so

but of coarse thats just how I feel about it, Im sure many would say otherwise

Well, I respect your opinion. But the meat industry if even more terrible than some the examples of animal abuse you've mentioned.

If the death was painless, then perhaps. But it isn't. Those slaughterhouses are practically torture camps. Pigs are being castrated by machines without analgesic. Cows are being dismembered and left to bleed out. Not to mention what they're doing with the millions and millions of chicken we consume every year.

And seeing as we don't need meat to survive, this is an unnecessary cruelty, wouldn't you agree? Even if we did need meat to survive, the modern meat industry is unnecessary cruel.

O hai two sides on a matter that is down to individual choice claiming objectively being right!

Guess what: intolerance is worse than eating meat.

I eat meat. And I have no problem with vegetarians, vegans and so forth. What I do have a problem with is people claiming some sort of higher justification and trying to convert me.

Look - I hate it when religious people do it, I hate it when smokers do it, when fans of something do it, and I hate it when people with a specific culinary preference do it.

What on earth are you talking about? I've been around the forums and what I constantly see is people whining about vegans and vegetarians. Constantly. And you know what's so staggering about it? They all sound exactly like you do in your post.

They all start with the old "I don't have anything against vegans and vegetarians BUT they are trying to convert me!" - position. As if you were attacked. Nobody is trying to convert you. Nobody is going to steal your precious meat. But if you can't take people questioning your morality, perhaps that says more about the vegans and vegetarians you so happily generalize.

The endless parade of people whining about the vegetarianism and the animal rights agenda are more and louder than the vegetarians will ever be.

 

[Ando85]

I agree with you. Humans are very egocentric and feel as though we are superior to other animals. We forget we are animals too. We have killed an eaten animals throughout our history.

Although I don't condone cruelty to animals and believe perhaps some farm practices could be improved, I also realize that making the slaughterhouse more humane would make the process a lot more expensive. Animals kill their prey in often a very gruesome manner. We are no better than these animals.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I only eat what I would willingly kill and eat myself. I find it odd to hear people who eat meat but don't want to know that it once lived. Weird.

That said I am bordering on being vegetarian, not because of any ethical reasoning (none of which is particularly sound for straight up vegetarian) but for sustainability reasons. The cost of producing so much meat is extremely high in terms of grain. We are quickly running out of space to grow and prices increase all the time, unless a lot of money is invested into new technologies (sky farms!) we're going to encounter a serious problem soon enough.

That's not to say meat has to go, there are plenty of places where animals can thrive but crops will not, however the amount of meat will drop quite drastically. That's OK, it used to be a luxury, we just get used to it's presence.

 

[MadCapMunchkin]

I don't always eat meat. But when I do, I prefer steak.

Seriously, if God/Allah/Chuck Norris/Krishna/Horus had not intended us to eat meat, then it should not have been made edible.

 

[Amphoteric]

I don't always eat meat. But when I do, I prefer steak.

Seriously, if God/Allah/Chuck Norris/Krishna/Horus had not intended us to eat meat, then it should not have been made edible.

You know you can eat everything right? I mean paper is edible.

 

[Ampersand]

Its different because you're not a Wolf. You know better then a wolf does and you don't need to be cruel to survive.
I'm not even going to say don't eat meat, I'm just saying don't pretend it's not a dick move, and the hole "it's cool if I do it because other animals do it too" argument is totally fucking weak in all fairness.

 

[The Funslinger]

Gotta love Cracked. But on topic, I agree with you; it's all double standards. I occasionally stop eating meat because I feel bad but I'm a firm Catholic and Jesus ate meat so I guess I'm allowed to? As long as the animals weren't tortured or treated badly, I'm okay with it.

He also respawned on easter sunday, which despite my atheism, I use to validate gaming if I'm short on time.

 

[Plazmatic]

@ Plazmatic: Nowhere in my speech did I say that I wish that to enforce my beliefs on everyone. Also, as I can back the statistics the: "Science I have twisted" you are basically calling me a liar out of hand. I understand why people eat meat. It is DELICIOUS. More to the point, it is a cultural habit, one which is hard to throw off. As I have only recently become vegetarian, this is very apparent to me.
1. Methane is not captured and cannot be captured. To capture the methane of a farm you would have to enclose the structure and filter it. Impossible. Gathering it from the atmosphere is not practical, a physical impossibility to do so in amounts that matter.
2. That is Bullshit. Have you no concept of mathematics: if it takes 100 pounds of wheat to make 1 kg of meat, then you only consume 99kg of the output. Wheat and meat are both staple food items, and the comparison is apt, wheat contains fibre and carbohydrates. Basically, I have no idea what maths you are using, but it speaks to your lack of education.
3. I am not saying we have things that taste like meat. Also, synthetic B12 exists.
4. If we all ate crops, especially GM crops, then world hunger could be averted. Also, Animals spoil land that can be used for farming crops. Also, a bunch of middle class people in 1st world countries, poor? Don't make me laugh. Better to have no money in the first world than some in the third world.
Now please, stop talking with authority unless you know something about the subject, making stuff up hurts EVERYBODIES cause.
I don't believe that people should be forced to or not to eat meat. There are plenty of logical and ethical reasons not to, and plenty of good reasons too eat meat. In an ideal world, we could grow delicious meat with no side effects and eat it. In this one we cannot. There is absolutely nothing in my philosophy which is wrong and I defy anyone to make a reasonable arguement against me.

Sounds like someone with a guilty conscience is trying to justify themselves.
Eating animals is 1: Bad for the environment. 25% of human caused Carbon emissions are generated by the livestock industries.
2. Inefficient. The amount of food used to create meat is in the order of 100 to 1000 times higher than the mass of the meat output. It also takes at least 10 times as much water as meat produced.
3. It's unnecessary: we're humanity: we have the technology. There are so many substitutes for meat that a person can eat it isn't funny. It is no longer a dietary imperative: WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON MOST ANIMALS EAT EACH OTHER.
4. It's cruel. However you look at it, and whatever attempts are made, animals are mistreated in being raised for eating, and they needn't exist to be put through the suffering.
Recently I stopped lying to myself and stopped eating animals. It didn't make sense to love animals and eat them, especially owning a dog. What animals do we define as pets and not food? What gives us the right to draw arbitrary lines in the sand?
No, I am not a PETA nutjob, and no, I am no saint. Just doing my very small part to make the world a slightly better place. It's still possible to get the Iron and Protein which are cited as being a good reason to eat meat in vegetables, and for those who cannot, there are indeed supplements.

Just because when we were primitive and eaten by everything we tried to eat everything in return doesn't mean we can't rise above this.

ok..

1. Yes cows fart alot, release methane, and lots of resources are put into the live stock we eat. But we can capture methane and if we simply stopped having livestock the economy would go down the shitter, in a LOT of places. Ill explain a bit more about that later.

2. Inefficient, you twist science around to your own advantage, making it sound like we are the cause of the inefficiency. Well let me tell you something, every step up on the food chain can only access 10% of the energy from the step below, cows are getting 10% of the energy from plants, and people are getting 10% of the energy the slab of meat on your table gets, as well as lions getting 10% of the energy from a dead elephant, and an alligator to a zebra. I could do this all day, and name every single animal on the planet and how they get 10% of the energy from the organism below them. And now we get to the main point, meat has alot of energy, a lot of protein a lot of energy and a lot of vitamins, some that we just cant get from plants, which I'll also explain later, and then to have to eat enough plant matter to get to the point where we could even get the stuff we normally get from meat, we would be full before we could consume what would be at least the minimum attainable level for health, meat is efficient.

3 It is necessary, if there is technology out there that can nullify meat please show me, and it better not just be taste wise either. I will give you something, Monsanto has developed soy bean based products that not only can taste like fish, but can also give more nutrients than fish, except a few specific in meat, but beyond that I haven't heard anything. Meat still is necessary mainly due to vitamin B-12, which is only found in animal products (Herbivores create this using many stomachs, and special organs, we use plant matter for fiber were we cant break it down). This Vitamin is necessary for survival. You may ask why haven't vegetarians died yet, and there are two reasons 1. Supplements, though most don't need to take them, which leads to 2, because there is enough dead insect matter in a vegetarians diet to make up for it. That's right, even in eating Vegetables, you still are eating Animals. and in a much more cruel way than a quick shot to the head, and a cut to the throat. These insects are being mutilated mulled ripped apart and mashed in with plant matter for human consumption, huh, sounds similar to what happens to livestock, except one major difference, THEY ARE RIPPED APART ALIVE. do you think that it is more cruel to do this to a cow that is dead, than a thousand grasshoppers that are alive? id like to see what kind of moral back shot you have for this.

4. Cruel, you know what's cruel beside a bunch of cows cut up into stakes, or a thousand dead insects killed mercilessly alive? A billion Poor people loosing their jobs and soon finding that they cannot feed their own families because one, food is too expensive, and even if it wasn't they couldn't afford it any way because they have no jobs. In the US this wont be a problem but in other places? all the progress people made in the Green Revolution might as well have not have happened, people will start starving and fight like they did Pre Green Revolution. The expense? Artificial ways to creat meet, the loss of jobs? no more need for live stock, and no one is giving you the tools to advance with the rest of the world agriculturally, Agricultural and Resource extraction based economies are bad enough, no need to make it worse.

Lets face it people were meant to eat meat, and we in fact can survive solely off of it, (Inuits had been doing this for thousands of years, as well as other native american cultures) We cannot, however survive solely off of plant matter (you need some sort of animal). When thinking of how we could get rid of eating meat, you needed to think a bit more, and consider WAY more consequences of getting rid of it, what I have stated here is the tip of the ice berg, there's a mountain of more issues that would also have to be dealt with.

Looks Like I have yet another troll.

Also I never called any one a liar for the record, learn to read.

Look methane can be captured, and is, go look it up, farmers all across america are using this technique for saving on energy costs.

2 Never said 100pounds of wheat = 1kg of meat (which is an odd conversion any way) I just said you would be full before you could get enough of the nutrients needed from meat that can be found in plants for at least the healthy minimum for living.

also thanks for saying I have no concept of mathematics, when I'm not the one who said 100lb of wheat = 1kg of meat, you did

3. why not have things that taste like meat. not many people are going to go along with the Idea if there is nothing to replace meat.

4, We all eat GM crops, from cereal, to fruit vegetables, we are already eating them. the wide spread use of them happened way back, in the green revolution. Also if world hunger could be averted, then why isn't it? you are first implying that the world has mass amounts of world hunger, which is simply does not any more, second, you are implying we are in a shortage of food, which is also false, we have enough to go around, and third you are implying the starving people would be able to afford the food.

ALSO you say Animals "spoil" the land? that's a laugh, go look up why people hate the green revolution, specifically in India. you might be suprised.

finally on #4, I said specifically I was not talking about middle class america, or first world countries Again, I have to reiterate. Learn. To. Read. quote from me in the same quote you quoted "(lob loss)In the US this wont be a problem but in other places?"

And now, on your last part, I never made any of this up. I have shown that you have, but me, no, what have I falsified? you resorted to saying that I said that it takes a 100lbs of weat to = 1kg of meat, which I did not say, you even quoted me, You took attacked a point I was not taking in that Americans and 1st class countries would be at loss of jobs, but what did I falsify?

and now you finally imply that I am even suggesting that others should be forced to eat meat, no buddy, its the other way around, they shouldn't be forced to eat plants. You were basically saying no one should eat meat, and Im not saying that no one can just eat plants, I'm just sayint its impractical for EVERY ONE to just eat plants.

 

[lionday]

Actually people starving in African countries refuse to eat our cows AND our corn because we have genetically modified them.

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/188/genetically-engineered-food
Here's a link that explains the issue. So now you can make up your own mind about this.

 

[Gustavo S. Buschle]

snip

I fail to see the difference. We should eat both, therefore I think it is better to eat both.

snip

Well then, why didn't we evolve eating only vegetables, if it's so much better?

 

[Loonyyy]

@Plazmatic:
I am no troll. I do however, have an acute sense of logic and morality and am constrained by an excessive IQ (I could demonstrate, but I do not trust people whom I do not know.
My information, backed by reputable sources, proving, without a doubt I am right: (Somehow I doubt that people who make up their information can produce sources hahah)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUt5JP5mwJo
My bad, I misrepresented the numbers, it is 10 x the mass of grains and wheats, which constitutes 40% of humanities crops. My memory for spoken words is better than numbers, one reason I was always better at remembering Shakespeare than pi hahah. And yes, it takes water and fertiliser to grow vegetables and grains, it still is not nearly as much as is used overall to produce the meat.
Respectable source, Hungry Beast, of the Australian Broadcasting Company.

That statistic I used before to represent the Carbon emissions, which was sourced from a television add was incorrect, it is not 25%, it is 18%
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2723201&page=1
ABC News, respectable source.
Also the grazing lands of animals cover a net of 30% of the world not covered by water or ice, (including land used to grow their feed). Same article.

http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/244624734/Cyanocobalamin.html
Synthetic Vitamin B12. Page for ordering of.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
Yes, people are starving. 925 million. A lot. Not an eradicated problem. A fact you have MADE UP. While there is enough food to go around, it does not go around.
Just for the fun of it: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
The amount of impoverished people worldwide.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/130799.pdf
This document discuses implementing as a matter of policy the use of carbon capture and includes the statistics for Methane production by livestock. Methane capture is not used widely in the US.
http://www.sita.com.au/media/27348/landfill%20methane%20capture%20for%20greenhouse%20neutrality.pdf
To be carbon neutral: 79-82% of Methane must be captured. SITA is a waste management and energy consultation firm. FPC is a government commission for sustainable use of forests.

http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/85090.pdf
Cattle grazing damages biodiversity, though, with care, and effort it could avoid doing so.
Cattle?s grazing contributes to erosion (Kaufman and Krueger 1984) which makes growing crops more difficult. (Hopefully you know enough to realise erosion damages soil quality)
Department of Water in Western Australia.
Actually, what I did was attacked the Job loss altogether. 1st world job loss, pfft. People losing jobs in the 1st world will be protected by social security. Third world countries (Most of Africa) will be relatively fine (They by and large do not export cattle) Second world countries, such as India (Also, I despise the term 1st 2nd and 3rd world, since they, though they are today used to represent economy, actually are meant to denote Eastern Block, Allied, or Unaffiliated:http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm)

It's definitely practical for everyone to eat plants, it just isn't something that will happen, no need to justify your decision to eat meat, I know people can't help it, it's something, they, like I, were raised doing. I used to love the stuff and still sometimes crave it, and hold no grudge against those who still eat it.

Now, I could do this all day. I could find argument after argument, fact after fact and more and more evidence, but I have proven most of my points, and have really become bored of this, as my intention was never to preach in the first place. I even refrained from the argument "Meat is Murder", which I find distasteful, mainly due to the difficulty in arguing logically with a person who denotes you "Murderer" for a habit you were brought up in.
I could even use Reducto ad Absurdium to suggest that in your philosophy there is no logical reason for not eating people. Again, this would be offensive, and altogether distasteful.

Yes I believe (and can prove) that the world would be a better place if people need not kill animals for food. But I am a realist and can accept that people eat meat, and do not intend to change them.
My attempts at being neutral and magnanimous in my statements have instead gotten me the response that I imply people are forced to eat meat. Yes, it is implied in my argument, and I apologise. I apologise that you are unable to understand the meaning behind the statement. Of course, since people are mostly raised eating meat from a young age.... No I will not go into this, your philosophy is your philosophy and you have the same right to believe it as I have to defend mine when it is attacked by the ignorant.

I DO NOT LIE. I may make mistakes in the details, but I do not mistake the facts. The facts are nothing I have said is false. Nothing I have said is incorrect. I can read, in fact, I can find valid sources and even produce them. Heck, my reading is brilliant, one of my many regrets is that currently I am unable to find a copy of "The Art of War" or "For Whom the Bell Tolls", or the works of Carl Sagan, or that I have yet to find an English version of the Qur?an or the time to research Buddhist philosophy, though having being raised Christian I know my Bible, though as an Agnostic I do not believe it. My favourite work of literature is probably "To Kill a Mockingbird". Can you say as much sir? You can barely spell correctly in your post, and your grammar is rather poor. I suggest that you might find running a spell checker, possibly the one included in most versions of Microsoft Word, or I think also in the Apple equivalent. I am offended by the implication that I cannot read, or should "Learn to Read". I have partaken in charity work and (the irony) one of them was even a "Read-A-Thon". Now, if you please, where in my attempts to make the world a better place is there malice? Whilst I may wish Racists, murderers, rapists and in general evil-doers were not here, and that everyone lived in a paradise, I don't go around killing people I don't like or robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. I do little, and aim not to cause harm.
What in there set you off on your crusade?

I usually refrain from conversation on the internet because of this very thing: people cannot accept that others may be right, and in this case, right in believing what they believe.
I have PROVEN my statements beyond refute.

To any meat-eaters out there: Sorry, I do not mean to offend you. I choose not to eat meat for good reasons, but I do not intend to ask you to, this evidence is produced to refute the claim that I am "a troll", the implication that I cannot read, and the general rudeness I encountered from one guilty close minded little soul. (I assume he is guilty, as that would explain his actions, and would not make him just a person intending to be horrible)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Note all sources are reputable organisations.
If I were you, my reputation for honesty looking how it is, I would seriously consider being quiet now.
Finally: I'm not your buddy, man.

 

[LiraelG]

I have no problem with people eating meat (my parents do, my boyfriend does, and most of my friends do), and would never push vegetarianism on anyone, but I don't really think it's possible to argue against some of the issues.

Why do we produce more meat than we need? Farmers produce more than people actually buy, and people buy and eat more than they actually need to be healthy. A great number of animals suffer for no reason at all.

The methods used in farming are unecessarily cruel. I question how anyone can justify keeping chickens in cages which are smaller than the chicken, or pulling calves away from their mothers immediately after they are born.

The methods used to slaughter the animals are also extremely sadistic, whether you want to read into what actually happens or not. I'm not going to post details here, because that would be unfair on those who eat meat, but what happens is unecessary. And some who work in slaughter houses have admitted that they harm the animal more than required out of frustration.