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

[tofulove]

i love animals, i also love eating them. scavenging meat than hunting for it greatly effected our evolution, giving us the protein / calories rich diet that allowed for better brain development.

i think factor farms are cruel. one day though we will be able to grow our meat with out torturing animals in the process.

 

[tofulove]

This one time a fussy-eater referred to me as an 'animal' for eating meat.

To this day I still don't see the problem that person had with me eating another animal therefore I conclude that the person must hate all animals that eat meat. (Which is a lot of animals)

Lions, cats, dogs, bears, crocodiles and (some) birds and a lot of other animals all eat meat. So why can't we?

but you are an animal. an animal who happens to eat meat! all he/she was doing is telling you what you already know.

 

[CarlMin]

Okay, so this can really be narrowed down to a semantical issue.

Does "love animals" include all animals or just a selected number of species? If the answer is all animals: no, you can't claim to love while at the same time kill and eat what you love if you have the choice not to. The very notion is preposterous. I can't claim to love puppies while eating puppies. I can't claim to have love children while eating children. You don't have to think long before realizing that one can't possible claim to have a platonic affection for a living being that you also wouldn't mind chewing and digesting.

But if you by animals mean "dogs, cats and horses" then you can probably say it without being too hypocritical.

 

[Lugbzurg]

Well, it seems a lot of people have made the obvious points that animals eat meat, and we can still like plants while eating them. But there is one thing I've always thought since I was a child.

Jesus ate meat, and got others to do so. He even helped some guys catch an uber-huge bunch of fish just to prove a point to who he is.

 

[wulfy42]

I "generally" don't eat animals I love.

Never had cat (that I know of) for instance....at least not on purpose.

Shark though? I'd eat em all day.

I hate most insects...but I don't eat them.

Love of an animal type, and the ability to eat it...really isn't the same.

If I was hungry enough and I caught a stray cat....I'd cook it and eat it. I wouldn't eat my pet cat though, not even if I was starving.

I don't love animals in general though..so that is true. If you unconditionally love all animals then yeah, you probably wouldn't eat any of em.

But most of us do not in fact, love all animals unconditionally.

I happen to love how cows taste for instance. I wouldn't have a pet cow...because I'd be thinking "you look seriously yummy" too much.

 

[Warachia]

Okay, so this can really be narrowed down to a semantical issue.

Does "love animals" include all animals or just a selected number of species? If the answer is all animals: no, you can't claim to love while at the same time kill and eat what you love if you have the choice not to. The very notion is preposterous. I can't claim to love puppies while eating puppies. I can't claim to have love children while eating children. You don't have to think long before realizing that one can't possible claim to have a platonic affection for a living being that you also wouldn't mind chewing and digesting.

But if you by animals mean "dogs, cats and horses" then you can probably say it without being too hypocritical.

Yes, you can love the things you eat, sometimes you can make it a little complicated, for example, one person I knew had cows that he had to have someone else kill because he couldn't. There are plenty of people who raise and love pigs, and then eat ham, some friends I know had cows and chickens that they'd raise and then sell their meat, I can't see why you say that it has to be one or the other.

 

[Souplex]

I love animals.
They're delicious.
Vegetarians don't seem to understand my love.

 

[Starbird]

I've never killed an animal in my life. The meat industry is not going to stop if I stopped eating meat. Which I wont anyway, for various reasons.

This is the only thing I'm going to respond to:

You should do things based on whether or not they're right or wrong, not whether not all evil on earth will stop if you do them. The rape culture will continue going strong despite the fact that I don't rape women. That doesn't give me the right to continue doing it. Slavery is still going to drive the world's economy despite the fact that I don't buy shit made by unpaid labor. That doesn't mean that I should just give up.

So do whatever you want; you're right that what you eat won't make a huge difference in the long run. But I guarantee that what does make a big difference in the long run is whether or not people decide to do what's right even if they can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Have a nice day, seriously.

Okay then, let me turn this one around then.

So you are saying that eating animal meat is an objective wrong? Or that harming animals is an objective wrong?

Let's say you were starving on an island. There was no edible fruit, but there were wild pigs. You would actually starve rather than kill and eat one?

 

[peruvianskys]

Okay then, let me turn this one around then.

So you are saying that eating animal meat is an objective wrong? Or that harming animals is an objective wrong?

Let's say you were starving on an island. There was no edible fruit, but there were wild pigs. You would actually starve rather than kill and eat one?

If necessity dictated it, I would kill, just as animals kill when necessity dictates it.

However, necessity has not dictated the consumption of meat for hundreds of years in many places, and certainly today the number of cases where meat consumption can be justified in a life-or-death situation is infinitesimally low.

 

[Gavmando]

As a vegetarian, I feel qualified to give you this advice:
Punch the person who said it in the mouth so it will shut them up. Then tell them to stop giving all the other vegos a bad name.

A few points to consider:
-Children dont need meat in their diet to grow up healthy.
-IMO, if it was a moral choice, choosing to be a vego means you have to live with that choice. You follow through with it. Even to your detriment if that's the course it takes.
-Pushing your vego beliefs on people is just like pushing a religious belief on someone. It's wrong and should be sorted out with my advice above.
-If, as a vego, you look down on others for eating meat, then you have missed the point of PERSONAL CHOICE.
-Being a vego is not healthy for everyone.
-You can eat animals and still love them.

I believe that everyone should see how farm animals are raised, slaughtered and prepared for consumption. Not to make them vegos, but to make people more aware of what they're putting in their bodies. Let people see what grain and maize does to a cow and the impact it has on the environment compared to a grass fed cow. Let them see what is fed to chickens in battery farms and the conditions they endure. And people should be a horrified as I was when I saw a news article recently about a feed shortage in the US for livestock, so they've started buying things like gummi bears to feed their animals. People are going to be buying and eating unhealthy meat. Do they really think that's a good idea in the worlds fattest country?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

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.

I can't remember exactly where I read it, but I'm fairly certain that if you hold a very sensitive microphone near to a plant as it's being cut it let's out a high pitched noise... kind of like a... scream?

WHAT WILL YOU EAT NOW VEGANS?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I love animals, I also love eating animals. Humans are omnivores, we will eat whatever we can.

Captcha: never quit

BUT IT'S STOPTOBER CAPTCHA. I'VE BEEN PROMISED FOOD AND MONEY IF I GIVE UP FOR A MONTH D:

 

[manic_depressive13]

I've never killed an animal in my life. The meat industry is not going to stop if I stopped eating meat. Which I wont anyway, for various reasons.

This is the only thing I'm going to respond to:

You should do things based on whether or not they're right or wrong, not whether not all evil on earth will stop if you do them. The rape culture will continue going strong despite the fact that I don't rape women. That doesn't give me the right to continue doing it. Slavery is still going to drive the world's economy despite the fact that I don't buy shit made by unpaid labor. That doesn't mean that I should just give up.

So do whatever you want; you're right that what you eat won't make a huge difference in the long run. But I guarantee that what does make a big difference in the long run is whether or not people decide to do what's right even if they can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Have a nice day, seriously.

Okay then, let me turn this one around then.

So you are saying that eating animal meat is an objective wrong? Or that harming animals is an objective wrong?

Let's say you were starving on an island. There was no edible fruit, but there were wild pigs. You would actually starve rather than kill and eat one?

Peruvian never said killing or harming animals is objectively wrong. That line of argument is completely fucking meaningless. Nothing is objectively wrong. Why not hurt or murder other humans, or keep slaves? None of these things are objectively wrong. There won't be any karma or divine justice. The majority of people simply have the capacity to empathise and realise this isn't something they wish to inflict on others. They have put laws in place to deter and punish those who may lack such an ability to empathise.

Incidentally, I personally would rather starve than kill a pig. However, let's not pretend that killing an animal because your life depends on it, and gorging yourself on bacon in a first world country with hundreds of protein alternatives available to you, are in any way equivalent. I imagine plenty of people would kill a human if their lives absolutely depended on it, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that murder, in general and without real need, is wrong.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The counterargument is simple: there are plenty of people I hate. That I hate some doesn't mean I'm incapable of love. Or, to put it another way, I've never made a habit of eating an animal that I'd like to keep as a pet. Cows are delicious and make for poor pets. Dogs might be delicious but their value as a pet is more important than making a few meals of one.

In the end, the distinction is arbitrary - who's your food, who's your pet, who's your lover. Draw the line where it seems right. Society will be sure to let you know if it seems terribly strange.

 

[Starbird]

Okay then, let me turn this one around then.

So you are saying that eating animal meat is an objective wrong? Or that harming animals is an objective wrong?

Let's say you were starving on an island. There was no edible fruit, but there were wild pigs. You would actually starve rather than kill and eat one?

If necessity dictated it, I would kill, just as animals kill when necessity dictates it.

However, necessity has not dictated the consumption of meat for hundreds of years in many places, and certainly today the number of cases where meat consumption can be justified in a life-or-death situation is infinitesimally low.

So, just to clarify, your position is that it's wrong to harm animals when we have any other option, even if doing so means some discomfort/inconvinience to humans?

I've never killed an animal in my life. The meat industry is not going to stop if I stopped eating meat. Which I wont anyway, for various reasons.

This is the only thing I'm going to respond to:

You should do things based on whether or not they're right or wrong, not whether not all evil on earth will stop if you do them. The rape culture will continue going strong despite the fact that I don't rape women. That doesn't give me the right to continue doing it. Slavery is still going to drive the world's economy despite the fact that I don't buy shit made by unpaid labor. That doesn't mean that I should just give up.

So do whatever you want; you're right that what you eat won't make a huge difference in the long run. But I guarantee that what does make a big difference in the long run is whether or not people decide to do what's right even if they can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Have a nice day, seriously.

Okay then, let me turn this one around then.

So you are saying that eating animal meat is an objective wrong? Or that harming animals is an objective wrong?

Let's say you were starving on an island. There was no edible fruit, but there were wild pigs. You would actually starve rather than kill and eat one?

Peruvian never said killing or harming animals is objectively wrong. That line of argument is completely fucking meaningless. Nothing is objectively wrong. Why not hurt or murder other humans, or keep slaves? None of these things are objectively wrong. There won't be any karma or divine justice. The majority of people simply have the capacity to empathise and realise this isn't something they wish to inflict on others. They have put laws in place to deter and punish those who may lack such an ability to empathise.

Incidentally, I personally would rather starve than kill a pig. However, let's not pretend that killing an animal because your life depends on it, and gorging yourself on bacon in a first world country with hundreds of protein alternatives available to you, are in any way equivalent. I imagine plenty of people would kill a human if their lives absolutely depended on it, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that murder, in general and without real need, is wrong.

You misunderstand me.

What I was trying to clarify is whether the more militant vego's in this thread believe that:
A) Eating meat is wrong under any circumstances.
B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).
C) It's okay to cause discomfort/harm to animals, but not for the sake of food.
D) Something else.

Because there are massive problems with A-C.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

"No, Lisa, this is lamb. Not a lamb."

 

[Starbird]

However, necessity has not dictated the consumption of meat for hundreds of years in many places, and certainly today the number of cases where meat consumption can be justified in a life-or-death situation is infinitesimally low.

But that's just the thing.

In most first world countries, mere survival is not our major concern anymore. For the most part, convinience is the name of the game. And for the most part, our convinience comes at the expense of the earth and naturally animals.

I mean, just think about the computer you are currently typing on. The power it requires necessitates power plants. The components involve complicated chemical/manufacturing processes. Not to mention the fuel required to transport everything about before it arrived at your home. All of this pollutes, deforests and causes a great deal of harm to various animals.

I can promise that, net, you've likely killed a large number of animals indirectly simply by making your post ^_^.

 

[manic_depressive13]

You misunderstand me.

What I was trying to clarify is whether the more militant vego's in this thread believe that:
A) Eating meat is wrong under any circumstances.
B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).
C) It's okay to cause discomfort/harm to animals, but not for the sake of food.
D) Something else.

Because there are massive problems with A-C.

I didn't misunderstand. In fact, I answered all those questions. As a "militant vego" I will repeat myself for your sake.

A) No, it isn't wrong in every circumstance. There are situations where it is justified, such as when it is necessary for survival. However, I don't believe there is anyone on this website who absolutely must eat meat in order to survive.
B) Yes, I think the lives of animals are more important than a mild inconvenience.
C) Not if there is an alternative, and chances are, whatever you're thinking, there is an alternative.
D) Yeah.

I don't see the massive problem.

 

[peruvianskys]

So, just to clarify, your position is that it's wrong to harm animals when we have any other option, even if doing so means some discomfort/inconvinience to humans?

My view is that killing something unless it is absolutely necessary is shitty and wrong, and that it is probably better to die than kill anyway.

What I was trying to clarify is whether the more militant vego's in this thread believe that:
A) Eating meat is wrong under any circumstances.
B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).
C) It's okay to cause discomfort/harm to animals, but not for the sake of food.
D) Something else.

Because there are massive problems with A-C.

I believe that animals, like humans, exist for their own sake and not as tools for the pleasure of other beings. That means I don't think it's okay to kill them, just as I wish that no one kill me.

 

[Starbird]

You misunderstand me.

What I was trying to clarify is whether the more militant vego's in this thread believe that:
A) Eating meat is wrong under any circumstances.
B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).
C) It's okay to cause discomfort/harm to animals, but not for the sake of food.
D) Something else.

Because there are massive problems with A-C.

I didn't misunderstand. In fact, I answered all those questions. As a "militant vego" I will repeat myself for your sake.

A) No, it isn't wrong in every circumstance. There are situations where it is justified, such as when it is necessary for survival. However, I don't believe there is anyone on this website who absolutely must eat meat in order to survive.
B) Yes, I think the lives of animals are more important than a mild inconvenience.
C) Not if there is an alternative, and chances are, whatever you're thinking, there is an alternative.
D) Yeah.

I don't see the massive problem.

Do you drive a car? Do you eat artificial foods? How about sugar? Chocolate?

I can find environmentally destructive processes in all of these, probably on average killing far more animals than me enjoying a delicious plate of gyusashi does.

The fact is - while we shouldn't kill animals wantonly or for the pleasure of the kill, and we certainly should take care of endangered species, livestock and similar are a part of modern culture - much like motor vehicles, airplanes, computers, purified water, coffee and chocolate.

Unless you are going to live in a powerless, waterless cave somewhere and live off yams, chances are that you are killing animals directly or indirectly that you could possibly avoid.

And yet you choose not to. Shame on you!

My view is that killing something unless it is absolutely necessary is shitty and wrong, and that it is probably better to die than kill anyway.

Out of interest, do you count insects and fish as animals?