I LOVE YOU. seriously i am sick of this animals are weak and frail shit, burn them all i say, i would poison a thousand cubs before ever harming another human being, hell i do it every night i leave some poisoned meat outside so i can kill the dogs of the neighborhood, those god forsaken mutts won't stop barking.Vault101 said:
Why I think eating Meat is A-ok
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is a different between saying "we are omnivorous, therefore we should eat both" and "I think it is better to eat both." You were just trying to pass off an unsubstantiated opinion as a fact.Gustavo S. Buschle said:
In any case, I think it is better eat both, myself. You can get all the essential aminoacids and vitamins from just vegetables, but it is a lot harder. It is a matter of convenience for me.
Food chain, that is all: If we weren't supposed to eat meat, then we would have evolved some horrible allergy towards it or something...
I'm sad now, cause i just remembered what happened to the man who voiced Troy in the Simpsons...poor guy...viranimus said:
I can explain why eating meat is ok in one sentence: Life feeds on other life, PERIOD. Even herbivores are feeding on other forms of life for sustenance, it is how the Universe works. About the only lifeforms that don't feed on other life to survive are plants and even then certain species of plants still do, namely the Venus Fly Trap. So whether you're chowing down on a cow or a carrot, you're still eating some form of life, or your still eating something that was alive at one point.
Interesting how you mention 'supposed to' and 'evolved' in the same sentence. Evolution and morals are completely unrelated. Evolution makes us eat meat, but we aren't 'supposed' to eat meat, any more than we're 'supposed' to fall due to gravity. It just happens. Unless you believe in some sort of creator, there's no such thing as 'supposed to do X'. We evolved to eat meat because it was the easiest way for us to survive, not because of some divine imperative driving us onwards towards moral perfection.Infernai said:
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.
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.
First off, no, don't believe in some form of creator or anything..I'm a Jedi thank you very much and take care to remember that in future! [/end joke]squeekenator said:
Secondly. What i meant by the whole supposed thing was this: You don't see herbivores eating meat now do you? They can't due to being incapable of digesting it, that simple. What i meant was, if we weren't 'supposed' to eat meat as some people (like PETA) claim, we wouldn't be able to digest or anything like that. That's what i meant...where did all this crap about me believing in a higher power or morality come from? I didn't even mention either of them in my post!
You strongly implied it. As I said, nothing has a purpose. You aren't 'supposed' to eat meat. You aren't 'supposed' to eat plants. You aren't 'supposed' to argue about morals over the internet. You aren't even 'supposed' to exist. You just do. Unless you believe that we were indeed created, rather than evolving, we have no purpose, and the idea that we're 'supposed' to do or not do anything is completely false.Infernai said:
Most animals that we slaughter for meat wouldn't have survived the natural selection process. So if Humans WERE natural veggies, the cow and the chicken would probably be extinct, or at least close to it by now.
The only reason that some of the animals we eat today are still with us, is because we want them to be with us. Because they supply us vital chemicals that make us strong and more intelligent and such. Things that plants just can't provide that easily.
Don't get me wrong, humanity is not a carnivorous species, we're omnivorousness. So to strike a balance between meat and veg is essential. We need meat, and we need veg and fruits.
The only reason that some of the animals we eat today are still with us, is because we want them to be with us. Because they supply us vital chemicals that make us strong and more intelligent and such. Things that plants just can't provide that easily.
Don't get me wrong, humanity is not a carnivorous species, we're omnivorousness. So to strike a balance between meat and veg is essential. We need meat, and we need veg and fruits.
The modern chickens, cows, etc only ever existed because we selectively bred them. Those species were originally perfectly capable of surviving in the wild before we bred out all the traits that made them capable of keeping themselves alive. If humans were herbivores, cows and chickens would be just as well-off as any other animals.Robert Ewing said:
But if we bred traits out of cows because we wanted select traits, how long would it of been before the cows bred themselves out of existence by themselves? Dog's did it, and are still doing it. It seems like it's humanity's fault that they are getting so bad, and it partly is, but it's partly natural that wolves bred outward into dogs, and now dogs are killing themselves via breeding.squeekenator said:
Loonyyy said:
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.
When you eat vegetables, you get 10% efficiency, because the plants had to grow by consuming energy before you could eat them. When you eat a cow, you get 1% efficiency, because the plants the cow eats had to grow and the cow itself had to grow. That's not a disputed claim made up by PETA, it's a simple fact accepted by every scientist in the world. And your points about health and nutrition are irrelevant nonsense, considering vegetarians are living proof that you don't need meat to live.Plazmatic said:
Cows eat plants too. If you eat X amount of cow as opposed to X amount of vegetables, that cow that only existed so you could have a steak will have eaten FAR more than X amount of vegetables, and thus caused the death of far more insects than any vegetarian. Vegetarians require the consumption of far less vegetables than meat eaters.Plazmatic said:
Meat is far less economically efficient than vegetarian options, if the meat industry didn't exist we would easily be able to feed far more people than we do at the moment.Plazmatic said:
Erm. Yes they have, you poor, poor misinformed person. My cousins regularly hunt wild pig, in fact.varulfic said:
True that, and I disagree with what PETA say most of the time.Vault101 said:
I don't think that there is anything wrong with the act of eating meat in itself. But the industry and the apathy around it is something that i'd rather not be a part of. We grossly overconsume. Too many people don't appreciate meat for what it really is.
The human race would be better off if we ate less meat.
I sincererly hope your trolling,squeekenator said:
first, you just copied what I just said in part 2, and then restated it, except for the part that vegetarians make it look like meat has inefficiencies because of people, and I addressed your second part, Maybe Read some? its in #3, vegetarians eat Insects in order to obtain proper vitamin b-12 amounts (not intentionally obviously) since their is enough insect matter in fruits and vegetables to make up for the lack of livestock meat
Second, how do vegetarians require less vegetables that meat eaters, think about what you just said, just for a second, ok? Also the reason insects get mashed up into the vegetables is because of the combines that go through the fields, the machines are what mash it up, cows don't eat insects as often (or at all) because they move slow enough for them to get out of the way, and are not extremely wide, like, for example a combine. If they did eat a lot of insects they would not need organs to process plants into b-12.
third
"Meat is far less economically efficient than vegetarian options, if the meat industry didn't exist we would easily be able to feed far more people than we do at the moment."
evidence? how would we feed every one? did you forget we use MONEY, and that there are JOBS involved in the economic system? did you forget we even had an economic system? Any way, as I told you we cant eat enough plant matter to cover all our vitamin and protein needs for survival before getting full, and not every one is going get on board, in fact MOST wont, and you also haven't stated a substitute for meat, at all.
We have to eat the cows, or else they will assassinate Gary Larson in revenge.
Eat beef. Save lives.
Anyway, meat is tasty and nutritious, and farm animals don't have to find their own food/have protection/some comfort (usually - farms with shitty conditions need to be purged). Also, farm animals would likely cause much harm to crops and throw ecosystems out of whack if all released at once.
Eat beef. Save lives.
Anyway, meat is tasty and nutritious, and farm animals don't have to find their own food/have protection/some comfort (usually - farms with shitty conditions need to be purged). Also, farm animals would likely cause much harm to crops and throw ecosystems out of whack if all released at once.
You'd let their puny emotion get in the way of your sandwich?AnOriginalConcept said:
I'm vegetarian, but not because of moral reasons, I'm just trying living a different way for the sake of it.
I agree with you almost completely, and I love animals (so much so, for a while there I wanted to become a vet). What I oppose is needless cruelty. Yes, the same rules shouldn't apply to animals that apply to humans, but in a way you could say that's more the reason we should be "the better man" in our relationship with nature. Nothing wrong with killing animals to eat their meat, but we can at least let them live a healthy life and kill them as quickly and painlessly as we can realistically manage. I don't know, but I'd imagine the meat of an animal that lived a healthy life would produce meat that tastes better anyway.