"You can't love animal's if you're not a vegetarian"

[chikusho]

Just think how many animal lives would never have existed _at all_ without the meat industry.

 

[Tallim]

I have no idea if anyone has posted this as I'm not wading through 12 pages to find out but it seems quite relevant:

 

[Chris OBrien]

I don't think I personally could kill an animal to eat it, and I love animals. but at the same time I love my meat. I figure that the animal is already dead, not eating it will not save it or change anything, infact it will probably just get chucked in the bin and go to waste if I don't eat it

And secondly what about people in third world countries that are forced to kill animals to survive, does that mean they don't love animals. the animal is already dead when you go to eat it for us so I don't see the problem.

It does make a difference. Abstaining reduces the demand. If you don't buy it, they won't produce as much. Also, are you saying you would see a problem if the animal were alive when you went to eat it? The animal "is already dead" because someone, a person, killed it for you to eat--and invariably to make a profit off of you for wanting to do so.

You don't live in a "third-world" country. Even if you did--meat is a luxury. In Western society, we've been fooled into thinking it's the other way around. It isn't. Meat used to be a status symbol. The wealthy in England in the late 1500s and the 1600s would eat so much meat, they'd forgo vegetables altogether. And they got sick. Developing scurvy was common--which is why Dr. John Hall had to save the day with his bag of watercress.

Plants are easy to farm. Animals, in comparison, are not. The meat industry in Western societies thrives largely because of government subsidies.

I like animals. They're delicious. I have also been bitten by a cow, a chicken, a goat, and a fish so anyone who says they won't eat you if given a chance is full of shit.

It seems wiser to treat others in a way that you would like to be treated than treat them based on how you expect they'd treat you.

You eat animals for the nutrition they provide - "love" does not come into it. You eat meat for a balanced diet and as long as the animals are treated humanely, then what's the issue? Denying the nature of man and nutritional requirements just isn't realistic.

What mystery nutrient is there is meat that you can't get without it? Because I'm vegan and, uh, quite realistically I'm pretty sure I have all my bases covered. Visit a vegan restaurant in your city. We're not dropping dead.

Myth busted?

Vitamins B12 and D3 are the only two nutrients found in meat that are not abundant in plant sources. However, B12 is relatively easy to synthesize and has recently been found in adequate amounts in some kinds of algae. B12 is also stored in the human body and it can take up to five years without it to develop a deficiency. There is some--though not convincing--evidence that human beings are capable of producing a small amount themselves.

Adequate amounts of vitamin D3 can be obtained by standing in sunlight for a few minutes.

Iron and protein are the other two that many point to when the discussion of the benefits of meat come up. Iron is more abundant in dark, leafy greens (and easier to absorb) than in most red meats. There is nearly 16 mg. of iron per 100 calories of cooked spinach--just 2 mg. shy of the USDA recommended daily intake.

Protein is found in adequate amounts in most soy and grain products. Quinoa is a grain and contains what's referred to as a "complete" protein--something supporters of the consumption of red meat used to claim could only be found in animal products. Complete proteins are also found in other plant sources such as soy, spirulina, buckwheat, hempseed, etc.

A "meat-eater" asks a vegan, "but where do you get your protein?" The vegan responds, "the same place your steak did."

Veganism accomplishes nothing other than making yourself feel good.

If called upon I could spend a good hour or two putting a list together of all the different animal parts used to likely make up the house you are currently living in. The use of dead animals is simply inescapable unless you're going to live in some sort of wood cabin out in the mountains and even then that's no guarantee since you're likely going to fall on hard times where consuming the flesh of another living organism would be required for your continued existence.

Really saying you're not going to eat meat out of moral grounds is like cleaning your uncle's car before he sends it to the scrap yard. It's a nice thought but ultimately pointless since you'll likely end up using a piece of the butchered calf at some point whether you realize it or not.

You eat animals for the nutrition they provide - "love" does not come into it. You eat meat for a balanced diet and as long as the animals are treated humanely, then what's the issue? Denying the nature of man and nutritional requirements just isn't realistic.

What mystery nutrient is there is meat that you can't get without it? Because I'm vegan and, uh, quite realistically I'm pretty sure I have all my bases covered. Visit a vegan restaurant in your city. We're not dropping dead.

Myth busted?

Ignoring that realistically speaking the world cannot be sustained purely on a vegan diet with nutrient supplements, there's also the matter of animal bone, leather, oils and other such materials that go into upholding your daily life, without even realizing it. The simple fact is that you are contributing to the deaths and suffering of animals just by living in the modern world, regardless of whether or not you eat meat.

Most of the world's viable farmland is used to grow plants that feed the animals humans eat.

There are no materials made from animals that cannot be made synthetically or from plant sources that do not have a reasonable alternative.

Regardless, your point is moot, as your argument is in a way a general description of the core of veganism; to become aware and make others aware as well of those bones, leathers, oils, and other such materials that most people use without even realizing it... and then stop using them (as well as stop eating animal products, obviously).

Perfection is not possible, so vegans and vegetarians concerned with animal welfare strive to reduce the use of products made from animal materials and the demand for said products. This does not mean that any or every given vegan or vegetarian will live a life entirely free from some the killing of animal life. All living things eventually die and it is impossible to exist without affecting one's environment. The goal is not (or at least should not be) perfection. The goal is to do everything possible to end the systematic exploitation of life forms with central nervous systems--in other words, life forms such as animals that feel pain, that experience emotions, and that are sentient.

There are many examples of vegans and vegetarians that behave in ways that are not consistent with the beliefs and values they claim to uphold. No two vegans/vegetarians are alike any more than any other two people. Some are extremely dumb, or at least uneducated or inexperienced. This fact does not render the entirety of their individual efforts or the efforts of the larger movement ineffective or pointless. It only means that they, like all humans, are flawed.

Just think how many animal lives would never have existed _at all_ without the meat industry.

Are you arguing that just having been alive at all is good enough? They were bred to be killed and eaten. Their entire life was spent in captivity--in the worst cases, in cages almost too small to fit inside or in conditions so poor, people have been put in jail for keeping dogs, cats, and other pets in such conditions. The point isn't to keep as many animals as possible alive, it's to minimize and reform the industry that produces animals for slaughter, which, yes, would stop many from being born in the first place--and thus reduce the amount of animals that suffer the experience.

How many people here are pro-choice? You don't need to read Freakonimics to figure out that when abortions are legal, safe, and not only available, but reasonably socially acceptable, fewer children are born into poor conditions and thus, fewer children grow up poor, hungry, or generally "at risk." (This isn't to say that only poor people have abortions, it's to say that kids are expensive and those who would seek abortions are generally not in an ideal position to have a child--abortions are not a luxury for the privileged, they are a last-resort for those who cannot reasonably support a child.) It stems over-population and not only improves the economy, it is better for the lives of everyone involved. Would you argue it would be better to outlaw abortion because any life lived is better than none at all?

Vegans and vegetarians do not support the idea of "farm animals." It's an idea diametrically opposed to their beliefs. The goal isn't to have as many animals alive as possible. It's to ensure those that are alive, are free from needless abuse and exploitation.

I have no idea if anyone has posted this as I'm not wading through 12 pages to find out but it seems quite relevant:

The video is either ironic, illogical, or based on misconceptions.

> The difference between catering to a vegetarian and catering to a practicing omnivore (or just omnis, to simplify) is, virtually no human beings that are active in a modern society eat only meat. Eating only meat would lead to scruvy, first of all. Human beings are reasonably capable of surviving and thriving on a diet of both meat and plants or exclusively plants. Vegetarians have an exclusive diet, omnis an inclusive. If someone omits meat from their diet for any number of reasons, a meatless meal option is effectively a necessity. However, to ask an omni to have a single meal without meat is entirely reasonable--and most do often anyway (macaroni and cheese, spaghetti and marinara or other pastas, rice and beans, cheese pizza, grilled cheese, any salad without meat, tomato soup, cucumber sandwiches, veggie paninis, and so on.) It's entirely a non-conflict. It's like asking a person to not drink alcohol at one particular meal. Just because they often drink alcohol with meals does not mean they must drink alcohol at every meal. However, someone who abstains from alcohol consumption always must not have it.

Maybe a better example is smoking on planes. It used to be that smokers argued, "I paid just as much for my seat as everyone else, therefore I should be able to smoke." Unfortunately, the smokers weren't flying in a bubble and it was decided that it is much more reasonable to ask the smoker to not smoke for one flight than it is to ask all non-smokers to breathe their smoke. To ask a vegan or vegetarian to buy and prepare meat is asking them to support an industry and culture they do not wish to support and it is asking them to prepare food they are uncomfortable preparing. It is asking someone to break their convictions--to behave in a way that contradicts their values and beliefs and only for one's convenience. It is rude to ask this of a vegan or vegetarian, just as much as it would be rude to ask a religious person to break any of the rules of their faith, a recovering alcoholic to provide you with alcohol, a non-smoker to allow you to smoke in their home, etc.

> Generally speaking, Vegans and Vegetarians do not support zoos. However, modern zoos are not the prisons that they once were. Most are research facilities and work tirelessly to maintain the environments of animals in the wild and protect endangered species. Most zoo animals are rescues (which are later released, if possible) or born in captivity.

> Pigs are only bred to be eaten. By not buying meat, vegans and vegetarians reduce the demand. When demand is reduced, less are bred. It's supply / demand economics.

> Pets are a debate within the vegan and vegetarian community, however all agree that providing a loving environment, companionship, and treating the animal as a member of the family is far different from breeding animals to kill and eat or artificially inseminating a cow so it gets pregnant and produces milk, which humans take to drink and then take the baby and, if it is a male, slaughter it as soon as possible for veal, or if it is a female, keeping it until it too can become pregnant and produce veal and milk.

 

[kickassfrog]

We needed meat to get to where we are today.
Animals are delicious, and, providing they get a decent life, well fed, space to move around etc. I have no qualms about eating them. It's nature. Not eating meat would be against our nature.

 

[Chris OBrien]

We needed meat to get to where we are today.
Animals are delicious, and, providing they get a decent life, well fed, space to move around etc. I have no qualms about eating them. It's nature. Not eating meat would be against our nature.

How do you define human nature? Is it only what is natural, or that which occurs in nature?

I guess we shouldn't use the Internet, watch TV, live in tall buildings, eat mass-produced farmed food of any kind, drive in vehicles, fly in planes, go to schools, have careers, explore space... do I need to go on?

The entirety of human history is a story of a species that behaves "unnaturally." That is how we got to where we are today, not by eating meat.

The idea of animals getting "a decent life, well fed, space to move around," seems to miss the point. You seem to be arguing that the means justify the ends. Based on that, it should be acceptable to commit any infraction, crime, or undesirable action so long as it's carried out in a nice or friendly way.

I believe small, local farms treat their animals relatively well. Vegans and vegetarians will still refuse to eat the animals because they disagree on a fundamental level with killing a conscious creature to eat it. And somehow I doubt you shop only at small, local farms to get all of your meat. You're telling yourself a bedtime story to allow yourself to remain comfortable with eating meat. If you want to eat meat, don't lie to yourself about it. Anyway, even if you did get all your meat from a place like that, no animal you have ever eaten died of natural causes.

 

[kickassfrog]

We needed meat to get to where we are today.
Animals are delicious, and, providing they get a decent life, well fed, space to move around etc. I have no qualms about eating them. It's nature. Not eating meat would be against our nature.

How do you define human nature? Is it only what is natural, or that which occurs in nature?

I guess we shouldn't use the Internet, watch TV, live in tall buildings, eat mass-produced farmed food of any kind, drive in vehicles, fly in planes, go to schools, have careers, explore space... do I need to go on?

The entirety of human history is a story of a species that behaves "unnaturally." That is how we got to where we are today, not by eating meat.

The idea of animals getting "a decent life, well fed, space to move around," seems to miss the point. You seem to be arguing that the means justify the ends. Based on that, it should be acceptable to commit any infraction, crime, or undesirable action so long as it's carried out in a nice or friendly way.

I believe small, local farms treat their animals relatively well. Vegans and vegetarians will still refuse to eat the animals because they disagree on a fundamental level with killing a conscious creature to eat it. And somehow I doubt you shop only at small, local farms to get all of your meat. You're telling yourself a bedtime story to allow yourself to remain comfortable with eating meat. If you want to eat meat, don't lie to yourself about it. Anyway, even if you did get all your meat from a place like that, no animal you have ever eaten died of natural causes.

You're right. The story behind it all is that meat is so much more damn delicious than the vegetarian cuisine I've tried (it can be good, but taking both menus as wholes, I'd much rather have the meat.)

And we needed the meat to support our larger and more energy consuming brains, which allowed us to think clearly, which allowed us to develop all this amazing crap. Which we did of our own volition. While simultaneously not giving up eating meat (for the most part anyway).
And it's very rare in nature that animals are eaten that die of natural causes. It's not a viable way to sustain a carnivorous lifestyle.

 

[kickassfrog]

Also, I'm fine with vegetarians and vegans per se, as long as they don't try to talk me round to their beliefs. Just like with religious people.

 

[Chris OBrien]

We needed meat to get to where we are today.
Animals are delicious, and, providing they get a decent life, well fed, space to move around etc. I have no qualms about eating them. It's nature. Not eating meat would be against our nature.

How do you define human nature? Is it only what is natural, or that which occurs in nature?

I guess we shouldn't use the Internet, watch TV, live in tall buildings, eat mass-produced farmed food of any kind, drive in vehicles, fly in planes, go to schools, have careers, explore space... do I need to go on?

The entirety of human history is a story of a species that behaves "unnaturally." That is how we got to where we are today, not by eating meat.

The idea of animals getting "a decent life, well fed, space to move around," seems to miss the point. You seem to be arguing that the means justify the ends. Based on that, it should be acceptable to commit any infraction, crime, or undesirable action so long as it's carried out in a nice or friendly way.

I believe small, local farms treat their animals relatively well. Vegans and vegetarians will still refuse to eat the animals because they disagree on a fundamental level with killing a conscious creature to eat it. And somehow I doubt you shop only at small, local farms to get all of your meat. You're telling yourself a bedtime story to allow yourself to remain comfortable with eating meat. If you want to eat meat, don't lie to yourself about it. Anyway, even if you did get all your meat from a place like that, no animal you have ever eaten died of natural causes.

You're right. The story behind it all is that meat is so much more damn delicious than the vegetarian cuisine I've tried (it can be good, but taking both menus as wholes, I'd much rather have the meat.)

And we needed the meat to support our larger and more energy consuming brains, which allowed us to think clearly, which allowed us to develop all this amazing crap. Which we did of our own volition. While simultaneously not giving up eating meat (for the most part anyway).
And it's very rare in nature that animals are eaten that die of natural causes. It's not a viable way to sustain a carnivorous lifestyle.

So, you're saying that you eat meat because it feels good. Vegans and vegetarians argue that isn't a good enough reason and doesn't justify the wrongs of the meat industry. Many things feel good. That alone does not make those things right or healthy.

Yes, there is evidence that meat played an essential role in the development of the human brain, but it's the proteins and B12 that was really important. Meat is not needed to obtain either and human beings are now capable of making the decision of whether or not to eat meat--whether or not to take part in the industry that produces the meat we eat.

Humans also developed all that great crap while spending a great deal of time killing each other. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. And there is also evidence that links vegetarianism and higher intelligence--

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2006/dec/06_138.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121500499.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201005/why-vegetarians-are-more-intelligent-meat-eaters

Humans are not carnivores. There's even speculation human beings are not true omnivores, as the human digestive tract, particularly the intestines, more closely resemble those of herbivores. So do human teeth (carnivore teeth are cone shaped, human teeth are relatively flat). Regardless, the point I was making about natural causes is that I would argue that it's tough to call any animal's life, one entirely in captivity for the sole purpose of killing it for food, "decent" and that almost all animals are killed in their prime or earlier.

You're right that it's rare in nature that animals eat other animals that died of natural causes... and those animals that are eating other animals usually killed that animal itself--with it's bare hands--or claws and teeth, rather. Or they're scavengers, which is a viable way to sustain a carnivorous lifestyle, but that isn't how humans get their food either.

Also, I'm fine with vegetarians and vegans per se, as long as they don't try to talk me round to their beliefs. Just like with religious people.

I have no interest in talking you into anything--only in making sure that the same misconceptions and stereotypes about vegans and vegetarians do not persist. Too many people who choose to eat meat do not realize that it is, in fact, a choice.

You have to keep in mind, vegans and vegetarians would probably not be the religious people in that comparison. They may appear to have a similar fervor at times, but they share more in common with the smaller, less socially accepted, group--the atheists or agnostics. And if you engage in a conversation with them, they will almost undoubtedly try to talk you over to their side--but more likely with facts and logic than a holy book and statements about faith.

 

[Chris OBrien]

Hmm, it seems like a fair thing to say you can't love something you'd have someone kill for you to eat for dinner. Doesn't mean you can't love some animals, but I'd say I don't see how it works for you to say you love animals in general. If you'd have chickens killed for you just so you can enjoy their flesh I don't think it'd be fair to say you love chickens. (Also the chicken cooking in my house smells good and is making me hungry...)

Well, on the other hand you can't love nature if you've ever eaten plants.
So this makes for an absolutely reasonable argument.

Not particularly comparable given the nature of plants vs that of animals. Plus of course that loving nature is different than just loving plants.

You eat animals for the nutrition they provide - "love" does not come into it. You eat meat for a balanced diet and as long as the animals are treated humanely, then what's the issue? Denying the nature of man and nutritional requirements just isn't realistic.

Why bother posting such drivel? Next time don't make stupid assumptions and save us both time. I did not say there was an issue. Nor did I suggest denying any sort of nutritional requirement. The reason I mention love is because anyone who has actually bothered to read what thread they're in might notice that it's what the thread is about. And I am saying it indicates a lack of love to be cool with killing those animals. But I didn't say people had to love animals.

Jees chill out, what's wrong with people here...
All you have done is insult what I said, and then repeat what you said without addressing anything I said. I said love does not come into the equation as meeting nutritional requirements has nothing to do with love therefore you can love chickens but still eat them as the latter part is a necessity. I didn't say people had to love animals either...

Maybe it's worth thinking about the question a little differently. Is it possible to love all animals, or love animals in general and also eat animals? Not love the way they taste or love them for the sustenance they provide, but truly care for, respect, and feel genuine concern for the well-being of all animals and also consume them?

Can you love something and also want it to die? Can you love something you need to consume to survive? Can you love something that you do not treat as an equal?

It has been scientifically proven and accepted that human beings do not need to eat animals to--not just survive, but thrive. The USDA and other respected agencies have stated that vegan diets are adequate at all stages of life for males and females and in many cases, provide significant health benefits. Therefore, eating a chicken is not a necessity, it is a choice.

Can you still love chickens then?

Humans are clearly predators - eye location, teeth and nails. Comparing humans to herbivores shows a failure in understanding science.

Anyone saying human teeth are herbivore teeth is talking pseudo-science.
Carnivores, and humans, have sharp cusps with conical roots as carnivores are vertical chewers and herbivores chew side-to-side (think how a cow chews). If a herbivore ate vertically, it'd break it's teeth. Sadly, just like flat earthers and conspiracy theorists, there is a lot of bullshit floating around out there to argue against the true genuine science.

Lots animals that aren't predators have eyes in front. And some that are have eyes on the side (sharks). Early humans ate a variety of food, gathering most of what they ate--not hunting. And human nails...? They don't seem particularly useful for trapping and killing fast prey. Also, humans chew both vertically and horizontally, like an herbivore. If they could only move their jaw side to side, their mouths wouldn't open.

We most closely resemble which wild animals? Apes maybe? They eat a mostly plant diet.

You're right, comparative anatomy doesn't tell us much. I was just pointing out that humans are anything but carnivores. And as humans are biologically omnivores, it is as reasonable to compare humans to herbivores as it is to compare humans to carnivores... which you've just done in the exact same way I did.

Protein and creatin. Eating them from soya is unrealistic for three reasons:
1)Creatin is meat-only.
2)The carb content of meat is low in contrast to soya, meaning meat is better for a balanced diet.
3)There is not enough land to feed everyone on non-meat products, not to mention the CO2 produced by such a vast amount of plants. I know cattle produce a lot of CO2 and methane, but beef isn't the only animal. This is just speculation but nevertheless a worthwhile potential issue to mention.

1) Creatin, if it shows up short in bloodwork, is easy to supplement and almost half of what humans need is produced by their own bodies.
2) Soy is not the only reliable source of protein from plants. Even if it were, your statement is only true in terms of a weight-loss program.
3) The first part is not accurate and if the second part were true, cutting down the rainforest would be a good thing for global warming.

Soy or soya is not the only "meat substitute." An ideal omnivore human diet requires very little meat, but requires a great deal of variety in foods--none of it processed. Anyway, most vegans and vegetarians are not following their diets only for health reasons. It is largely about not taking part in an industry that maintains many practices they find upsetting, disturbing, and wrong.

The best thing you can do for your body and the environment with your diet, veggie or not, is eat as many locally grown, in-season foods as possible.

 

[Sateru]

I personally think the "You can't love animals if you're not a vegetarian" debate to be idiotic. However, I'm enjoying this debate on human evolution and our ancestors.

Humans are largely omnivorous, but to lump us all together into one generalized group is idiotic to say the least. Humans as a whole were largely dependent on their environment, and what they were able to acquire in such locations. Some had more plants in their diet than meat, but there were others that had the opposite situation. It largely consisted of what they could gather or kill. There were nomadic tribes, and colonies that settled onto one specific location. Some that relied on the seasons, or migratory patterns of their prey to survive. We're purely opportunistic though... humans lived in a time where food was scarce, or hard to time by... The time where each day could be your last, and where there was a chance where you could be the predator, or the prey. Humans didn't restrict themselves purely by their dietary habits, but by what they could get and what they could find.

We're not purely carnivores, but we're not purely herbivores either. We're opportunistic omnivores.

 

[Chris OBrien]

I personally think the "You can't love animals if you're not a vegetarian" debate to be idiotic. However, I'm enjoying this debate on human evolution and our ancestors.

Humans are largely omnivorous, but to lump us all together into one generalized group is idiotic to say the least. Humans as a whole were largely dependent on their environment, and what they were able to acquire in such locations. Some had more plants in their diet than meat, but there were others that had the opposite situation. It largely consisted of what they could gather or kill. There were nomadic tribes, and colonies that settled onto one specific location. Some that relied on the seasons, or migratory patterns of their prey to survive. We're purely opportunistic though... humans lived in a time where food was scarce, or hard to time by... The time where each day could be your last, and where there was a chance where you could be the predator, or the prey. Humans didn't restrict themselves purely by their dietary habits, but by what they could get and what they could find.

We're not purely carnivores, but we're not purely herbivores either. We're opportunistic omnivores.

As that is no longer the human experience, how should we behave?

 

[Torrasque]

As a rule, I don't post things I see on facebook here on the Escapist. The only people I talk to on facebook are people I get along with, and even then, there is a lot of bullshit and stupidity on facebook. The only thing that I bring from facebook, are the things that I see on facebook, look into myself, and then go "well that is interesting/stupid/what the fuck", or discussions I have with friends on facebook. But I treat those discussions as if I am talking to them in person, so I could just say, "so I was talking with my friend about..." so yeah.

As for this topic, I see there are 12 pages that I am not about to read.
I love cats and other cute animals, and I love eating steak and bacon. I don't get a stirring urge to eat cats when I see them, and I don't salivate when I see pigs. I make the distinction between food and living animal, because the food is dead animal. It is a slight difference and if pressured, I'd have to change my distinction, but it is good enough for me. I think the person making the argument you're describing, is an idiot. Arguments like that on facebook, are the kinds I love to walk into with my troll hat and bag of tricks.

 

[Chris OBrien]

As a rule, I don't post things I see on facebook here on the Escapist. The only people I talk to on facebook are people I get along with, and even then, there is a lot of bullshit and stupidity on facebook. The only thing that I bring from facebook, are the things that I see on facebook, look into myself, and then go "well that is interesting/stupid/what the fuck", or discussions I have with friends on facebook. But I treat those discussions as if I am talking to them in person, so I could just say, "so I was talking with my friend about..." so yeah.

As for this topic, I see there are 12 pages that I am not about to read.
I love cats and other cute animals, and I love eating steak and bacon. I don't get a stirring urge to eat cats when I see them, and I don't salivate when I see pigs. I make the distinction between food and living animal, because the food is dead animal. It is a slight difference and if pressured, I'd have to change my distinction, but it is good enough for me. I think the person making the argument you're describing, is an idiot. Arguments like that on facebook, are the kinds I love to walk into with my troll hat and bag of tricks.

I think they're probably being stupid, but it is interesting to take a look at how we understand love.

 

[dementis]

The extreme to which they took that argument was idiotic. However, I would be lying if I said that it has never pissed me off how some people can gorge themselves silly on meat without a care in the world, but will recoil in disgust if they're ever told to do so much as pluck a chicken. I mean really, how hypocritical can you get? You want to be an omnivore? Be an omnivore. But don't then act like the farmer who has to cut Miss Piggy's throat in order to put yet another bacon roll in front of you is some kind of brute.

Half the fun of eating meat is preparing it.

OT: It's obviously nonsense to say that only vegetarians love animals, I was crushed when the cat I'd cared for since it was born was hit by a car. Sure as hell doesn't mean I won't try to eat my own body weight in steak though.

 

[Sateru]

As that is no longer the human experience, how should we behave?

I have not much of an opinion on that regard. We're living on a mostly carbohydrate-fueled diet at the moment in America. Carbs and Fat being our top two food stuffs here. Of course, obesity is another staggering high as well. Right now, as a society here... we're still struggling to find our feet in terms of what is a healthy diet, what would be better to have in higher quantities than others. The human body can burn fat for energy through ketosis, and it can burn carbohydrates as well. The body is lazy though, it will much rather burn the easier carbohydrates than the fat if it can. The rest is stored, something in our past was necessary to ensure we could rough out periods of no food without starving to death. However, it is working against some of us.

So... I'm at a loss.

 

[Torrasque]

As a rule, I don't post things I see on facebook here on the Escapist. The only people I talk to on facebook are people I get along with, and even then, there is a lot of bullshit and stupidity on facebook. The only thing that I bring from facebook, are the things that I see on facebook, look into myself, and then go "well that is interesting/stupid/what the fuck", or discussions I have with friends on facebook. But I treat those discussions as if I am talking to them in person, so I could just say, "so I was talking with my friend about..." so yeah.

As for this topic, I see there are 12 pages that I am not about to read.
I love cats and other cute animals, and I love eating steak and bacon. I don't get a stirring urge to eat cats when I see them, and I don't salivate when I see pigs. I make the distinction between food and living animal, because the food is dead animal. It is a slight difference and if pressured, I'd have to change my distinction, but it is good enough for me. I think the person making the argument you're describing, is an idiot. Arguments like that on facebook, are the kinds I love to walk into with my troll hat and bag of tricks.

I think they're probably being stupid, but it is interesting to take a look at how we understand love.

Nope. I am not touching that subject with a 39 1/2 inch pole.
I really enjoy talking about philosophy and metaphorical stuff, but I refuse to talk about love. Love is so ridiculously hard to define, there are so many different forms that agree/disagree with each other, and the motivations are so random sometimes.

I would rather argue why Halo is a better shooter than Counter Strike, with someone who's only ever played MW3 and Gears of War 2.