Meat is Murder?

[wilmamozzer]

Well I would say Meat is murder. I just want to hear if all mozzers are vegetarians, if not why? And if you are, do you have anything smart I can say to people who eat meat. Cos I really tried to make them understand but they really love their steak. And I doubt most of them will ever understand.

[Kimpa]

I would never give up meat because of Morrissey.

[wilmamozzer]

Ok, but why do you eat meat? I became a vegetarian long before I even heard of Moz, but I belive what he says is true.

[Kimpa]

Well, i just like meat. I never think about the fact that animals get killed because. And in "propaganda" documentaries about animal slaughtering, i just cant feel sorry for them. I have a friend says that he rather kill people than animals. But he is like Mr. Mcdonalds and eat there a lot:p

[Young And Alive]

I eat meat. I don't recognise animals as being on the same moral scale as humans.

I take it then that no vegetarians have ever killed an insect then? To those that have - well, how is this any better than killing a cow or lamb etc.?

I love Morrissey but his militant stance against scientists researching possible cures against diseases is just plain wrong. Unless Moz himself can come up with a better solution which we could use to cure illnesses then I suggest he keep his trap shut on the subject.

[wilmamozzer]

well what can I say, you have your opinion but I think that eating meat just cos you like it is a bit wrong. I can never fully understand that but you cant know everything can you? I would really like to hear a better reason to eat meat than that you like it. I have thought about it but I cant come up with anything.

[Inept]

Yes, Meat IS Murder, yet I am not a vegetarian.
I am able to comprehend the savagery of eating meat, but still include it in my diet because I am pre-diabetic and have been told by many doctors that I need to rely on a protein heavy diet. Sorry, soy-based products act as synthetic hormones and I can't have those either.
I try to purchase organic, grass fed, free range type meat, and yes I feel very guilty at times.
I do not think that the animal slaughtering videos are "propaganda."
They are merely informative for those who have no idea of how their food arrives on their plate.

[esheh195]

Well I would say Meat is murder. I just want to hear if all mozzers are vegetarians, if not why? And if you are, do you have anything smart I can say to people who eat meat. Cos I really tried to make them understand but they really love their steak. And I doubt most of them will ever understand.

Yes. We are all vegetarians. We also all wear Gucci suits, have our hair in pompadours and are mysteriously aloof about our sexuality. :rolleyes:;)
Seriously though, 'all' is a strong statement, don't you think?
Now, I'm sure you feel strongly about your beliefs in vegetarianism...but why try to 'make them understand'? People will come to their own realizations. If you are so determined to covert these evil meat eaters, you are much better leading by example not by preaching and being so heavyhanded. You can lure more flies with honey than you can with vinegar, you know. Don't go on and on about meat being murder and complaining about what they are doing...simply continue living the lifestyle that makes you happy...maybe they'll see how happy you are and think to themselves...'hmm...maybe he's onto something.'
I tried vegetarianism for a while and it's not for me. But I know that when people tried to convert me...I naturally rebelled. But when I was merely exposed to kind, understanding, happy people who were vegetarian...I decided I would give it a shot.

[wilmamozzer]

Isn't there any vegetarians who like moz (not to eat), I thought it would be....

[EPbabe]

Well, I'm only human. And humans are omnivores. Oh well, enough said.

[esheh195]

well what can I say, you have your opinion but I think that eating meat just cos you like it is a bit wrong. I can never fully understand that but you cant know everything can you? I would really like to hear a better reason to eat meat than that you like it. I have thought about it but I cant come up with anything.

Want a nice debate on the topic...go to good old Buzzetta's comments on this thread :) http://forums.morrissey-solo.com/showthread.php?t=81787

[wilmamozzer]

well esheh is problaly right about the whole thing about convincing people. But they are trying to force me to eat meat so what can I do.

[esheh195]

well esheh are problaly right about the whole thing about convincing people. But they are trying to force me to eat meat so what can I do.

How can anyone force you to eat meat? Is this family that you are talking about or friends? I mean with friends...just remember that 'No' is a complete sentence. Family is tougher though, especially if you are young. I'm not experienced in that kind of situation though. So, I'm not the best one to give advice.
"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?" :D;)

[underdog99]

Well, I'm only human. And humans are omnivores.

yes humans are omnivores, we have a choice to eat meat or plants. The choice humans make have to fit into the system that already exists in nature, and in my opinion that means humans cannot cut down other forms of life, when we can live all the same without that. But I listen to way too much Shelter, and Propagandhi anyway so I'm a bit biased. :cool:

[wilmamozzer]

well my parents dont eat meat either so thats no problem. But my classmates who isn't really my friends they go hunting on the weekends and they just cant stop talking about it. Well its not like they can change my mind but they are trying. And thats irretating, they are all so trying to stop me from listening to the smiths and morrissey.

[EPbabe]

yes humans are omnivores, we have a choice to eat meat or plants.

Oh that's great news. Well, I have made mine: I remain an omnivore :cool:

[lottie]

Wilmamozzer,
sounds ot me like you need to find some new 'real' friends, because a true friend would respect your belief and leave you to get on with it.
I am a veggie, and not because of Moz, but it does help that he thinks exactly the way i do about it all, it is perhaps one of the main reasons i love him so, i could NEVER have this much respect/admiration for a meat eater, be they the worlds greatest pop star/poet or whatever i just couldnt.
:)

[Kimpa]

well my parents dont eat meat either so thats no problem. But my classmates who isn't really my friends they go hunting on the weekends and they just cant stop talking about it. Well its not like they can change my mind but they are trying. And thats irretating, they are all so trying to stop me from listening to the smiths and morrissey.

How old are you? sounds like your classmates is idiots. My classmates doesnt thrash Morrissey or The smiths, They just listen to some shitty new music..

[EPbabe]

Wilmamozzer,
sounds to me like you need to find some new 'real' friends, because a true friend would respect your belief and leave you to get on with it.

:)

I couldn't agree with you more on that. :)

[wilmamozzer]

well lottie, I have real friends to, and they are fine with me being a veggie one of them are it to. But the people in my class are the one who are against everything I like, but to tell you the truth I am agianst everything they like so I guess I will have to deal with it.

[wilmamozzer]

How old are you? sounds like your classmates is idiots. My classmates doesnt thrash Morrissey or The smiths, They just listen to some shitty new music..

I am 15, so that can explain things.

[lottie]

well lottie, I have real friends to, and they are fine with me being a veggie one of them are it to. But the people in my class are the one who are against everything I like, but to tell you the truth I am agianst everything they like so I guess I will have to deal with it.

what is it with everyone being touchy today,
i never meant you dont have real friends what i understood from your posts was that it was your friends being like this... so my mistake, just ignore your classmates, you don't need their approval, you are beter than them in so many ways, just live your life and cherish the friends that are true to you. :)

[nugz]

I'm not vegetarian, but I dont care if someone else is. just dont try to force your beliefs onto me. Although I have to say that if you dont think humans are "above" animals, thats just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. sorry.

[Kimpa]

I am 15, so that can explain things.

Yes, i could but if i were you i would probobly change class. People would probobly suggest that you maybe should talk to the principal (well in here in sweden everybody would suggest that) but i doesnt work. But if your friends goes to the same school as you, couldnt you change class?

[wilmamozzer]

Well I thought of changing class, but im goíng in the ninth grade and I am hoping for a brighter future in high school. Theres a school called Södra Latin wich has a roumor to be the home for people like me. and lottie thanks for the advice.

[mozzia]

I'm a vegetarian, ever since watching a video a few months ago which had a massive effect on me. It was accompanied by the Meat is Murder song....a song which i had listened to and which had made me consider the wrongs and rights of eating meat, but which had never been enough to change my mind. But this video made me cry, shake and feel sick, and put me off eating meat, and made me feel terrible for the animals sufferings.
I don't find the eating of the meat the most important thing, more the way the animals are treated before they become meat.
I think everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions on this matter, and are in no way better or worse than anyone else for the opinions they hold. Not eating meat doesn't instantly make you a good person, just as eating meat doesn't instantly make you a bad person.
And I don't think its right to try to make people feel bad for their views.

[Flax]

I'm not vegetarian, but I dont care if someone else is. just dont try to force your beliefs onto me. Although I have to say that if you dont think humans are "above" animals, thats just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. sorry.

- Vegetarianism is not a belief.
- Just because you assume that humans are "above" animals, that doesn't give you the right to torture and slaughter them simply to satisfy your appetite or to make you look cool in a fur coat. It's violence and we all know it.

But that's ok... eating meat is legal so there is nothing we can do about it, other than showing them the obvious.

I can say that I can eat an apple, talk about it and watch a video of that very same apple being picked, being put in a truck, going to the store and coming to my table WHILE I eat it.

You can't do the same with meat.

[dzhemini]

I am a veggie, and not because of Moz, but it does help that he thinks exactly the way i do about it all, it is perhaps one of the main reasons i love him so, i could NEVER have this much respect/admiration for a meat eater, be they the worlds greatest pop star/poet or whatever i just couldnt.
:)

Well said! I am a vegetarian, and has been for 8 years, but Morrissey has nothing to do with it. When I became vegetarian I didn't even know who Morrissey was.
But I'm happy that we have the same views about this. I don't think I could respect him and love him the way I do if he was a meat eater.

[Kimpa]

Well I thought of changing class, but im goíng in the ninth grade and I am hoping for a brighter future in high school. Theres a school called Södra Latin wich has a roumor to be the home for people like me. and lottie thanks for the advice.

Well, then its only to hang out there. But that must mean that you are from stockholm?, You make it sound like you a outcast. Your not.
Well this is kinda off-topic..

[esheh195]

- Vegetarianism is not a belief.

True enough. :)


that doesn't give you the right to torture and slaughter them simply to satisfy your appetite or to make you look cool in a fur coat. It's violence and we all know it.

But this is. ;)

[meat_is_murder19]

Im a veggie all my dads side of the family are veggies they are also big animal rights activists.you can`t force people your own beliefs down everyones throats thier are people in this world who will never stop eating meat you just have to learn to live with it.

[underdog99]

I'm not vegetarian, but I dont care if someone else is. just dont try to force your beliefs onto me. Although I have to say that if you dont think humans are "above" animals, thats just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. sorry.

yes humans are above animals in the sense that we're more intelligent/powerful etc.

But if you believe that there is a certain order to nature, and if you believe in the studies of Darwin, then you have to agree with the idea that humans have to fit into that order, and not bring it down. After all, humans are the most adaptive creatures on earth, its our greatest strength.

but this is again all what I believe, it makes sense to me

[applebuttaz]

if its good i eat it, if its bad i dont eat it thats my philosophy jaja:p

[nogodsnomasters85]

I simply have never heard a philosophically sound argument for it. Some say "All life is sacred" which sounds nice but is really hippie crap and total nonsense, what about rodents, insects, yeast, or bacteria and diseases, all are life, and many veggos/vegans don't care about them. Secondly the insinuation that simply eating meat is a predecessor to violence is a load of crap, hitler was a vegetarian. Violence is a maladjusted behaviorism when it is used indiscriminately or inappropriately, and there IS an appropriate use for violence. And calling meat murder is nothing more than empty sloganeering, anyone who truly believes that is RETARDED. I have to prepare lobsters at my work, I don't like but I have to and I am DAMN sure that doing this in no way makes me capable of killing a child, or any other innocent person. I'm all for protecting animals, the ones who's ecosystems are being destroyed, but these animals are deliberately raised for food, the population remains unharmed. Not to mention the fact that humans are naturally omnivores, meat and dairy are some of the best sources of proteins and fats and calories to keep us healthy and alive, ESPECIALLY young children for whom adequate nutrition is much more important.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

I HATE meat. :cool:

[Buzzetta]

I'm not vegetarian, but I dont care if someone else is. just dont try to force your beliefs onto me. Although I have to say that if you dont think humans are "above" animals, thats just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. sorry.

Do I have to go out and take a new set of pictures for this thread as well? Its almost as if "Off Topic" is the red headed step child to "General Discussion"

[Buzzetta]

I simply have never heard a philosophically sound argument for it. Some say "All life is sacred" which sounds nice but is really hippie crap and total nonsense, what about rodents, insects, yeast, or bacteria and diseases, all are life, and many veggos/vegans don't care about them. Secondly the insinuation that simply eating meat is a predecessor to violence is a load of crap, hitler was a vegetarian. Violence is a maladjusted behaviorism when it is used indiscriminately or inappropriately, and there IS an appropriate use for violence. And calling meat murder is nothing more than empty sloganeering, anyone who truly believes that is RETARDED. I have to prepare lobsters at my work, I don't like but I have to and I am DAMN sure that doing this in no way makes me capable of killing a child, or any other innocent person. I'm all for protecting animals, the ones who's ecosystems are being destroyed, but these animals are deliberately raised for food, the population remains unharmed. Not to mention the fact that humans are naturally omnivores, meat and dairy are some of the best sources of proteins and fats and calories to keep us healthy and alive, ESPECIALLY young children for whom adequate nutrition is much more important.

Food Source....

[Flax]

I simply have never heard a philosophically sound argument for it. Some say "All life is sacred" which sounds nice but is really hippie crap and total nonsense, what about rodents, insects, yeast, or bacteria and diseases, all are life, and many veggos/vegans don't care about them. Secondly the insinuation that simply eating meat is a predecessor to violence is a load of crap, hitler was a vegetarian. Violence is a maladjusted behaviorism when it is used indiscriminately or inappropriately, and there IS an appropriate use for violence. And calling meat murder is nothing more than empty sloganeering, anyone who truly believes that is RETARDED. I have to prepare lobsters at my work, I don't like but I have to and I am DAMN sure that doing this in no way makes me capable of killing a child, or any other innocent person. I'm all for protecting animals, the ones who's ecosystems are being destroyed, but these animals are deliberately raised for food, the population remains unharmed. Not to mention the fact that humans are naturally omnivores, meat and dairy are some of the best sources of proteins and fats and calories to keep us healthy and alive, ESPECIALLY young children for whom adequate nutrition is much more important.

The industry wants you to believe that meat and dairy are the best sources of protein. Wrong. You've been brainwashed.

Humans don't need proteins. We need amino acids. Proteins are chains of amino acids, however, on meat you can only find 12 and on vegetables you can find the 20 we all need. Therefore you can eat a truck of meat a day and still not have enough proteins in your diet.

Milk? Humans are the only mammals that drink milk after infancy. But again, the industry wants to make you believe that you have to consume dairy otherwise your bones will crack and you will die.

And yeah, young children need milk from their mothers. Not from a cow, who produces milk to an animal that has FOUR stomachs.

So many humans drink milk out of fear. And they eat meat out of fear. Because the industry makes you believe. And you become a slave of their product because you can't survive without it.

This might be your job but boiling lobsters alive is cruel. Is that your appropriate use of violence?

I am proud that there is no coagulated blood in my plate. Break free.

And by the way, meat is murder.

[nugz]

Do I have to go out and take a new set of pictures for this thread as well? Its almost as if "Off Topic" is the red headed step child to "General Discussion"

wait, what? sorry, im a little drunk. I'm not completely understanding what you were saying? :o

[Buzzetta]

So many humans drink milk out of fear. And they eat meat out of fear. Because the industry makes you believe. And you become a slave of their product because you can't survive without it.

This might be your job but boiling lobsters alive is cruel. Is that your appropriate use of violence?

I am proud that there is no coagulated blood in my plate. Break free.

And by the way, meat is murder.

I drink milk because it tastes incredibly wonderful with Toll House Chocolate Chip Cookies. If you want I will make a batch right now. I have a roll in my fridge that is screaming to be freed from the confines of it's yellow plastic.

I eat lobster because it is a food source.

Meat that is bred for the purpose of being a food source is not murder it's a food source. You are welcome to come to the bastardized forum known as "other topic" and jump right in. Just make sure that you have read all of Morrissey the 23rd's and my posts regarding each side of the debate so we dont have to repeat ourselves.

[Buzzetta]

wait, what? sorry, im a little drunk. I'm not completely understanding what you were saying? :o

How the last time someone (hint: they dress like the hobo clown - do a google image search or ask bogdana to know what I mean) posted her vegetarian rants I went to McDonalds and took pictures of my cheeseburger consumption.

[nugz]

How the last time someone (hint: they dress like the hobo clown - do a google image search or ask bogdana to know what I mean) posted her vegetarian rants I went to McDonalds and took pictures of my cheeseburger consumption.

ahhhh, yes! you know, when i saw those pictures i fuckin LOLed like i havent LOLed in a long time. thank you for that! :D

[Flax]

And by the way, the "They are raised for it" argument is useless.

You can use that for anything but it wouldn't justify.

If that were a valid argument, you could use that for slavery. What's the matter with exploiting, beating up, raping people? They were raised for it.

Oh yeah, but we all know what happens now. You go back to the argument "but humans are more important than animals". So just before I hear that again: Importance has nothing to do with unnecessary killing and suffering.

What's left? Blood on your plate I guess.

[nugz]

And by the way, the "They are raised for it" argument is useless.

You can use that for anything but it wouldn't justify.

If that were a valid argument, you could use that for slavery. What's the matter with exploiting, beating up, raping people? They were raised for it.

Oh yeah, but we all know what happens now. You go back to the argument "but humans are more important than animals". So just before I hear that again: Importance has nothing to do with unnecessary killing and suffering.

What's left? Blood on your plate I guess.

no blood. i like my steak well done.

[Buzzetta]

And by the way, the "They are raised for it" argument is useless.

You can use that for anything but it wouldn't justify.

If that were a valid argument, you could use that for slavery. What's the matter with exploiting, beating up, raping people? They were raised for it.

Oh yeah, but we all know what happens now. You go back to the argument "but humans are more important than animals". So just before I hear that again: Importance has nothing to do with unnecessary killing and suffering.

What's left? Blood on your plate I guess.

Slavery involved people

Slavery did not involve animals

Tired of the slavery argument

Animals are not people

You PETA terrorist supporting sheep need to stop equating the dutch introduced enslavement of africans to the americas, the spanish enslavement of native americans and the roman enslavement of the poor (among others) to a hamburger.

Animals are not people - as I have so clearly mentioned elsewhere, I would save one human life over 1000 animals any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[nugz]

Slavery involved people

Slavery did not involve animals

Tired of the slavery argument

Animals are not people

You PETA terrorist supporting sheep need to stop equating the dutch introduced enslavement of africans to the americas, the spanish enslavement of native americans and the roman enslavement of the poor (among others) to a hamburger.

Animals are not people - as I have so clearly mentioned elsewhere, I would save one human life over 1000 animals any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

*inserts clapping audience gif*

[esheh195]

*inserts clapping audience gif*

*sighs* I gotta do all the dirty work, don't I? LOL
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_55.gif
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb134/djlivio/applause.gif

[Buzzetta]

*sighs* I gotta do all the dirty work, don't I? LOL
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_55.gif
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb134/djlivio/applause.gif

Nice to see I have a following.

[nogodsnomasters85]

The industry wants you to believe that meat and dairy are the best sources of protein. Wrong. You've been brainwashed.
Humans don't need proteins. We need amino acids. Proteins are chains of amino acids, however, on meat you can only find 12 and on vegetables you can find the 20 we all need. Therefore you can eat a truck of meat a day and still not have enough proteins in your diet.
Milk? Humans are the only mammals that drink milk after infancy. But again, the industry wants to make you believe that you have to consume dairy otherwise your bones will crack and you will die.
And yeah, young children need milk from their mothers. Not from a cow, who produces milk to an animal that has FOUR stomachs.
So many humans drink milk out of fear. And they eat meat out of fear. Because the industry makes you believe. And you become a slave of their product because you can't survive without it.
This might be your job but boiling lobsters alive is cruel. Is that your appropriate use of violence?
I am proud that there is no coagulated blood in my plate. Break free.
And by the way, meat is murder.

I'm not a nutritionist, some of the studies I looked up online went both ways, I'd like to see something by a pediatrician that says it's safe to raise an infant vegan. But you still haven't provided a logical framework for you're beliefs. You believe meat is MURDER,IE-a heinous, wrongful destruction of human (according to the dictionary) life. Where is the cutoff point? Is the killing of ALL non-sentient life murder? Well than salad is murder, and so's bread because yeast is alive. We can also rule out antibiotics. Is you're criteria things that feel pain? I imagine mosquitos and ticks don't enjoy being crushed very much. Theres' no rush to protect them, they aren't necessarily immediately dangerous although sometimes they can spread disease. Moreover, ahem, MURDER is inappropriate terminology when the act of "killing" is done for survival. And, unless you ACTUALLY believe that boiling a lobster is NO DIFFERENT than killing a child, stop saying it because you don't actually believe it. It's just an empty slogan. And since we're in this debate you know what we can all agree is murder? MURDER! Of which war is the greatest expression as it is murder multiplied exponentially. This government is in an illegal immoral war in which people are dying every day and you're upset about the chickens. If you want to protect life so badly join peacecorps, doctors without borders, donate to oxfam or amnesty international, THAT'S protecting life.

[underdog99]

hitler was not a vegetarian

http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Neither-Vegetarian-Animal-Lover/dp/0962616966

and even if he was that doesn't somehow completely refute vegetarianism. Also, if you do so happen to be swayed by other people's stance on vegetarianism you would have to take into consideration how many of history's greatest thinkers, philosophers, artists, and authors were vegetarian; Da Vinci, Henry D. Thoreau, Einstein, Darwin, Gandhi, PAMELA ANDERSON (thats a bad joke)....

[esheh195]

hitler was not a vegetarian

http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Neither-Vegetarian-Animal-Lover/dp/0962616966

and even if he was that doesn't somehow completely refute vegetarianism. Also, if you do so happen to be swayed by other people's stance on vegetarianism you would have to take into consideration how many of history's greatest thinkers, philosophers, artists, and authors were vegetarian; Da Vinci, Henry D. Thoreau, Einstein, Darwin, Gandhi, PAMELA ANDERSON (thats a bad joke)....

Pam Anderson does too eat meat! I saw the video! :D:eek:

[Anaesthesine]

I'm going to have to learn how to use that multi-quote function if I'm ever going to try to argue effectively.

Until then, let me just invoke Isaac Bashevis Singer. A Polish Jew who knew the horrors of the Nazi regime first-hand, he was also a fervent vegetarian who regularly drew parallels between the death-factories of the concentration camps and the mechanized slaughter of animals. His mother and brother were taken away in cattle trains to the camps, where they died. Singer was no armchair PETA activist. He lived it, and he stood by his vegetarian beliefs until the day he died.

He wished to pray to a vegetarian god. He re-wrote the ten commandments to include an 11th: "Do not Kill nor exploit the animal, don't eat it's flesh, don't flail its hide, don't force it to do things against its nature."

There are so many sides to this complex argument, but I cannot stand to hear meat-eaters smugly insisting that they have a stronger grip on morality.

"In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka." This is the opinion of a man who was there.

[Paulc]

ok big picture stuff:

Please forgive my simplistic logic. In Britain there about 58million people, the vast majority of whom eat meat - i think there are less than 1.5million veggies and vegans. In a year 1 billion animals and fish are slaughtered for the food industry in this country. 1 billion!!!

So factor that up for the population of the planet as a whole - 6 billion people would consume something like 1 trillion animals and fish (i am not a mathmetician!) - i know Britain has a very high standard of living compared to many other countries but taking that into account - the numbers are horrifying.

The point i am trying to make is if the population is going to continue to grow (and most forecasts say we are looking at 20 billion people by 2050) then how the hell are we going to have enough land to farm that many animals. I think more people are going to be forced into vegetarian lifestyles whether they like it or not.

I am a meat eater. I spent about 3 years as a veggie but just missed eating meat too much. I wish i had better willpower because fundamentally i think Meat is Murder.

By the way the book "fast food nation" is a really interesting read especially the chapters about the disgusting meat industries in the US.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

There is too much apathy in the world but who cares?

[esheh195]

There is too much apathy in the world but who cares?

That made me LOL. :D

[Amatis]

I simply have never heard a philosophically sound argument for it. Some say "All life is sacred" which sounds nice but is really hippie crap and total nonsense, what about rodents, insects, yeast, or bacteria and diseases, all are life, and many veggos/vegans don't care about them.

The vast majority of arguments for vegetarianism that I have encountered do not propose that all life is sacred and equal. You're right, that's new age hippie crap and in my opinion, along with the PETA wackos standing outside KFC in chicken costumes, does nothing but spread a lot of false ideas and turn the movement into a farce.

The proposition is not that animals are equal to us in intelligence or morality or whatever other fairly arbitrary distinctions one cares to create between humans and the rest of the animal world, it's that they are capable of suffering and therefore as a supposedly moral and superior race we should not inflict unnecessary suffering upon them (assertions based on crass self-interest, ignorance about basic nutrition and the like do not count).

In regards to rodents and insects, vegetarians eat neither of those. As far as plants and bacteria go, my (extremely basic) knowledge of biology tells me that they have no discernable central nervous system and therefore cannot feel pain on anywhere near the same level as animals do, if at all.

But let's forget all that and say that plants do feel pain. Consider the piece of meat on your place. It might come from a cow or pig or some other animal, it doesn't really matter. How many plants do you think would have to have been fed to that animal to sustain it for, say 4-5 years until it has achieved sufficient growth to be sent to slaughter? Surely one would inflict less suffering on the plant population by consuming them directly instead of consuming the remains of an animal that has been fed many, many times that amount? Taking it a step further, how many acres of forest would've been felled to create grazing land for those animals?


Secondly the insinuation that simply eating meat is a predecessor to violence is a load of crap, hitler was a vegetarian.

Godwin's Law! :P Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, that's a common misconception. There are many accounts of him eating meat on occasion. Besides, that sort of logic is a load of guff. It's like claiming you can infer something about meat-eaters from the fact that Stalin was one. I'm sure even the crackpots at PETA wouldn't stoop that low.

And anyway, I haven't really heard that before, that eating meat would predispose one to violence. Doubtless killing another animal is a form of violence, but that's irrelevant because people do not kill and eat their own animals; they get other people to do it for them. The violence used to kill animals for food would surely only impact the behaviour of those who work in slaughterhouses?


Violence is a maladjusted behaviorism when it is used indiscriminately or inappropriately, and there IS an appropriate use for violence.

Killing other animals for food, clothing, entertainment when we can live perfectly healthy and comfortable lives without doing so is an appropriate use of violence? Clearly 'No gods, no masters' only applies to our species eh?


And calling meat murder is nothing more than empty sloganeering, anyone who truly believes that is RETARDED. I have to prepare lobsters at my work, I don't like but I have to and I am DAMN sure that doing this in no way makes me capable of killing a child, or any other innocent person.

By claiming that 'meat is murder', I don't think most vegetarians are trying to say that killing an animal is exactly the same as killing a person. The point being put across is that animals share many of the traits humans do, the key one being the ability to feel pain, fear, etc (regardless of Descartes' assertions, the tosspot). In this respect, killing a person and killing an animal can both be classed as murder as both involve ending the life of an animal which is capable of suffering.

I don't think boiling lobsters means you're going to go on a rampage or owt, it's just indicative of our socialisation really. We're brought up to think that 'they're just animals', which is why some people are capable of slitting their throats and boiling them alive and all that. We have become completely separated from our food. It's not a cow, it's a burger. We don't have to think about how it's produced because it all happens far away in some shed somewhere. Out of sight out of mind, aye? It's a lot easier to go on believing that the steak on your plate grew up in a nice field with fresh air and space to move about, to come up with some rationalization rather than actually make an effort to change an often lifelong habit.


I'm all for protecting animals, the ones who's ecosystems are being destroyed, but these animals are deliberately raised for food, the population remains unharmed.

What about the ecosystem being destroyed by modern intensive farming methods? What about all the land being cleared for livestock to graze on? What about the utter waste of fossil fuels required to turn animal feed into meat? All the waste from factories and slaughterhouses being dumped into rivers?

The fact that they're deliberately raised for food doesn't change the morality of killing them. Is it morally acceptable to treat a human being as a slave or inflict cruelty upon them purely because they have endured this from birth?


Not to mention the fact that humans are naturally omnivores, meat and dairy are some of the best sources of proteins and fats and calories to keep us healthy and alive, ESPECIALLY young children for whom adequate nutrition is much more important.

Just because we're 'naturally omnivores' doesn't mean we have to continue doing so. We've evolved to the stage where we have a choice in the matter. Protein can be obtained from a lot of sources other than meat and dairy, mainly pulses and grains. Even I can make beans on toast. The kind of fat found in meat and dairy is of the yucky saturated kind that causes high cholesterol, whereas foods like avocados and nuts contain the good kind of fats that, er, don't lead to heart attacks.

Raising a vegetarian or vegan child is perfectly fine if the parent knows what they're doing. Most of the veg*ns I've met are pretty into cooking and nutrition and all that - surely a diet filled with a variety of fresh fruit and vegetables, grains, pulses, nuts and seeds etc. with the exclusion of animal flesh is better than a diet of crisps, sweets and ready meals? I know what I'm feeding my hypothetical kid anyway.

Christ, that was long. I'm off to toast my falafel over the charred remains of a vivisector. You know, as you do.

[underdog99]

wow, thorough post

no gods, no masters, very true, I believe in the same thing, I just include animals :cool:

[shirleytemple]

I'm a vegeterian
The thing that really really hurts me is the way some animals get killed during the process, you know, like the slitting of their throats and their slow painful deaths. It isnt the fact that they get killed, it's the way they get killed that gets to me. I know there probably won't be solutions to this problem, so until then I'll refrain from eating meat. I do beleive some animals were made to be eaten. I just wish it wasn't savage and merciless!

[Not Right in the Head]

As of now, the voting is heavily in favor of meat being murder. Perhaps a more pertinent question should be whether murder is unequivocably evil.

[CrystalGeezer]

Maybe Morrissey is really just a proponent of unleavened bread? We've been going about this debate all wrong for all these years.

[nogodsnomasters85]

The vast majority of arguments for vegetarianism that I have encountered do not propose that all life is sacred and equal. You're right, that's new age hippie crap and in my opinion, along with the PETA wackos standing outside KFC in chicken costumes, does nothing but spread a lot of false ideas and turn the movement into a farce.
We are in TOTAL agreement....

The proposition is not that animals are equal to us in intelligence or morality or whatever other fairly arbitrary distinctions one cares to create between humans and the rest of the animal world, it's that they are capable of suffering and therefore as a supposedly moral and superior race we should not inflict unnecessary suffering upon them (assertions based on crass self-interest, ignorance about basic nutrition and the like do not count).
The claws come out.. Well, we can't argue very much on this point as it comes down to a matter of opinion. That killing animals for food is morally wrong. I think this should be done in the quickest and least painful manner, I won't eat veal (except for the extremely rare scenario where someone else has already prepared it, like a social event.) and I think the animals should be allowed to graze and not have to be pumped up with antibiotics. This is ultimately an unbridgeable chasm, as i said it's a matter of opinion.

In regards to rodents and insects, vegetarians eat neither of those.
I didn't mean to suggest they do, but I bet more than a few KILL them, and they DO feel pain.

Godwin's Law! :P Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, that's a common misconception. There are many accounts of him eating meat on occasion. Besides, that sort of logic is a load of guff. It's like claiming you can infer something about meat-eaters from the fact that Stalin was one. I'm sure even the crackpots at PETA wouldn't stoop that low.{/QUOTE]
Several on this forum have, well, I don't think stalin was the example, but the inference is the same.. and while not being necessarily a strict vegetarian, hitler generally abstained from meat, especially towards the end where he mostly lived on pastries.
[QUOTE=Amatis;732954]And anyway, I haven't really heard that before, that eating meat would predispose one to violence. Doubtless killing another animal is a form of violence, but that's irrelevant because people do not kill and eat their own animals; they get other people to do it for them. The violence used to kill animals for food would surely only impact the behaviour of those who work in slaughterhouses?
I bet most are probably just very poor people, probably quite a few immigrants, and it's probably a very well-paying blue-collar job, that someone without a degree could get to support they're family. I'd be much more wary of postal workers, as they seem to be the most likely to snap.

Killing other animals for food, clothing, entertainment when we can live perfectly healthy and comfortable lives without doing so is an appropriate use of violence? Clearly 'No gods, no masters' only applies to our species eh?
Well, the "no gods" part applies to all species as god is a mythological construct, in many ways not so different from robin hood or the cat in the hat, but the masters part, absolutely. Exactly.

By claiming that 'meat is murder', I don't think most vegetarians are trying to say that killing an animal is exactly the same as killing a person. The point being put across is that animals share many of the traits humans do, the key one being the ability to feel pain, fear, etc (regardless of Descartes' assertions, the tosspot). In this respect, killing a person and killing an animal can both be classed as murder as both involve ending the life of an animal which is capable of suffering.
Well, actually, the DICTIONARY defines murder as the killing of a human being, specifically. This is EXACTLY why the word is used. Even if said individuals aren't actually retarded enough to believe that they are the same, is deliberately invoking the word to draw comparison where there shouldn't be.

It's a lot easier to go on believing that the steak on your plate grew up in a nice field with fresh air and space to move about, to come up with some rationalization rather than actually make an effort to change an often lifelong habit.
I would prefer that the animals suffer as little as possible, as stated, but I have no illusions, I used to work in a butchers' shop, and I still do occasionally. They don't get WHOLE cows there, but many large segments, and they look like what they are. I have no illusions that a steak simply materializes on a plate.

The fact that they're deliberately raised for food doesn't change the morality of killing them. Is it morally acceptable to treat a human being as a slave or inflict cruelty upon them purely because they have endured this from birth?
It COMPLETELY changes the morality of killing them. Anyone who kills animals not for food, safety, or survival, is a sadist. This is the biggest precursor to serial murder. (The REAL kind.) regardless of the fact that a grown human being CAN survive without eating meat, it is not killed and eaten for the joy of taking it's life, it is done to aid in survival, even if it is not imperative. Now you're doing something equally rediculous to the aforementioned slogan by comparing penned animals to slaves. If I was black i'd probably find that a lot more offensive, but regardless it's a rediculous analogy. You're doing the same thing, comparing those who keep livestock to slave traders. Preposterous.

foods like avocados and nuts contain the good kind of fats that, er, don't lead to heart attacks. {/QUOTE]
Well, if you gorge yourself consistantly thats' probably true... However, a sensible diet that meets you're basic dietary needs is not necessarily harmful at all. Moreover, this generally only affects the obese, which i already discounted, and the middle aged, mostly men, as heart disease is rare in women. Also metabolism plays a huge part. My diet consists of pizza, whole milk, burgers, ribs, subs, etc, but i have a very fast metabolism and i eat sometimes four (or more) meals a day and retain a consistant weight, I'm even fairly thin, I didn't gain weight until I started drinking a lot of beer. How much vegetable matter would I have to consume to be equivalent?
[QUOTE=Amatis;732954]Raising a vegetarian or vegan child is perfectly fine if the parent knows what they're doing.
Is there anything printed by a PEDIATRICIAN that says that it is totally safe to raise a child vegan from birth? all I found was stuff written by vegans, not doctors, and even if a nutritionist says so, it's not the same.
I have to give you one thing, you're the smartest veggo I've ever argued with, however thats' not too much of a compliment.

[celibate]

I won't go into philosophic debate

but IMHO we humans feed, grow and kill animals

so yes humans eat flesh, but humans do good things for animals also
[which humans are the cause, basic problem]

[nogodsnomasters85]

There are so many sides to this complex argument, but I cannot stand to hear meat-eaters smugly insisting that they have a stronger grip on morality.

"In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka." This is the opinion of a man who was there.

You know hearing the broccoli brigade insist they have stronger morals doesn't exactly tickle me.

I'll take you're word for it that this Jewish guy actually existed and said the things he said, and, frankly, it's great that you used a quote because if it was you saying theres' no difference between a meat plant and auschwitz you'd be WAYYY off base. i mean, not only is the idea RETARDED, and REDICULOUS.. It's OFFENSIVE, and totally trivializes the suffering those people endured. I would dare you to look up holocaust survivors and ask them if they think what's done to livestock is morally the same as what was done to them, I suggest you wear protective gear. I was raised catholic (unfortunately), but any jewish person should be severely offended by that. PETA got introuble a while back for putting up posters of cattle side by side with pictures of jews in the camps, as I recall there was a massive outcry from survivors. Theres' no comparison.

[Buzzetta]

As of now, the voting is heavily in favor of meat being murder. Perhaps a more pertinent question should be whether murder is unequivocably evil.

Mi amigo (honestly and sincerely with all due respect) ...

The poll HERE states that the majority believe that meat is murder. That is clearly not an indicative vote of the subject matter. Despite the fact that I do not believe so, if I was on the other side of the issue I would be hard pressed to admit otherwise.

We are on a Morrissey BB.... I would claim that 1/4 of those votes are from the souls that say its okay because Morrissey says so. Lets be realistic. There are certain people here that follow like sheep.

On top of that some people identify with Morrissey because of his vegetarian standpoint and are thereby attracted to said website. If this poll were conducted on an alternate BB then the results could be widely different.

[Buzzetta]

You know hearing the broccoli brigade insist they have stronger morals doesn't exactly tickle me.

I'll take you're word for it that this Jewish guy actually existed and said the things he said, and, frankly, it's great that you used a quote because if it was you saying theres' no difference between a meat plant and auschwitz you'd be WAYYY off base. i mean, not only is the idea RETARDED, and REDICULOUS.. It's OFFENSIVE, and totally trivializes the suffering those people endured. I would dare you to look up holocaust survivors and ask them if they think what's done to livestock is morally the same as what was done to them, I suggest you wear protective gear. I was raised catholic (unfortunately), but any jewish person should be severely offended by that. PETA got introuble a while back for putting up posters of cattle side by side with pictures of jews in the camps, as I recall there was a massive outcry from survivors. Theres' no comparison.

I like ya... even though you are from Boston.... I like ya kid....

That word apparently is taboo.... I encountered a shitstorm when I used it so beware.

[Not Right in the Head]

Mi amigo (honestly and sincerely with all due respect) ...

The poll HERE states that the majority believe that meat is murder. That is clearly not an indicative vote of the subject matter. Despite the fact that I do not believe so, if I was on the other side of the issue I would be hard pressed to admit otherwise.

We are on a Morrissey BB.... I would claim that 1/4 of those votes are from the souls that say its okay because Morrissey says so. Lets be realistic. There are certain people here that follow like sheep.

On top of that some people identify with Morrissey because of his vegetarian standpoint and are thereby attracted to said website. If this poll were conducted on an alternate BB then the results could be widely different.

Hahaha! I know that the poll is absurdly biased; I was just jerking the collective chain here.


That word apparently is taboo.... I encountered a shitstorm when I used it so beware.

I knew that you'd not only quote that post, but highlight the offending word. Some things are just meant to be.

[Buzzetta]

Hahaha! I know that the poll is absurdly biased; I was just jerking the collective chain here.



I knew that you'd not only quote that post, but highlight the offending word. Some things are just meant to be.

Still me online amigo...

Excellent

I was texting Nugz before ... started when my boys were talking about the game that goes on between the MTA and the NYPD of where the drunks should sit while they are wasted. Sent her a picture of the drugged out girl on the L train from the other day.

[Anaesthesine]

You know hearing the broccoli brigade insist they have stronger morals doesn't exactly tickle me.

I'll take you're word for it that this Jewish guy actually existed and said the things he said, and, frankly, it's great that you used a quote because if it was you saying theres' no difference between a meat plant and auschwitz you'd be WAYYY off base. i mean, not only is the idea RETARDED, and REDICULOUS.. It's OFFENSIVE, and totally trivializes the suffering those people endured. I would dare you to look up holocaust survivors and ask them if they think what's done to livestock is morally the same as what was done to them, I suggest you wear protective gear. I was raised catholic (unfortunately), but any jewish person should be severely offended by that. PETA got introuble a while back for putting up posters of cattle side by side with pictures of jews in the camps, as I recall there was a massive outcry from survivors. Theres' no comparison.

How sad, that someone would doubt the existence of Isaac Bashevis Singer. He won the Nobel Prize for literature and was taught in many American classrooms until a few years ago. Now I suppose he's considered to be a bit too liberal, since he valued tolerance and peace. Know your history before you discount it. At least google, for goodness sake.

I think you would have liked him. He was a very deep, philosophical thinker, and a writer of great generosity. He also gave much thought to the nature of evil, and the power of human forgiveness and compassion. His writings are also pretty funny, which is a miracle in itself. His views on vegetarianism hold weight with me, since his father was a rabbi, and he himself was a journalist. His background was one of faith and reason. He grew up poor, in a Jewish ghetto, and the argument that only the pampered middle-classes concern themselves with compassion for animals is blown apart.

Why be so angry on behalf of Jews who have suffered, and made their moral choices? I'm sure there are many survivors who would be offended by the comparison between abattoirs and the camps, but there are some who would agree with it. It's true, that PETA campaign was terribly misguided, but it was actually based on the opinions of a man who suffered greatly, but did not let his experiences, or the sufferings of his people dampen his compassion for all living things.

Your indignation seems misplaced. Vegetarians are not starting wars, or subverting democracy, or flying planes into buildings, or undermining endangered species laws, or polluting the air and water. They are not turning back women's rights, or consolidating the media, or perpetuating ethnic clensing. Nor are they torturing, assassinating or otherwise undermining the peaceful pursuit of international justice.

You are so self-righteous in your defence of steak, drumsticks, and the prevailing meat-eating culture. What is it about tofu and broccoli that upsets you so, that you would spend all this time and energy in several threads denouncing people who prefer seitan to turkey?

By the way, "No Gods, No Masters" has always been my motto. You are currently fighting on behalf of the prevailing corporate power structure, which flies in the face of everything that I always understood the anarchist movement to stand for. I suppose this could be post-modern ironic commentary on your part, but I sense a real grievance. Enjoy Ronald McDonald's company - anarchy has finally swallowed it's own tail.

[Flax]

I won't eat veal (except for the extremely rare scenario where someone else has already prepared it, like a social event.)

I had decided not to post anything here anymore because I know this discussion is not going anywhere, but I just wanted to say that this part was quite funny.

Flax
Broccoli Brigade

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

http://www.rrrina.com/321-agri.gif

http://www.hkrl.com/images/slaughterhouse.jpg

Yep, it's murder :mad:

[Flax]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

^^^

GhxKnys7Ryw


I fucking hate those assholes who kill them poor animals... HATE them to the ultimate max!!!! :mad:

[Buzzetta]

You lose all grounds for your argument when you try to equate an animal to a human. You lose all grounds for your argument when you insinuate that vegetarians are not of a disposition to commit a heinous crime due to a dietary practice.

[Amy]

When I was around 7 or 8 years old, I went to a family wedding and they served a pink meat on my plate. It was the most delicious meat I had ever tasted. A few years later, I found out it was 'rosé veal'. It unnerved me, enormously.

[Flax]

You lose all grounds for your argument when you try to equate an animal to a human. You lose all grounds for your argument when you insinuate that vegetarians are not of a disposition to commit a heinous crime due to a dietary practice.

Nobody is equating animal to humans.
This is not a question of similarity. It's a question of respect.

We're obviously all different and that doesn't mean we can't respect each other.

It's not a matter of who is superior or inferior, it's a matter that the animals have the ability to suffer, and they feel pain, just like we do. That's why they try to defend themselves. But they can't.

And even if those were our arguments, we wouldn't lose any grounds.

The notion that you can exploit other beings just because you feel superior to them is the SAME exact pattern that makes humans exploit other humans because of different gender or race.

We can all suffer. We can all feel pain. Period.

[Buzzetta]

Nobody is equating animal to humans.
This is not a question of similarity. It's a question of respect.

We're obviously all different and that doesn't mean we can't respect each other.

It's not a matter of who is superior or inferior, it's a matter that the animals have the ability to suffer, and they feel pain, just like we do. That's why they try to defend themselves. But they can't.

And even if those were our arguments, we wouldn't lose any grounds.

The notion that you can exploit other beings just because you feel superior to them is the SAME exact pattern that makes humans exploit other humans because of different gender or race.

We can all suffer. We can all feel pain. Period.

There you go to equating what you perceive as animal suffering to real human suffering. When you stated the idea that an argument that animals raised as a food source, (because they are bred for it) is ultimately the same mindset that people had in the early 1800's you are equating animals to humans. Your argument is baseless upon those who look at animals as a food source.

You can disagree with that perception but you cannot base an argument around your belief system if the other person does not share in the basic status of the subject in question.

The chickens in the coup are bred, basically designed and exist for the sole purpose of providing a food source. Their designed end is to be on a plate. Humans are superior to animals by birth and right. If you disagree with the species lottery I suggest you go talk to the big guy upstairs and see if you can arrange it to come back as a poodle or something to voice your disdain.

If anything I would look upon the poll that was conducted in this thread as a loss for vegetarians. Here we are on probably one of the most pro-vegetarian pro-terrorism (PETA is a terrorist supporting group) meeting ground and 1/3 of the people here disagree with the idea that eating meat is the equivalent to murder. This would be the equivalent of going to a NRA board and for 1/3 of the people to agree that there should be tougher gun laws.

[Buzzetta]

when did this become a competition?



I don't agree with your analogy. going to a peta board would be the same as going to a nra board. and besides, being pro-vegetarian does not equate with being pro-terrorism. not all of us are supporters of peta.

I never said pro-vegetarianism is akin to pro-terrorism. Pro-PETA is akin to pro-terrorism. Unless you are unaware of PETA's full actions, being Pro PETA is supporting a terrorist agent. PETA's accounting have financed numerous contributions to those on trial and convicted for committing violent acts against those they perceive as against their cause. This has been exposed numerous times. PETA has made contributions towards convicted members and those that await trial of those affiliated with ELF and other movements. How is this any different from certain middle eastern countries giving monetary compensation to the families of suicide bombers?

It is okay though... I honestly believe that most supporters of PETA are blindsided by their vegetarian choice and are unaware of what the group is fully about.

[Buzzetta]

I am aware of all of this, hence my reasons for not supporting peta, however, due to my existence on this board (and no doubt others who share this view) to claim that this board is a "meeting ground" for those who are pro-vegetarian and pro-terrorism is a bit of a stretch. the only thing you could claim this board to be is a meeting ground for morrissey fans. other than that we are all fairly disperate with various life experiences, interests and beliefs as previous polls on any number of topics have shown.

This is not a meeting ground per-se but a forum where people are going to be drawn to Morrissey's music. It also draws those that will support things that Morrissey does as that is why they may identify or like his music. There are also the sheep that swoon and follow Morrissey saying that "anything he does is great because he is Morrissey."

Hey - i love the guy's music but the majority of things that come out of his mouth on a political standpoint are pure drivel.

[CrystalGeezer]

i do agree on the sheep element though.

I find people in general like to follow. Morrissey happens to be a herder for lovesick outcasts. I do caution those who follow him not to take him so literally. On another thread a poster lamented they didn't like when he put his hands to his temple as if to shoot himself. It's a symbolic gesture I'm not certain all followers are privy to understand. It's possible his vegetarian cause is the same though I suspect he really is a vegetarian. It doesn't hurt to question our herders.

And it's not that they like to follow, they need to follow. Morrissey is a good man to follow.

[joevsw0rld]

If animals could they would eat us.

[Flax]

Yeah, Buzzetta is right about the link between PETA and terrorism... I've seen it with my own eyes.

The other day I saw a member from PETA blow himself up with a tofu bomb and soy sauce in front of a McDonald's... it splashed soy sauce all over the place.

Scary!

[Not Right in the Head]

Yeah, Buzzetta is right about the link between PETA and terrorism... I've seen it with my own eyes.

The other day I saw a member from PETA blow himself up with a tofu bomb and soy sauce in front of a McDonald's... it splashed soy sauce all over the place.

Scary!

In other words, it was a soy bomb?

http://www.bobbyfugly.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/soybomb.jpg

[Flax]

If animals could they would eat us.

Herbivores wouldn't.
This is such a weak point that I don't even know why I'm responding to this.

[Flax]

In other words, it was a soy bomb?


aaaahhh that's the guy!
he is a member of the extremist group called Broccoli Brigade

[Buzzetta]

Yeah, Buzzetta is right about the link between PETA and terrorism... I've seen it with my own eyes.

The other day I saw a member from PETA blow himself up with a tofu bomb and soy sauce in front of a McDonald's... it splashed soy sauce all over the place.

Scary!

How misguided and inept your beliefs are.

Why not read about Rodney Coronado, Fran Trutt and A.L.F. and how PETA paid large "donations" as they refer to it towards their "needs". Rodney was convicted of blowing up a research lab, Franny got pinched on attempted murder and ALF? ALF advocates and encourages their loose member base to commit acts of violence to achieve goals. Why did I say loose member base? Because the higher-ups light the the fuze and walk away then shrug the responsibility off so they can deny culpability.

You still fail to address how that model is any different than Middle Eastern terrorist groups rewarding the families of suicide bombers? Lets see Hamas, and certain agencies within Syria will contribute to a family under the guise that someone has to take care of them once you are dead. ... So long as you detonated a bomb within a Israeli marketplace or bus. PETA contributes money to the families of those that are CONVICTED of blowing up property, attempted murder and other acts of violence. Looks like the Broccoli Brigade loses their argument that vegetarians are passive by nature or by diet. (Which I have read the idiotic claims of.)

60 Minutes, The New York Times and other reputable news sources have uncovered and explicitly shown the relationship between PETA and the terrorist groups it supports.

In response, Ingrid Newkirk simply states...
“I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”


I am meeting my friends at 9 for dinner...

In your honor I will eat something with meat. I will even take a picture and post it tomorrow.

[Flax]

I don't need to read about Rod Coronado. I even have the cd "Ceremony of Fire - A Tribute To Rod Coronado".

Anyway... what I hear now is bla bla bla bla Syria bla bla terrorist bla bla bla if we don't fight them there they'll follow us home bla bla bla they hate us for our freedom bla bla bla I like hamburgers. :)

Mr. President! I didn't know you were a Morrissey fan!

[Flax]

Buzzetta threatened to eat lots of meat! What will we do? Oh no!

Time to call the Broccoli Brigade:

http://www.lettuceladies.com/images/paulface.jpg

[nogodsnomasters85]

I like ya... even though you are from Boston.... I like ya kid....

That word apparently is taboo.... I encountered a shitstorm when I used it so beware.

Thanx. It's the Bostonian in me, though if you're from here you're supposed to pronounce it "Retahhhded."

[CrystalGeezer]

Poor Bob's thinking, "what the fuck?"

[Morrissey the 23rd]

He is doing more to promote animal liberation than he realises. Perhaps for every pound he eats, we should donate 10 to the ALF.

It is like Theos' right wing posts giving weight and increased credibility to the left.

[nogodsnomasters85]

How sad, that someone would doubt the existence of Isaac Bashevis Singer. He won the Nobel Prize for literature and was taught in many American classrooms until a few years ago. Now I suppose he's considered to be a bit too liberal, since he valued tolerance and peace. Know your history before you discount it. At least google, for goodness sake.

History happens to be on of my favorite subjects, but that doesn't mean I'd necessarily be familiar with this person and that he existed or did not was irrelevent in the context of my argument. Not to mention Henry Kissinger won a nobel prize and he's a mass murder

His background was one of faith and reason. He grew up poor, in a Jewish ghetto, and the argument that only the pampered middle-classes concern themselves with compassion for animals is blown apart.
Religious faith and reason are opposites. Religion is a mental disease, and the world would be better without it. Yes, it is POSSIBLE for the poor classes to be concerned with social issues, I'm lower middle class, blue collar, living check to check, and I take politics and social issues very seriously, however it is true that the poorer someone is the less likely to have the oppertunity for a decent education, or, in my case, the free time to be politically/socially active.

Why be so angry on behalf of Jews who have suffered, and made their moral choices? I'm sure there are many survivors who would be offended by the comparison between abattoirs and the camps, but there are some who would agree with it.
I wouldn't look to holocaust survivors for support on this one, some might agree, most would be deeply offended and hurt. And I'm so angry because there apparently aren't any jews here TO be hurt and offended, so I have to act on they're behalf.

It's true, that PETA campaign was terribly misguided,
You are so goddamn right.

Your indignation seems misplaced. Vegetarians are not starting wars, or subverting democracy, or flying planes into buildings, or undermining endangered species laws, or polluting the air and water. They are not turning back women's rights, or consolidating the media, or perpetuating ethnic clensing. Nor are they torturing, assassinating or otherwise undermining the peaceful pursuit of international justice.
You came so close to the point then sailed into left field. i would LOVE to tell you why I'm so fucking angry. Because the united states government has and continues to provide military support for brutal dictatorships, is engaging in an illegal and immoral war, the current administration is unsure if global warming exists while the planet is decaying, and is trying to take away a woman's right to choose, meanwhile supporting economic policies that allow sweatshops to pop up like daises, allow western megacorporations to decimate foreign markets with cheap goods, thrust millions into poverty, keep the third world from obtaining desperately needed medical supplies, etc. Or how these policies affect us here in america, where unemployment is rising, wages are stagnating, debt is multiplying, etc., etc. I may not do much, but i spend a large part of my time writing congressmen, signing petitions, making, admittedly, very tiny, donations, etc., etc. I'm not looking for praise, just trying to explain. i try to support legitimate organizations like Amnesty Intnatl. Save Darfur, World Can't Wait, or lesser knowns like SOA Watch, and ETAN.

You are so self-righteous in your defence of steak, drumsticks, and the prevailing meat-eating culture. What is it about tofu and broccoli that upsets you so, that you would spend all this time and energy in several threads denouncing people who prefer seitan to turkey?

THIS is what i'm getting to. i think of these groups I think of all the HUMAN suffering, and misery, and death, and hunger, and poverty,.......and then some jackoff tries to get me wound up about this shit and I get so fucking pissed I can hardly see straight. Every ounce of effort you pour into this misguided cause could've been spent doing something that ACTUALLY MATTERS. I feel guilty for the little that I do, I should be in the third world, or in washington protesting outside the white house, devoting every breath, every second to what I know matters more than anything, don't you DARE try to tug on my heartstrings over cows and chickens.


You are currently fighting on behalf of the prevailing corporate power structure, which flies in the face of everything that I always understood the anarchist movement to stand for. ... Enjoy Ronald McDonald's company - anarchy has finally swallowed it's own tail.
First of all i never claimed to speak for anarchists as a whole and wouldn't want to. secondly, REDICULOUS! Fuzzy logic at best. Supporting meat does not automatically mean supporting big corporations or modern capitalism, some people still do it the old fashioned way, although i am not one. Secondly,...what are you on about??? How do you suppose I can avoid supporting corporations in this country. What do you think I'm typing on? IBM supplied the third reich. Yahoo (And google, I think.) are friendly with the regime in china. Even if you're a vegetarian, so what, the government of guatemala was largely overthrown (and replaced with a brutal genocidal dictatorship) on behalf of united fruit. I avoid SOME companies, like I stopped drinking killians because they donate to the republican party, but boycotting is nearly impossible in a post-globalization age. The ONLY solution is direct action, and legislation. Thats' elementary logic.

[Buzzetta]

I don't need to read about Rod Coronado. I even have the cd "Ceremony of Fire - A Tribute To Rod Coronado".

Anyway... what I hear now is bla bla bla bla Syria bla bla terrorist bla bla bla if we don't fight them there they'll follow us home bla bla bla they hate us for our freedom bla bla bla I like hamburgers. :)

Mr. President! I didn't know you were a Morrissey fan!

Maybe if you looked past your rear end / head (both of your ends seem to spew defecation) you would not be so ignorant and look into the group you so blindly support. I just got home... had a fun evening out... Got home just in time to eat breakfast.

I stopped off and bought a Bacon egg tomato and cheese on an everything bagel. I will eat half now and save half for later. For dinner I had the TGI Fridays Southwest Chicken Salad.... so good... it's new on the menu. I suggested to my friends to have the New York Strip Steak going on how good it was and you know what? One of them did. The other ordered two appetizers of chicken based dishes. Thats the beauty of NY. We are the ones that never sleep. Something is always open.

All the while I received a text message from a certain someone to leave a new picture.... So... here is my breakfast. It's tasty. I'm all about PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals that is.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo181.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo187.jpg

[Buzzetta]

Thanx. It's the Bostonian in me, though if you're from here you're supposed to pronounce it "Retahhhded."

Congratulations to the people of MA... Pats had a tough season doing what they did. It was nice to see that the Giants went balls out and put their best up to maintain the integrity of the game. No one can say that the Pats had an easy time of it.

Not since 1972 has there been an undefeated season.

[nugz]

I stopped off and bought a Bacon egg tomato and cheese on an everything bagel. I will eat half now and save half for later. For dinner I had the TGI Fridays Southwest Chicken Salad.... so good... it's new on the menu. I suggested to my friends to have the New York Strip Steak going on how good it was and you know what? One of them did. The other ordered two appetizers of chicken based dishes. Thats the beauty of NY. We are the ones that never sleep. Something is always open.



shizzle. that sounds delishuz. i'm hungry now, thx. :mad::p

[Buzzetta]

shizzle. that sounds delishuz. i'm hungry now, thx. :mad::p

Atlantic City Room at the Tropicana on New Years Eve... $725.... WTF?

My friends and I were toying with the idea of being a part of that insanity. But not for $800 after tax for a single room.

[nugz]

Atlantic City Room at the Tropicana on New Years Eve... $725.... WTF?

My friends and I were toying with the idea of being a part of that insanity. But not for $800 after tax for a single room.

thats ridic. i still dont know what im doing for NYE. at this point im thinking i'll end up at a shitty dive bar in philly with some friends. and honestly, thats okay with me.

[Buzzetta]

I will be buried with that hat on. I have told my family that upon my death I will be buried in jeans black t shirt and a Yankees cap. Otherwise my friends will think they are at the wrong wake.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_01/horsemeatDM1805_468x496.jpg

[Buzzetta]

Keep in mind that I just got in at 5:30... simply took of my jacket and shoes and dug in.

[Amy]

Why are you wearing your baseball cap inside your apartment?

Because he's American, and they do weird things like that :p

[Buzzetta]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

[nugz]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

i think its basically means naughty. and YOU are very naughty! *spank spank* :p

[Buzzetta]

For the record these were not some of my better photos. However, I cannot wait for "blah blah blah jack***" to respond.

[Amy]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

Depends on the context really. I guess 'naughty' would fit but only if you were referring to a child (No spanking, Nugz! :p). It is more similar to 'flippant'. Eg, if a child backchats a teacher, is it being cheeky. Or if a child makes an insensitive comment, eg "you have a big arse, Miss" then it is being cheeky. The word isn't much used with adults.

[nugz]

Depends on the context really. I guess 'naughty' would fit but only if you were referring to a child (No spanking, Nugz! :p). It is more similar to 'flippant'. Eg, if a child backchats a teacher, is it being cheeky. Or if a child makes an insensitive comment, eg "you have a big arse, Miss" then it is being cheeky. The word isn't much used with adults.

oh dammit!!! Buzzetta you are off the hook from spanking.....THIS TIME! :p

[Buzzetta]

Depends on the context really. I guess 'naughty' would fit but only if you were referring to a child (No spanking, Nugz! :p). It is more similar to 'flippant'. Eg, if a child backchats a teacher, is it being cheeky. Or if a child makes an insensitive comment, eg "you have a big arse, Miss" then it is being cheeky. The word isn't much used with adults.

Ohhh.... I was just called cheeky in another thread and it went waaay over my head.

[vicarinatutugal]

What does "cheeky" mean to you UK'rs? Cannot find that meaning on the internet.

aww I confused you.. sorry. :D cheeky chops (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheeky)

[Amy]

aww I confused you.. sorry.cheeky chops (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheeky)

LOL, you called Buzzetta cheeky chops? :D :eek::p:o

[vicarinatutugal]

LOL, you called Buzzetta cheeky chops? :D :eek::p

I did, he is a little cheeky chops. :D

[vegan-soldier]

Well I would say Meat is murder. I just want to hear if all mozzers are vegetarians, if not why? And if you are, do you have anything smart I can say to people who eat meat. Cos I really tried to make them understand but they really love their steak. And I doubt most of them will ever understand.

I was a vegeterian before The Smiths came into my life. That just made it final with Meat is Murder.

You always get the arses who say..."You stepped on an ant, how dare you...Murderer! But you won't eat a piece of meat?"

These people have little of anything upstairs. I loved the comment about propaganda films. Showing what actually goes on in a factory farm is called a documentary I believe. Then when you also think of the type of people who could do that job and those people are the ones getting that decaying flesh all ready for the consumer. WOW. People who beat and abuse animals on a daily basis because they are so desensitized to it.

And I also find it amusing how people tend to say..."Oh, I don't think about what I'm eating" or "I don't like to think that this came from that cute little animal."

And to be a bigger arse, there are those who will go out of their way to post pictures of themselves eating some shite and actually think it's funny. I suppose, in some pathetic world it just might be funny. Glad I don't live in that strange place.

These threads about Morrissey's "Militancy" (OK)....always bring out the worst in folks.

I highly respect you for bringing the topic up. Very interesting to see what people think will make others angry. From a psychological point of view...these people are called A$$-Holes.

Sincerely,

[Not Right in the Head]

I was a vegeterian before The Smiths came into my life. That just made it final with Meat is Murder.

Posting in large-size Comic Sans is a worse crime than anything else that's been brought up in this thread.

[Amy]

Posting in large-size Comic Sans is a worse crime than anything else that's been brought up in this thread.

I think he's just trying to make sure his point is heard:p

[2-J]

You always get the arses who say..."You stepped on an ant, how dare you...Murderer! But you won't eat a piece of meat?"



Okay so what is the difference, enlighten us. Also, quit using the A$$-Holish font and text size, k?

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

This Thread Is Getting Even Too Hateful For Me, I'm Outa Here :eek:

[Amatis]

The claws come out.. Well, we can't argue very much on this point as it comes down to a matter of opinion. That killing animals for food is morally wrong. I think this should be done in the quickest and least painful manner, I won't eat veal (except for the extremely rare scenario where someone else has already prepared it, like a social event.) and I think the animals should be allowed to graze and not have to be pumped up with antibiotics. This is ultimately an unbridgeable chasm, as i said it's a matter of opinion.

True, it is basically a matter of opinion. Arguing over the internet is such great fun though. :D You say that you think that animals should be killed in the quickest and least painful manner possible, yet every day you're financially supporting an industry that subjects them to what amounts to torture. By giving your money to these people you're accepting the methods they use, the vast majority of which are far from quick or painless. Animals aren't allowed to graze, they're kept in vast sheds in pens not much bigger than themselves, and they're pumped full of antibiotics and all other manners of shit. This is the norm. Whatever your feelings are towards the way they are treated, by continuing to buy animal products you're basically saying "I don't agree with the methods you use but I'm going to continue buying meat from you so, you know, just carry on doing what you're doing." These practices are going to continue until it becomes unprofitable for the industry, which is sure as hell not going to happen if people keep their objections to themselves and continue buying bacon double cheeseburgers or whatever.


I didn't mean to suggest they do, but I bet more than a few KILL them, and they DO feel pain.

Ah, I see your point now. Undoubtedly some vegetarians do kill rodents and insects but any hypocrisy on their part only serves to make them look a bit daft; it doesn't absolve anyone else.


I bet most are probably just very poor people, probably quite a few immigrants, and it's probably a very well-paying blue-collar job, that someone without a degree could get to support they're family. I'd be much more wary of postal workers, as they seem to be the most likely to snap.

True, a lot of people don't have a choice in the matter and have families to support and such. A far better example would be people who hunt or fish. Deriving pleasure from killing another animal seems morally questionable to say the least.


Well, the "no gods" part applies to all species as god is a mythological construct, in many ways not so different from robin hood or the cat in the hat, but the masters part, absolutely. Exactly.

Well I think appointing our species as rulers over all others doesn't exactly reflect anti-authoritarian values. It's not doing away with hierarchy, it's just putting us at the top of it. Anarchism promotes liberty and equality and I think supporting these ideas while perpetuating our unquestioned dominion over animals doesn't make sense, just as racist, homophobic or patriarchal anarchism doesn't. They're all based on differences between us, silly differences like what someone's got between their legs or where they grew up, which are exploited to turn situations into "us vs. them" and alienate us from each other. I'm not saying we should give animals nice big hugs and invite them round for tea, it'd just be better if we didn't pointlessly kill them I reckon.


Well, actually, the DICTIONARY defines murder as the killing of a human being, specifically. This is EXACTLY why the word is used. Even if said individuals aren't actually retarded enough to believe that they are the same, is deliberately invoking the word to draw comparison where there shouldn't be.

My dictionary (Chambers) also defines it as: "slaughter or death that is felt to be needless, brutal or blameworthy, as a result of recklessness, excessive or foolish behaviour, etc." Who gives a toss about semantics anyway? Perhaps we should come up with another slogan. It has to be alliterative though. Meat is Minging?


I would prefer that the animals suffer as little as possible, as stated, but I have no illusions, I used to work in a butchers' shop, and I still do occasionally. They don't get WHOLE cows there, but many large segments, and they look like what they are. I have no illusions that a steak simply materializes on a plate.

I realise you don't but I think a lot of people do, particularly children. Up until I was a certain age I don't think I actually realised I was eating an animal. I mean I knew it was a chicken or whatever, if you held up a picture of a live chicken and a dead one on a plate I knew they were the same thing but you just don't make the mental connection of how one became the other. Even after realising it had to be killed for us to eat it, I thought it grew up in a nice field like on the packet and it died of old age or summat. :D


It COMPLETELY changes the morality of killing them. Anyone who kills animals not for food, safety, or survival, is a sadist. This is the biggest precursor to serial murder. (The REAL kind.) regardless of the fact that a grown human being CAN survive without eating meat, it is not killed and eaten for the joy of taking it's life, it is done to aid in survival, even if it is not imperative. Now you're doing something equally rediculous to the aforementioned slogan by comparing penned animals to slaves. If I was black i'd probably find that a lot more offensive, but regardless it's a rediculous analogy. You're doing the same thing, comparing those who keep livestock to slave traders. Preposterous.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think someone's background or past experiences makes torturing and killing them any less cruel or sadistic. It doesn't change the amount of pain they can feel. But is it really survival if it's not imperative? Killing an animal in the wild if you had no other possible food sources, that's survival. Nipping down to Tesco and picking between a hamburger or a veggie burger? It's not a question of survival if you have a choice.

Why is it a ridiculous analogy? Those who keep livestock and those who keep slaves are both confining a living creature against their will, inflicting pain and cruelty upon them for no reason other than the fact that it makes life more pleasant or convenient for them. Humans are animals. We are part of the animal kingdom. It's strange how some people find the mention of this offensive. True, we have evolved to the point of having intelligence and morality etc. but those things are completely irrelevant in relation to this issue. The fact that we can do calculus or create art has no bearing on the amount of pain we can suffer, it doesn't give us some sort of enhanced capacity for pain that makes it morally OK to kill other, 'lesser' animals.


Well, if you gorge yourself consistantly thats' probably true... However, a sensible diet that meets you're basic dietary needs is not necessarily harmful at all. Moreover, this generally only affects the obese, which i already discounted, and the middle aged, mostly men, as heart disease is rare in women. Also metabolism plays a huge part. My diet consists of pizza, whole milk, burgers, ribs, subs, etc, but i have a very fast metabolism and i eat sometimes four (or more) meals a day and retain a consistant weight, I'm even fairly thin, I didn't gain weight until I started drinking a lot of beer. How much vegetable matter would I have to consume to be equivalent?

True, but with 20% of the deaths in the United States caused by heart disease, it seems a fair number of people are gorging themselves nowadays. Metabolism does play a part, but so does the type of food you're eating. I went from being very overweight, perhaps verging on obese, to a healthy weight after doing nothing except cutting out animal products from my diet. I actually exercise less than I did when I was fat, yet I'm more toned and feel a lot more healthy overall. While I concede metabolism is a factor, I don't think it's any more so than diet. I'm not a nutritionist, I don't know your exact calorific requirements, and although I've never met a fat vegan I've never met an overly thin one either. All the things you mentioned can easily be made vegetarian or vegan, it's not as if you'd be counting on lettuce leaves and carrot sticks to fill you up.

[Amatis]

Is there anything printed by a PEDIATRICIAN that says that it is totally safe to raise a child vegan from birth? all I found was stuff written by vegans, not doctors, and even if a nutritionist says so, it's not the same.
I have to give you one thing, you're the smartest veggo I've ever argued with, however thats' not too much of a compliment.

A quick look on Google led me to an article by the American Dietetic Association which states that:

"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer."

You asked about paediatricians specifically though, so here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n252/ai_21052106)'s an article about (get this) Dr. Benjamin Spock who advocates a completely vegan diet and here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n254/ai_21233274)'s one about Dr. Charles Attwood, who recommends a completely vegetarian diet for children, with a very limited amount of dairy. You might also want to check out 'Pregnancy, Children and the Vegan Diet' by Michael Klaper M.D.

Haha, er, thanks... I think.

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Posting in large-size Comic Sans is a worse crime than anything else that's been brought up in this thread.

Amen to that. Possibly the most vile font ever. You can't imagine the uproar when I had to convince my workplace that it was not an appropriate font for business letters. You'd have thought I killed someone's kitten for the outrage that was expressed.

[Walkers Crisp]

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8331/stuffingin7.jpg

:D:D

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

I'm not going to requote Amatis' long posts, but I agree with most of what's been said.

I was always uncomfortable with eating animals, but did it anyway because it was easier not to challenge the status quo. But a realistic look at the practicalities of eating animal flesh in our society makes the decision an easy one. Creatures are commodified, brutalized, reared in conditions that anyone with eyes cannot fail to agree are inhumane. Then they are slaughtered by the most financially expeditious means possible. The industrialization of the food industry has served to decrease the healthfulness of our food as it has lowered the costs. Food is being centrally prepared, then shipped long distances, necessitating increased use of preservatives, and increasing the risk of spoilage and contamination.

In American culture, portion sizes are ridiculously distorted. No one really has any idea how much they should be eating, when they are hungry, when they are full, or even what tastes good.

We are killing ourselves with convenience foods. Not eating animal flesh is just one step in the process of paying attention to what you eat and whether it is actually going to help you or harm you.

I'm not perfect, if I were doing everything I should, I would eat a completely vegan diet of locally-grown food. But I'm not, I do what I can and that's a start.

[Buzzetta]

.
Well I think appointing our species as rulers over all others doesn't exactly reflect anti-authoritarian values. It's not doing away with hierarchy, it's just putting us at the top of it. Anarchism promotes liberty and equality and I think supporting these ideas while perpetuating our unquestioned dominion over animals doesn't make sense, just as racist, homophobic or patriarchal anarchism doesn't. They're all based on differences between us, silly differences like what someone's got between their legs or where they grew up, which are exploited to turn situations into "us vs. them" and alienate us from each other. I'm not saying we should give animals nice big hugs and invite them round for tea, it'd just be better if we didn't pointlessly kill them I reckon.

This is all under the notion that animals enjoy the same rights as humans. I have stated this in another thread and am simply going to repeat myself here. Lets talk priorities. To the parents out there.... the house is burning. You have time to save one the family dog or your daughter. Anyone who even considered saving the dog over your child, please go get yourself sterilized. Who has priority family or strangers? Obviously family. See where I am going with this? Human nature is we protect our own. Humans are valued to humans over any other creatures. I would save or assist one human stranger (and I do) before I would consider donating one cent to any cause assisting anything to do with animals.

My dictionary (Chambers) also defines it as: "slaughter or death that is felt to be needless, brutal or blameworthy, as a result of recklessness, excessive or foolish behaviour, etc." Who gives a toss about semantics anyway? Perhaps we should come up with another slogan. It has to be alliterative though. Meat is Minging?
I guess you could try to slant that towards your ideas that consumption of animals is murder if you ever considered animals to be of the same rights as people. Which I do not nor do others.

Killing an animal in the wild if you had no other possible food sources, that's survival. Nipping down to Tesco and picking between a hamburger or a veggie burger? It's not a question of survival if you have a choice.
The animals that are used as a food source were created bred and slaughtered to their end of being a food source. These are not animals removed from the wild. These animals exist for the sole purpose of being on my plate.

Why is it a ridiculous analogy? Those who keep livestock and those who keep slaves are both confining a living creature against their will, inflicting pain and cruelty upon them for no reason other than the fact that it makes life more pleasant or convenient for them.
Try this again, by simply cut and pasting what I wrote in another thread. Slavery involved people. Slavery did not involve animals.
Tired of the slavery argument. Animals are not people.

You PETA terrorist supporting sheep need to stop equating the dutch introduced enslavement of africans to the americas, the spanish enslavement of native americans and the roman enslavement of the poor (among others) to a hamburger.

Animals are not people - as I have so clearly mentioned elsewhere, I would save one human life over 1000 animals any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[2-J]

There is a fundamental difference in the emotional / intellectual / rational capabilities of paradigmatic humans, and paradigmatic members of all other animal species.

This is provides a basis for their having fewer rights than human beings.

But I commend buzzetta for the post above: indeed, the arguments he is replying to do make, as a hidden assumption, the assumption that animals have the same rights as humans.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

There is a fundamental difference in the emotional / intellectual / rational capabilities of paradigmatic humans, and paradigmatic members of all other animal species.

This is provides a basis for their having fewer rights than human beings.

But I commend buzzetta for the post above: indeed, the arguments he is replying to do make, as a hidden assumption, the assumption that animals have the same rights as humans.

It it therefore fine to eat people with intellectual disabilities, or people who speak in a language you don't understand?

All beings are equal. Some are just more equal than others?

Why should justice only apply to the particular group of naked apes you wish it to and not to other animals?

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

To the parents out there.... the house is burning. You have time to save one the family dog or your daughter. Anyone who even considered saving the dog over your child, please go get yourself sterilized. Who has priority family or strangers? Obviously family. See where I am going with this? Human nature is we protect our own. Humans are valued to humans over any other creatures. I would save or assist one human stranger (and I do) before I would consider donating one cent to any cause assisting anything to do with animals.

I don't eat animals, as I've said. But I've had a child die, and I've had a pet die (several, as they do.) I would kill my dog with my bare hands to save my child's life. And when people talk about their "furbabies," or talk about how their pets are just as important to them as human children are to their parents, I just quietly roll my eyes. You have no idea the difference until you've had both, and I doubt any parent would disagree.

Still, I'm not eating animals. Animals have a right to live a natural life and not be exploited for human wants and desires. Their consciousness is not quite like ours- we are apples and oranges, but that doesn't give us the right to abuse them. Does that make any sense?

[Morrissey the 23rd]

Buzzetta, have you read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation? If so, what are your thoughts on singer's ideas of specism? If not, you might find it intersting. the ironic thing about singer is that he is often credited as starting the modern animal rights movement and he has claimed many times that he doesn't even like animals.

also, what are your thoughts on dog fighting, cock fighting and animals in circuses?

I've given links to him from sources such as the UN and New scientist, to then be told I'm providing biased links to suit my slanted, skewed way of thinking but good question.

I want to understand why Buzzetta sees no wrong in specism and I've already promised him that I will continue this debate when I'm home alone, with a little free time (You see, I'm often busy elsewhere while posting on this board.) His indifference and cynisism is wide-reaching. His ethics and morals model is all over the shot. I've found it hard to get him to expand on the reasoning behind his thoughts. It is just because it is :p.

[2-J]

It it therefore fine to eat people with intellectual disabilities, or people who speak in a language you don't understand?

All beings are equal. Some are just more equal than others?

Why should justice only apply to the particular group of naked apes you wish it to and not to other animals?

Note the word 'paradigmatic' in my argument.

The typical human (indeed, the vast majority of the human race) has capabilities - or the potential to develop capabailities - in the rational and emotional spheres, far greater than those of any other animal.

Regarding those with intellectual disabilities, it has to be said, even the vast majority of these display (and have) capabilities that far surpass those of other animals. Granted, there are some that don't. There's a decent argument that we should regard these people as having the same rights as any other human beings because you can never be quite sure of the mental life they have. There is always the possibility of misdiagnosis or medical breakthrough which might render a judgement based on their mental capabilities unsound. The same argument doesn't apply to non-human animals because there is no 'starting point' of high rationality and emotional capability that you find in human beings - no members of the species exhibit it. There is no *expectation* that they have the same capabilities. And nor should there be.

[2-J]

I think Singer somewhat understates the Animal Liberation movement's case... not that there is by any means a 'single view' that those who identify themslves with the movement have. But a great many wish to argue that animals have the 'same rights' or very nearly the same rights, as human beings.

In particular, most identifying with the movement (correct me if I'm wrong) would violently advocate that animals should not be killed for food, for example. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Singer's view allow killing of animals for food, as long as it was done with little pain and suffering?

[Flax]

also, what are your thoughts on dog fighting, cock fighting and animals in circuses?

I think that dog fighting, cock fighting and animals in circuses are fine because we are superior and they were grown for that purpose.

Humans are clearly superior, therefore we have the right to entertain ourselves with those inferior animals. Can you imagine how sad of a society we would be if we didn't have bears riding bicycles?

Jeane, I am gonna have to punish you by eating a 1000 burgers in your honor.

This is me, tonight:
http://nitespyder.com/FatBurger.jpg

[Morrissey the 23rd]

Note the word 'paradigmatic' in my argument.

The typical human (indeed, the vast majority of the human race) has capabilities - or the potential to develop capabailities - in the rational and emotional spheres, far greater than those of any other animal.

Regarding those with intellectual disabilities, it has to be said, even the vast majority of these display (and have) capabilities that far surpass those of other animals. Granted, there are some that don't. There's a decent argument that we should regard these people as having the same rights as any other human beings because you can never be quite sure of the mental life they have. There is always the possibility of misdiagnosis or medical breakthrough which might render a judgement based on their mental capabilities unsound. The same argument doesn't apply to non-human animals because there is no 'starting point' of high rationality and emotional capability that you find in human beings - no members of the species exhibit it. There is no *expectation* that they have the same capabilities. And nor should there be.


I did. That is why I replied to it.:confused:

Basically, it's ok to produce beings for the special beings to eat and no defense is required. We are that special. How can I debate that?

What we are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

[2-J]

" As a matter of strict logic, perhaps, there is no contradiction in taking an interest in animals on both compassionate and gastronomic grounds. If a person is opposed to the infliction of suffering on animals, but not to the painless killing of animals, he could consistently eat animals that had lived free of all suffering and been instantly, painlessly slaughtered. Yet practically and psychologically it is impossible to be consistent in one's concern for nonhuman animals while continuing to dine on them. If we are prepared to take the life of another being merely in order to satisfy our taste for a particular type of food, then that being is no more than a means to our end. In time we will come to regard pigs, cattle, and chickens as things for us to use, no matter how strong our compassion may be; and when we find that to continue to obtain supplies of the bodies of these animals at a price we are able to pay it is necessary to change their living conditions a little, we will be unlikely to regard these changes too critically. The factory farm is nothing more than the application of technology to the idea that animals are means to our ends. Our eating habits are dear to us and not easily altered. We have a strong interest in convincing ourselves that our concern for other animals does not require us to stop eating them. No one in the habit of eating an animal can be completely without bias in judging whether the conditions in which that animal is reared caused suffering."

Thanks for quoting the material. Interesting (and quite correct) that Singer admits that, on his principles, strictly speaking there is no contradiction between eating meat and respecting animals' interests...

I would submit then that him saying that we 'inevitably' become more callous through eating animals (strictly speaking, as he says, permitted in his system) simply represents a lack of psychological fortitude on his part. I would say I take an interest in animal rights, donate to certain charities, support humane farming practices where possible, appreciate the beauty of animal life and my pets, as well as enjoying very much eating meat. It is possible to act that way. Singer admits that animals have no interest in whether they are killed or not, it's just a shame he in effect pussies out of the conclusion that this leads him to.

[2-J]

Basically, it's ok to produce beings for the special beings to eat and no defense is required. We are that special.
[/url]

A 'defence' is required, and was provided. That human beings in general have vastly superior, and morally relevant capabilities to all other animals. Don't try and make out that I'm either not arguing for my conclusions, or saying that I won't listen to any arguments in reply, that's too easy a way out.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

[2-J]

does he admit that animals have no interest if they are killed?

Well his arguments are based on the principle of 'the equal consideration of interests' and this leads him, after an evaluation of animals' mental capabilities, to conclude that strictly speaking, it is permissible for humans to eat animals because animals only have an interest in avoiding pain, not in avoiding death. That is why he admits (as you have seen in the material you have quoted) that strictly speaking there is no contradiction in eating animals as long as they have not been hurt in the process.


possibly, you are able to do both, however if you take his argument, he would say as a meat eater, you are biased in what you think is humane treatment because it is your interest to allow any practice of animal slaughter to continue.

He wouldn't say that because, according to the material you quoted, his argument against eating meat is based solely on the idea that eating meat actually corrupts us inevitably to be complacent towards animal suffering. So, you may come up with an argument to do with bias but it certainly doesn't seem to be in step with his line of thought, at least as you have quoted it anyway.


personally, i fail to see how you can appreciate the beauty of animal life and then condone its destruction. i couldn't.

Well you and Singer have the same problem. A lack of imagination. People like me who actually care about animals and sparing them pain as far as possible, yet enjoy eating them, are not supposed to exist. Yet, I'm not so much a freak as you might think. Many people feel the same way. Just a shame vegetarians (even those who feel the need to resort to philosophers to intellectualise their emotional responses) don't see that.

[Miss Dave,town gossip]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Has his work influenced your relationship with sheep, Hugh?

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Well you and Singer have the same problem. A lack of imagination. People like me who actually care about animals and sparing them pain as far as possible, yet enjoy eating them, are not supposed to exist. Yet, I'm not so much a freak as you might think. Many people feel the same way. Just a shame vegetarians (even those who feel the need to resort to philosophers to intellectualise their emotional responses) don't see that.

How do you reconcile the fact that animals are not killed painlessly for food? Unless I missed the part where you said you cuddle your lambies gently to death before eating them...

[2-J]

How do you reconcile the fact that animals are not killed painlessly for food? Unless I missed the part where you said you cuddle your lambies gently to death before eating them...

Well we all do what we can, don't we? I actively buy produce that is not battery farmed, in fact a lot of the meat I buy comes from independent farmers' markets. At least outside the most intense conditions suffering in life is minimised. I am aware that their deaths may not have been completely painless, but their suffering has nevertheless been brief, perhaps almost as brief as possible.

I don't think, living in the UK today with the options open to us, that the only moral choice is to not eat meat. Perhaps if the market was different and animals were all only farmed in appalling conditions, there might actually be an argument to stop eating meat completely. It's all about making an effort to improve their quality of life. Perhaps we should as a society be eating less meat in general, so that more land could be given over to less intense farming practices. I wouldn't have a problem with that idea.

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Well we all do what we can, don't we? I actively buy produce that is not battery farmed, in fact a lot of the meat I buy comes from independent farmers' markets. At least outside the most intense conditions suffering in life is minimised. I am aware that their deaths may not have been completely painless, but their suffering has nevertheless been brief, perhaps almost as brief as possible.

I don't think, living in the UK today with the options open to us, that the only moral choice is to not eat meat. Perhaps if the market was different and animals were all only farmed in appalling conditions, there might actually be an argument to stop eating meat completely. It's all about making an effort to improve their quality of life. Perhaps we should as a society be eating less meat in general, so that more land could be given over to less intense farming practices. I wouldn't have a problem with that idea.

Wouldn't it be easier just not to eat the animals? There is no good reason to eat them, and plenty of good reasons not to eat them.

[2-J]

The reason to eat them is that I find many meat dishes delicious! And I'm not alone in that.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

What about pain during life?

[2-J]

he doesn't go on to other shared interests and neither will i at this hour.

Well, quite... the material you quoted on this point, along with the wikipedia article, would appear to be definitive; he does indeed argue that animals have no 'interest' in avoiding death, and that humans do. But we both have an 'interest' in avoiding pain. Please quote further if he goes on to argue that we (humans and animals) have an identical interest in avoiding death, but it would seem to go against the material you've quoted, AND what is said on wikipedia.




perhaps i lack imagination. i certainly don't lack manners as you do. i never called you a freak

You questioned my behaviour as if it was a strange response; Singer finds my position absolutely unthinkable, so he certainly would regard me as a freak.




nor do i appreciate you implying that i feel the need to resort to philosophers to intellectualise my emotional response. i raised peter singer to ask buzzetta if he had read anything he had written in speciesism and his opinion on peter singer's argument. m23 responded to speciesism and i commented on his response. you asked a little bit more about singer, i provided you with that information. i then gave a personal opinion. i have made it very clear where my opinion begins and ends and where singer's begins and ends. in fact i haven't even given a personal opinion about singer's argument and its validity (other than saying that humans and other animals are not equal, which is a reaction to buzzetta's example of a burning building).

You have given an opinion, and you have given an outline of a philosophical theory which, if true, would back up the opinion. No further argument or justification has been provided for your opinion. So you can see how it's not wildly inappropriate for me to assume that you are using this argument as backup. You certainly share with Singer this disbelief that someone could cause animal life to be ended yet still love animals (reinforced even by the language in which you phrased the question to me...), so, just another reason why it seemed you were deploying his argument as a good one for your position.

[Dave]

I simply have never heard a philosophically sound argument for it. Some say "All life is sacred" which sounds nice but is really hippie crap and total nonsense, what about rodents, insects, yeast, or bacteria and diseases, all are life, and many veggos/vegans don't care about them.

I'm not sure how whether or not people care about certain things that are alive or not makes them sacred or not. I don't see the correlation between caring and sacred.

I think it's less about whether something is alive than whether it has a consciousness, which I think yeast and bacteria lack. A disease is a condition and not a living thing.

[Dave]

Food Source....

Calling something a "food source" is not an argument. Whether it was "bred to be eaten" hardly matters. What if Jeffrey Dahmer "bred" humans so he could eat them? Are they then a "food source"?

Of course animals are not people, but still this shows the fundamental flaw in your argument.

What if Mike Vick bred dogs for dogfighting? Would this make it different?

Whether it is bred for a purpose of not makes no difference.

Calling something a food source is a debate trick, a semantics game. It's based on nothing.

You're saying animals bred to be eaten are a food source because you say they are a food source.

[Dave]

How misguided and inept your beliefs are.

Why not read about Rodney Coronado, Fran Trutt and A.L.F. and how PETA paid large "donations" as they refer to it towards their "needs". Rodney was convicted of blowing up a research lab, Franny got pinched on attempted murder and ALF? ALF advocates and encourages their loose member base to commit acts of violence to achieve goals. Why did I say loose member base? Because the higher-ups light the the fuze and walk away then shrug the responsibility off so they can deny culpability.

You still fail to address how that model is any different than Middle Eastern terrorist groups rewarding the families of suicide bombers? Lets see Hamas, and certain agencies within Syria will contribute to a family under the guise that someone has to take care of them once you are dead. ... So long as you detonated a bomb within a Israeli marketplace or bus. PETA contributes money to the families of those that are CONVICTED of blowing up property, attempted murder and other acts of violence. Looks like the Broccoli Brigade loses their argument that vegetarians are passive by nature or by diet. (Which I have read the idiotic claims of.)

60 Minutes, The New York Times and other reputable news sources have uncovered and explicitly shown the relationship between PETA and the terrorist groups it supports.

In response, Ingrid Newkirk simply states...
“I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”


I am meeting my friends at 9 for dinner...

In your honor I will eat something with meat. I will even take a picture and post it tomorrow.

You said that torture is alright when done by Americans and British but wrong when done by Muslims.

The whole thing about what you're eating and taking pictures of it is kind of boring. Take a picture of yourself killing it and butchering it and you'll have my attention.

[nogodsnomasters85]

I'm not sure how whether or not people care about certain things that are alive or not makes them sacred or not. I don't see the correlation between caring and sacred.

I think it's less about whether something is alive than whether it has a consciousness, which I think yeast and bacteria lack. A disease is a condition and not a living thing.

I used the word "sacred' simply because I prefer the sound of it. (I AM an atheist, mind.) What i meant, in case it was unclear was something akin to priceless, or inalienable, or some such thing. My point was Ithat the majority of arguments I've heard from the Broccoli Brigade have been philosophically lacking. recently there has been some posts relating to the writings of some guy named Singer, this is admittedly the most clear and cogent argument for the cause I've heard, although i still disagree. my point is, you're welcome to have an opinion, which needs no justification or basis in reality whatsoever, but when one tries to convert or condemn others THEN the burden of proof rests on said individual, it's obligatory. I was trying to point this out, and perhaps tease out an attempt at a reasoned argument. Is the nature of the argument that eating meat causes death (for animals) and causing death is inherently wrong? i HAVE heard people attempt this argument, but it holds no water. And while I'm sure bacterium and yeast have no sense of pain, rats and mosquitos and other assorted pests/vermin DO, and there aren't many coming to they're rescue. To paraphrase J 2's earlier comment, what is the fundamental value difference between these creatures and a cow?, and a person? Are you implying there is none? And can you justify it? THAT was what i was saying.

[Dave]

It's not that there is no difference. I do respect the life of a mosquito. I will still slap it if it lands on me.

Your earlier argument was that there are greater problems in the world. I can understand that. But that doesn't mean that speaking out for conscious beings that are often needlessly tortured in laboratories and that endure needless suffering so some robot can have their Egg McMuffin is not a valid choice.

Also, please don't take this as a personal comment, because I don't mean it that way, but labeling things as "hippie nonsense", when it is really a belief that is thousands of years old, is not a great addition to an argument.

edit: of course, calling people robots probably isn't either. ;)

[nogodsnomasters85]

It's not that there is no difference. I do respect the life of a mosquito. I will still slap it if it lands on me.

You completely bypassed what i was trying to get at. How do you respect it's life if you kill it? It is no danger to you, beyond a mild itch and the rather unlikely possibility of disease. You kill a living creature, that feels pain, how is this different from a cow save the cows better and doesn't make you itch? what is the PHILOSOPHICALLY SOUND ethical framework for this?


Your earlier argument was that there are greater problems in the world. I can understand that.

I wouldn't question you're honesty, but I have trouble believing that. If you TRULY understood there would be no further discussion of this sort.


But that doesn't mean that speaking out for conscious beings that are often needlessly tortured in laboratories and that endure needless suffering so some robot can have their Egg McMuffin is not a valid choice.

I thought my whole point was that it wasn't a valid choice. Of course, as i have mentioned the bigger part of this lies in a disagreement about the morality of meat, but I would change if I could be convinced there was reason.


Also, please don't take this as a personal comment, because I don't mean it that way, but labeling things as "hippie nonsense", when it is really a belief that is thousands of years old, is not a great addition to an argument.

I think it's funny, and I thought I said "hippie CRAP"? Oh well, same thing. That wasn't really a central part of my argument, just editorializing. I call 'em as I see 'em.

[CrystalGeezer]

(I love egg mcmuffins.)

Just don't tell Morrissey.

[Buzzetta]

Calling something a "food source" is not an argument. Whether it was "bred to be eaten" hardly matters. What if Jeffrey Dahmer "bred" humans so he could eat them? Are they then a "food source"?

Of course animals are not people, but still this shows the fundamental flaw in your argument.

What if Mike Vick bred dogs for dogfighting? Would this make it different?

Whether it is bred for a purpose of not makes no difference.

Calling something a food source is a debate trick, a semantics game. It's based on nothing.

You're saying animals bred to be eaten are a food source because you say they are a food source.

No offence but I believe you to be absolutely wrong there Dave. It is a matter of perception per-se. I contend to the fundamental belief that animals are subordinate to humans and once again equate it to a theology. Just as I can show readings and events that demonstrate how Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the fulfillment and continuation of the Old Testament to a person of Jewish faith it does not mean that they will believe it because they have a fundamental belief that their Messiah has not come.

You are debating with someone that does not believe that animals are on the same level or of the equality as humans. I do not equate keeping animals in cages as any form of what is considered slavery. Just not happening for me I guess. In fact to tell the truth I look upon those that contend that it is slavery with severe disdain and contempt as they do a disservice to those that have been under the unfortunate circumstances of forced servitude from African Americans during Dutch, Anglo and American Slavery to what currently goes on today in the Korean and Chinese markets.

As it was brought up I do actually believe in a species lottery. Absolutely. Just as I was not born of oil rich parents and by the same token not born in the slums of an apartheid South Africa. As I have plainly stated many times, sucks for the chicken. Now you can say that "Well Buzzetta, how come you do not express such indifference towards fellow humans?" Simple answer there. Animals are not human.

There are animals that are to be used as a food source. A food source sustains life. Whether someone chooses or not to eat meat is irrelevant as these animals are specifically designed to provide for humans as a food source and not violence.

Dogfighting is by design and by definition of the included word "fighting" designed for a purpose of violence. It serves no purpose other than to provide a violent end. The processing of an animal to be used as a food source is for the purpose of providing food and not violent entertainment.

Sorry - I do not subscribe to your perceptions.

[Dave]

You completely bypassed what i was trying to get at. How do you respect it's life if you kill it? It is no danger to you, beyond a mild itch and the rather unlikely possibility of disease. You kill a living creature, that feels pain, how is this different from a cow save the cows better and doesn't make you itch? what is the PHILOSOPHICALLY SOUND ethical framework for this?


I wouldn't question you're honesty, but I have trouble believing that. If you TRULY understood there would be no further discussion of this sort.



I thought my whole point was that it wasn't a valid choice. Of course, as i have mentioned the bigger part of this lies in a disagreement about the morality of meat, but I would change if I could be convinced there was reason.



I think it's funny, and I thought I said "hippie CRAP"? Oh well, same thing. That wasn't really a central part of my argument, just editorializing. I call 'em as I see 'em.

West Nile Disease is more than an itch. Besides I think you're completely missing the meaning of "respect". If a person tried to bite me and drink my blood I would violently defend myself also. Would I kill a person that tried to drink my blood? Probably not. The whole scenario is ridiculous. Obviously. The point is I don't kill mosquitoes and eat them. If I were attacked by an animal, I wouldn't think "all life is sacred so I can't fight back".

I don't think a mosquito feels pain when I splatter it on my arm. It might. It is not a comparable situation though. I don't slit its throat and drain its blood, etc etc. The mosquito thing isn't working for me as an argument.

Sorry for not doing the multiquote thing. About whether I know there are problems in the world. Let's say for the sake of argument that I did not know or did not care. How would that make a personal choice not to support and participate in the suffering of animals for profit any different?

It's two different things. Eating a piece of bacon doesn't make less suffering for people. Not caring about animal suffering doesn't raise awareness of human suffering.

I'm not trying to change you, but if I were I would look into international connections between the people that own or are on the boards of corporations that profit from war and those that profit from the killing of animals. I'm not saying that they exist.

Just as a test I put "Pepsi political" in google and got a story about Pepsi, owner of KFC and Taco Bell, supporting a military dictatorship in Burma. Dated 1996, but it's the first example that popped up. It just shows that if you looked for the links that they would be there.

[nogodsnomasters85]

No offence but I believe you to be absolutely wrong there Dave. It is a matter of perception per-se. I contend to the fundamental belief that animals are subordinate to humans and once again equate it to a theology. Just as I can show readings and events that demonstrate how Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the fulfillment and continuation of the Old Testament to a person of Jewish faith it does not mean that they will believe it because they have a fundamental belief that their Messiah has not come.

You are debating with someone that does not believe that animals are on the same level or of the equality as humans. I do not equate keeping animals in cages as any form of what is considered slavery. Just not happening for me I guess. In fact to tell the truth I look upon those that contend that it is slavery with severe disdain and contempt as they do a disservice to those that have been under the unfortunate circumstances of forced servitude from African Americans during Dutch, Anglo and American Slavery to what currently goes on today in the Korean and Chinese markets.

As it was brought up I do actually believe in a species lottery. Absolutely. Just as I was not born of oil rich parents and by the same token not born in the slums of an apartheid South Africa. As I have plainly stated many times, sucks for the chicken. Now you can say that "Well Buzzetta, how come you do not express such indifference towards fellow humans?" Simple answer there. Animals are not human.

There are animals that are to be used as a food source. A food source sustains life. Whether someone chooses or not to eat meat is irrelevant as these animals are specifically designed to provide for humans as a food source and not violence.

Dogfighting is by design and by definition of the included word "fighting" designed for a purpose of violence. It serves no purpose other than to provide a violent end. The processing of an animal to be used as a food source is for the purpose of providing food and not violent entertainment.

Sorry - I do not subscribe to your perceptions.

..........Here, here. ::claps::

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

I browsed thru the last 3 pages w/o reading a single post. Why do people have to be so long-winded about what they have to say?

Summarize, people!! We don't wanna read 20 essays per page. :cool:

Images are heavily encouraged, a single one can say 1000 words and more.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n279/nani18_2006/w0P_meat_is_murder.jpg

[nogodsnomasters85]

I browsed thru the last 3 pages w/o reading a single post. Why do people have to be so long-winded about what they have to say?

Summarize, poeple!! We don't wanna read 20 essays per page. :cool:

Images are heavily encouraged, a single one can say 1000 words and more.

Some ideas cannot be expressed in a sentence or two. this is, of course, As Noam Chomsky has said, a decided advantage to republicans, anyone on the right wing, as they're arguments tend to be framed in terms of gross oversimplifications. For example, one can say "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." easily between commercials, however, explaining that radicalism and violence in the Middle East is directly correlated to our military presence and foreign policies takes far longer, giving the right the advantage.
Point being, complex ideas require nuance and examples. These are dialogues, not bumper stickers.

[Dave]

Meat is murder?

[Dave]

I browsed thru the last 3 pages w/o reading a single post. Why do people have to be so long-winded about what they have to say?

Summarize, people!! We don't wanna read 20 essays per page. :cool:

Images are heavily encouraged, a single one can say 1000 words and more.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n279/nani18_2006/w0P_meat_is_murder.jpg

Listen, sharkface. I will type until they pry my keyboard from my stiff dead fingers. :p

[nogodsnomasters85]

Listen, sharkface. I will type until they pry my keyboard from my stiff dead fingers. :p

We're having a Charlton Heston moment, I see. (j/k)

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

Some ideas cannot be expressed in a sentence or two. this is, of course, As Noam Chomsky has said, a decided advantage to republicans, anyone on the right wing, as they're arguments tend to be framed in terms of gross oversimplifications. For example, one can say "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." easily between commercials, however, explaining that radicalism and violence in the Middle East is directly correlated to our military presence and foreign policies takes far longer, giving the right the advantage.
Point being, complex ideas require nuance and examples. These are dialogues, not bumper stickers.

All the nuance in the world can never defeat classic "bumper sticker" lines like this amazingly moronic statement.........

"I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted againt it"

http://images.yuku.com/image/png/c3425e5d702c3c627b4eb2058e9029330c7e5e9_t.gif

[nogodsnomasters85]

I hope I'm misunderstanding you. You can't be jumping on that bandwagon, oh, because the other guy looks so fucking good? The man who has lowered the bar set by Richard Nixon for incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and failure?

[Dave]

I contend to the fundamental belief that animals are subordinate to humans and once again equate it to a theology. Just as I can show readings and events that demonstrate how Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the fulfillment and continuation of the Old Testament to a person of Jewish faith it does not mean that they will believe it because they have a fundamental belief that their Messiah has not come.

You are debating with someone that does not believe that animals are on the same level or of the equality as humans. I do not equate keeping animals in cages as any form of what is considered slavery. Just not happening for me I guess. In fact to tell the truth I look upon those that contend that it is slavery with severe disdain and contempt as they do a disservice to those that have been under the unfortunate circumstances of forced servitude from African Americans during Dutch, Anglo and American Slavery to what currently goes on today in the Korean and Chinese markets.

As it was brought up I do actually believe in a species lottery. Absolutely. Just as I was not born of oil rich parents and by the same token not born in the slums of an apartheid South Africa. As I have plainly stated many times, sucks for the chicken. Now you can say that "Well Buzzetta, how come you do not express such indifference towards fellow humans?" Simple answer there. Animals are not human.

There are animals that are to be used as a food source. A food source sustains life. Whether someone chooses or not to eat meat is irrelevant as these animals are specifically designed to provide for humans as a food source and not violence.


So it is faith-based?

A "species lottery" indicates chance, and then you say that "animals are specifically designed" which doesn't seem to be chance.

There's another hole in your argument when you say animals are not designed for violence, as if you can "process" them into a "food source" in a non-violent way.

I haven't seen you address the issue that more suffering equals more profit. If you're eating fast food you're eating animals that have suffered for profit. My fundamental beliefs tell me that is obscene, immoral, unethical, evil.


..........Here, here. ::claps::

I thought you were an atheist? You agree that animals are "specifically designed"?

[Buzzetta]

So it is faith-based?
Never said that at all. In fact I cannot even see how you could construe that from the above. The argument that animals are on the same level as humans has no ground with me because I do not believe that is true. I am likening it to one religion believing in one thing and another religion believing in another. I can liken it to those that believe that you should put on your right shoe first and then your left vs those that believe that you should put your left shoe on first and then your right. The argument that animals should enjoy equal rights under the law, higher power or any other argument is naught because I do not believe that an animal is on the same level as a person.

A "species lottery" indicates chance, and then you say that "animals are specifically designed" which doesn't seem to be chance.
It is to cover the many arguments all over the thread. In the end, once again, the sole reason that we bring these animals into the world is to provide a food source. That is it. They fulfill their end as a food source.

There's another hole in your argument when you say animals are not designed for violence, as if you can "process" them into a "food source" in a non-violent way.
As I stated before be it in this or the other thread (which at this point I am surprised has not been merged), the designed end is to be a food source. The processing of animals to me by cutting off it's head is no different to me than the removal of a carrot from the ground. Dogfighting on the other hand is specifically designed to be a violent act for the sheer engagement or enjoyment of taking part in that violent act.

I haven't seen you address the issue that more suffering equals more profit. If you're eating fast food you're eating animals that have suffered for profit. My fundamental beliefs tell me that is obscene, immoral, unethical, evil.
That is your fundamental belief system and not mine. You believe that animals are on the same level or should enjoy the same rights as humans. I do not. See the above. If you have ever been scuba diving then you even paid for air. Since I do not have the time, room, patience or flat out ability to raise my own cattle, chicken, turkey and various other animals for food, I gladly pay others to do so for me.

I thought you were an atheist? You agree that animals are "specifically designed"?
I know that this was not directed towards me but I believe he was referring to the chickens in the coop and fish hatcheries and such where animals are specifically raised to be food sources.

[Dave]

So it is faith-based?
Never said that at all. In fact I cannot even see how you could construe that from the above. The argument that animals are on the same level as humans has no ground with me because I do not believe that is true. I am likening it to one religion believing in one thing and another religion believing in another. I can liken it to those that believe that you should put on your right shoe first and then your left vs those that believe that you should put your left shoe on first and then your right. The argument that animals should enjoy equal rights under the law, higher power or any other argument is naught because I do not believe that an animal is on the same level as a person.

A "species lottery" indicates chance, and then you say that "animals are specifically designed" which doesn't seem to be chance.
It is to cover the many arguments all over the thread. In the end, once again, the sole reason that we bring these animals into the world is to provide a food source. That is it. They fulfill their end as a food source.

There's another hole in your argument when you say animals are not designed for violence, as if you can "process" them into a "food source" in a non-violent way.
As I stated before be it in this or the other thread (which at this point I am surprised has not been merged), the designed end is to be a food source. The processing of animals to me by cutting off it's head is no different to me than the removal of a carrot from the ground. Dogfighting on the other hand is specifically designed to be a violent act for the sheer engagement or enjoyment of taking part in that violent act.

I haven't seen you address the issue that more suffering equals more profit. If you're eating fast food you're eating animals that have suffered for profit. My fundamental beliefs tell me that is obscene, immoral, unethical, evil.
That is your fundamental belief system and not mine. You believe that animals are on the same level or should enjoy the same rights as humans. I do not. See the above. If you have ever been scuba diving then you even paid for air. Since I do not have the time, room, patience or flat out ability to raise my own cattle, chicken, turkey and various other animals for food, I gladly pay others to do so for me.

I thought you were an atheist? You agree that animals are "specifically designed"?
I know that this was not directed towards me but I believe he was referring to the chickens in the coop and fish hatcheries and such where animals are specifically raised to be food sources.

How did I construe it? You talk about your fundamental beliefs, mention Jesus, and say animals are designed.

I have repeatedly said that I don't personally believe animals are equal to humans. I do believe that they suffer, and that it is right and just to minimize if not eliminate that suffering.

We don't bring animals into the world. We didn't create them. How, who, and what they were designed for is a matter of interpretation.

[Buzzetta]

How did I construe it? You talk about your fundamental beliefs, mention Jesus, and say animals are designed.
Well apparently you construed it wrong. Re-read and you will see I likened it to two people engaged in a religious belief. I never said the argument was based IN religion. Again it is no different than when one person says I'm right because I believe in this and you are wrong. Your argument hinges upon the notion that animals are of the same equality as humans. It loses any weight with me because I don't believe in your fundamental principles that you are trying to push here. Sorry... no one ever said though it was based upon religion. That is just goofy.



I have repeatedly said that I don't personally believe animals are equal to humans. I do believe that they suffer, and that it is right and just to minimize if not eliminate that suffering.
And as I said I do not equate the suffering to be any different than the violent act of ripping a carrot out of the ground. Both are a food source.



We don't bring animals into the world. We didn't create them. How, who, and what they were designed for is a matter of interpretation.
Should I say "promote", "allow" "encourage"? You know what I refer to especially when I use an example of a fish hatchery.

[Dave]

Again it is no different than when one person says I'm right because I believe in this and you are wrong.

Right. It is exactly like saying "I am right because I am right." Or "animals are a food source because animals are a food source".


Well, I do not believe in the same things that you do so since your argument hinges upon the notion that animals are of the same equality as humans it loses any weight with me because I don't believe in the your fundamental principals that you are trying to push on me here. Sorry... no one ever said though it was based upon religion. That is just goofy.

Do I have to count how many times I have specifically stated that I don't find animals to be "of the same equality" as humans? Actually, I didn't say that because "of the same equality" is a really laborious way to say "equal". Here's what's happening. The fastest way to make a vegetarian or animal rights advocate seem wrong is to say that they see animals as equal to humans. You're stuck on that even though it's not applicable to what I've said.

Similar to the argument that animals being tortured in labs cures cancer and AIDS. "Don't you care about people with cancer and AIDS?"

I didn't say based on religion. I said "faith-based". Which it is if you look at it. You know these things because you know them and you know them because they are true and they are true because you know them.

When you're right, you're right, and you can put together a good argument at times, but you're just stuck in a loop here.



And as I said I do not equate the suffering to be any different than the violent act of ripping a carrot out of the ground. Both are a food source.


I hope you have enjoyed having a pet before, and I'm guessing that if you did it wasn't a carrot.

If you want to talk about similar levels of equivalent sameness, there is this thing you may have heard of called consciousness. An animal has it, and a human has it. A carrot, not so much.

[Buzzetta]

Right. It is exactly like saying "I am right because I am right." Or "animals are a food source because animals are a food source".
From your perspective it may look like that.




Do I have to count how many times I have specifically stated that I don't find animals to be "of the same equality" as humans? Actually, I didn't say that because "of the same equality" is a really laborious way to say "equal". Here's what's happening. The fastest way to make a vegetarian or animal rights advocate seem wrong is to say that they see animals as equal to humans. You're stuck on that even though it's not applicable to what I've said.
You are absolutely correct. I should remain focused on your argument regarding suffering and not on what others have previously stated when quoting you. I equate the suffering of animals that become food to be no greater or less that of pulling a carrot out of the ground. In either case discomfort arises from being processed into food.



Similar to the argument that animals being tortured in labs cures cancer and AIDS. "Don't you care about people with cancer and AIDS?"
I fully support any and all animal research in support of the progression of medical science for health purposes in order to cure and stop diseases, infections and illnesses.



I didn't say based on religion. I said "faith-based". Which it is if you look at it. You know these things because you know them and you know them because they are true and they are true because you know them.
"
You are the one that "My fundamental beliefs tell me that is obscene, immoral, unethical, evil" and I state that my fundamental beliefs dispute that. Is it unethical to eat? Absolutely not. I know you say I keep repeating myself but that is because I do not believe that you fully understand what I am saying. I read what you write of how it is immoral and I shrug my shoulders at that. The suffering or discomfort an animal endures in the slaughterhouse is no different to me than the carrot pulled out of the ground or the tomato twisted off the vine.



When you're right, you're right, and you can put together a good argument at times, but you're just stuck in a loop here.
Perhaps, (and thanks for the nod - we can still be online pals right?) but I believe that may be because I do not subscribe to the general principle that you have regarding the suffering of the animals in a slaughterhouse to be immoral.


I hope you have enjoyed having a pet before, and I'm guessing that if you did it wasn't a carrot.
Read the "what happened when you were 18" thread. I uh... had a cactus. In reality my grandmother had dogs and still does bless her almost 90 year heart. The difference is that the dog is maintained as a pet. My tropical fish are maintained as pets. The hamburger on my plate was maintained for the sole purpose to be food.



If you want to talk about similar levels of equivalent sameness, there is this thing you may have heard of called consciousness. An animal has it, and a human has it. A carrot, not so much.
That we know of for starters. See some ******** scientists are a wiley bunch. While others from that nation have brought us bizarre things such as public stripping, weird game shows and women doing inappropriate things with eels, they have done some incredible research. Besides that though they have also tested to see if plants are "aware". There is research out there testing the consciousness of plants.

This was not the article I was looking for but it was actually quite an interesting read. Even outside this argument it was interesting. Check it out.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/p01s03-usgn.html

[Dave]

That was an interesting article. More to think about. I have heard of plant studies, though not these, and I'll admit that I avoided mentioning it because it does make the whole issue trickier. I think there are levels, though. To me, a rabbit is not the same as a human, but a carrot is not the same as a rabbit.

It's been cold and I've thought of bringing my basil plants inside but they get more sun outside. Maybe I'll ask them what they want. ;)

[Hellie]

I`ve been a veggie since I was twelve-so for twenty six years now and i have never ever missed it or regretted it.:)

[2-J]

There's another hole in your argument when you say animals are not designed for violence, as if you can "process" them into a "food source" in a non-violent way.

What if the animal was raised in pretty good free range conditions, and then was killed with the absolute minimum of pain?

Singer makes some good points, much as I disagree with his conclusions. He argues that something that is merely conscious (not self-conscious and with other advanced intellectual capabilities we have) does not have an 'interest' in whether it lives or dies, just in avoiding pain.

To go off a bit on a tangent, I can only speak for myself, but were I reduced to the mental state of a cow, then I don't think I should much care whether I lived or died either. I think probably from my own perspective now, I would prefer that if I ever got to that stage, I would be euthanised. There are many things that make life worth living for human beings, not all the same for every being, but really the life of a cow (AND its associated mental life, - it is not even self-conscious, it does not see itself as distinct from its environment, so things like love, affection, any true attitude towards others, are right out) does not add up to a reason for living. From the cow's point of view, it is conscious of physical pain but as for death, quite clearly it can't even have a concept of it. And these arguments can be extrapolated and extended.

I do firmly believe that the passion this issue causes in vegetarians boils down to one thing only; their anthropomorphising of animals. Their empathising with animals on a human level. Which is to commit a serious mistake; no non-human animal (certainly and uncontoversially, the livestock we typically eat, anyway) has attributes which rationally justify that empathy.

You don't feel sorry for a rock when someone smashes it apart, do you? No - because you know it has no feelings. Some animals are, as far as we know, conscious of pleasure and pain. But to attribute things like self-consciousness to them, (and thus, ability to feel emotion, and so on), the idea that they have a concept of death, etc. This is just completely unjustified. A mistake. I can see WHY some vegetarians get so angry then - yes, if we were hurting these sensitive emotional, rational creatures it would be a complete moral outrage. But, in eating the livestock we typically do, we're not...

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

http://a891.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/57/l_5baa51a74265fb847b43fd02d5313102.jpg

Mmmmmmm PROTEIN Yumm mmm mmm good!

[2-J]

Having tried frog's legs in France, I can say I was fairly impressed. Not sure if the rest of a frog is edible - but if I saw such a thing on a menu I'd be curious enough to give it a try!;)

[CharethCutestory]

Of course it isn't -

mur·der
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Just dropped in. Nothing's changed. Have a good new year kids.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

Of course it isn't -

mur·der
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Just dropped in. Nothing's changed. Have a good new year kids.

Nice to see that you chose to waste your 1000th post on this crap. Congratulations http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/MisterSlippery/icons-anims/lbf.gif

http://images.yuku.com/image/png/5ae2575c50b9b048309dad12806a933d5b1b839_t.jpg

[2-J]

Of course it isn't -

mur·der
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Just dropped in. Nothing's changed. Have a good new year kids.


The force of the cry 'Meat Is Murder' is not lost when it's revealed that (of course) the killing of animals doesn't come under the legal definition of murder. Of course Morrissey knew that when he wrote the song. So what was his intent? It was to say that it should be regarded essentially as murder i.e. a gravely morally wrong type of killing. The idea of 'murder', after all, has a life of its own above and beyond how it is delineated in any legal system.

[Nikita]

It tastes good

[vampares]

Perhaps you have heard of "found Art"?

[mywar]

became a vegetarian at least a couple of years before i got into the smiths/morrissey, so if anything it was more of an extra attraction to the music, than a case of being 'converted' by it.

and well, as a vegetarian, it's probably not too hard to guess that i find in a society where eating meat is not necessary for survival, killing animals simly because it's convenient or because we like the taste or are just too used to eating them, is, well...unnecessary, and calling it 'murder' is at least not a very far leap...

[Anaesthesine]

THIS is what i'm getting to. i think of these groups I think of all the HUMAN suffering, and misery, and death, and hunger, and poverty,.......and then some jackoff tries to get me wound up about this shit and I get so fucking pissed I can hardly see straight. Every ounce of effort you pour into this misguided cause could've been spent doing something that ACTUALLY MATTERS. I feel guilty for the little that I do, I should be in the third world, or in washington protesting outside the white house, devoting every breath, every second to what I know matters more than anything, don't you DARE try to tug on my heartstrings over cows and chickens.




I wish I had enough time to properly inhabit these forums, and carry on a decent conversation. As it is, I just hop on in the mornings, and so this argument is in slow-motion, and I cannot do it justice.

As the bald lady once said, "fight the real enemy." Vegetarians are the wrong target for all this outrage. We agree on so many things, but then you start hating on the chlorophyll, and it all goes south.

Reading your other posts, it seems like you hate hippies - I'll admit it, so do I. I was a proper, mohawked steel-toed s**t-kicking anarcho-child, and I hated granola, hand-woven backpacks and sandals. Anything even vaguely resembling "Peace, Love and Vegetable Rights" used to send me into a rage. The scent of patchouli still makes me gag.

Respect for other living things is commensurate with being anti-war, anti-poverty, pro-labor, pro-feminist, pro-environment, anti-corporatist, pro-democracy, etc. It is not soft, or in any way passive. Intellectual radicals going back centuries have often supported not only the practice of vegetarianism, but the notion of animal rights. Your staunch refusal to accept that personal compassion can be a powerful political/social force for change is misguided, and smacks of some other, visceral hatred.

In other words, vegetarians are not pussies. We are not ignoring other issues or lost up our own navels. Eating meat does not make you a more effective a freedom-fighter, and it is certainly not righteous. It is a choice with real consequences, some of which are counter-productive to global health and human emancipation.

[bored]

Meat is dinner

[2-J]

It is a choice with real consequences, some of which are counter-productive to global health and human emancipation.

It doesn't have to come down to an eat meat / don't eat meat choice, though. You can be selective about what meat you eat. I completely reject the idea that irrevocable environmental and social damage must necessarily be done to this world, so that most people can eat meat semi-regularly. Yes in parts of the world intensive farming is a problem, for many reasons - the challenge is to address that, as individuals, as nations, as a global community. And that does not entail, morally, the individual abstaining from meat altogether.

[underdog99]

I love how people assume vegetarians are so, because they believe humans and animals are "on the same level". We are NOT. Humans are far more intelligent than animals, but more importantly, humans display an elevated state of consciousness (some do at least). As humans we can engage in a other thought processes aside from 'how can I survive'. This is our privilege, our greatest wealth, that we can attain the state of consciousness.

Humans are not part of natural system of surviving, we are not struggling to build houses out of rocks and trees in the middle of the woods, we have alternatives to that.

When we eat other animals, we put ourselves "on the same level", they have to eat each other to survive, we don't becuase we are NOT ON THEIR LEVEL, we are greater (in some senses). So why do we eat them?

I know, I know, because 'it tastes good'. But if you live your life by only what 'tastes good', you can miss out on life's greater satisfactions.

[bored]

Eating meat does not make you a more effective a freedom-fighter, and it is certainly not righteous. It is a choice with real consequences, some of which are counter-productive to global health and human emancipation.

Almost everything in my life has consequences. I drive a car that consumes the finite resources of fossil fuels. I eat a lot of unhealthy foods. I drink alcohol.

I mostly eat meat because I like it although I do have many allergies to most veggies. I don't know what eating meat has to do with being counter-productive to global health. People have been eating meat forever.

If we really want global health we would be better served by getting rid of wheat gluten and high fructose corn syrup. Getting rid of fried food would be a good idea too.

Steroids in the meat is a problem.

Bottom line is I'm guilty of eating all the problem foods and I don't mind.

Whether or not there is some moral issue in eating animals is a subjective matter and my mind is made up.

[underdog99]

Also, I saw someone at the nyc october shows wearing Krishna beads, I'd like to hear his opinion on this matter...

[bored]

I know, I know, because 'it tastes good'. But if you live your life by only what 'tastes good', you can miss out on life's greater satisfactions.

I don't think eating cauliflower is going to bring me greater satisfaction than eating a bacon double cheeseburger. In fact, I know it won't.

Some people eat food for survival purposes only.
Some people eat food for the combination of survival and indulgence.

I eat to indulge.

What greater satisfactions am I missing out on? Saving some cow who has no purpose in life? I give its existence some meaning. I don't mean that to sound like I'm being altruistic by eating it, but the concept that this death for no reason is murder is kind of silly. It's just a cow. An animal so beneath that status of humans that we use it as a way to humiliate overweight people.

[2-J]

When we eat other animals, we put ourselves "on the same level", they have to eat each other to survive, we don't becuase we are NOT ON THEIR LEVEL, we are greater (in some senses). So why do we eat them?

I know, I know, because 'it tastes good'. But if you live your life by only what 'tastes good', you can miss out on life's greater satisfactions.

We don't put ourselves on the same level by eating them. It can be a reflective choice. Every rational, conscious individual has a moral responsibility to reflect on their actions. Is what I am doing right? Is eating meat right? I like the taste of it, but are there other factors to consider? And then, in reflecting, taking into account the moral arguments as to why respecting animals does not preclude eating them, etc etc. My only point is - eating meat can be a choice reached after reflection, it doesn't automatically put us 'on their level' of unthinkingly eating to survive.

And I would reiterate the question of the poster who replied before me - what is the abstract satisfaction gained in letting the cow live? It seems to me, either it is wrong to kill the cow, or it is not. Some kind of abstract satisfaction that we can gain despite it not being stricly wrong to kill the cow, does not come in to it.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

Having tried frog's legs in France, I can say I was fairly impressed. Not sure if the rest of a frog is edible - but if I saw such a thing on a menu I'd be curious enough to give it a try!;)

:eek:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/MisterSlippery/icons-anims/lbf.gif

[underdog99]

I don't think eating cauliflower is going to bring me greater satisfaction than eating a bacon double cheeseburger. In fact, I know it won't.

Some people eat food for survival purposes only.
Some people eat food for the combination of survival and indulgence.

I eat to indulge.

What greater satisfactions am I missing out on? Saving some cow who has no purpose in life? I give its existence some meaning. I don't mean that to sound like I'm being altruistic by eating it, but the concept that this death for no reason is murder is kind of silly. It's just a cow. An animal so beneath that status of humans that we use it as a way to humiliate overweight people.

I'm sorry you don't enjoy cauliflower, but don't worry I'm sure every restuarant has a kiddies menu, where you can get your chicken fingers!

I enjoyed meat also when I ate it, and alot of the healthy foods I eat, I don't find as tasty as it, but I changed my life around 180 degrees, and THAT for me is life's greatest satisfaction. I know everyone is different, but most people's indulgences take the best of them. I for one, was an alcoholic, fat slob, with high blood pressure/cholesterol, and depression, and I was 14!

I became a vegan, in highschool, and changed my life. It was much more pleasing to completely turn around my life , amidst the ignorant, and immature culture of my highschool brethren, than to indulge in a double bacon cheeseburger.

I'm not here to change the world, or 'save the animals' like most vegetarians claim, I do this to find meaning in my life, and have a reason to live through everyday. The only reason I enjoy life, is growth. I don't look to food to please my life, or fill some void. There are other reasons why I wake up in the morning...

[underdog99]

We don't put ourselves on the same level by eating them. It can be a reflective choice. Every rational, conscious individual has a moral responsibility to reflect on their actions. Is what I am doing right? Is eating meat right? I like the taste of it, but are there other factors to consider? And then, in reflecting, taking into account the moral arguments as to why respecting animals does not preclude eating them, etc etc. My only point is - eating meat can be a choice reached after reflection, it doesn't automatically put us 'on their level' of unthinkingly eating to survive.

And I would reiterate the question of the poster who replied before me - what is the abstract satisfaction gained in letting the cow live? It seems to me, either it is wrong to kill the cow, or it is not. Some kind of abstract satisfaction that we can gain despite it not being stricly wrong to kill the cow, does not come in to it.

Well I have to simply disagree with you, most people unthinkingly eat to survive, if you for example don't, and put that much reflection into that choice, it seems that at this point, we can only agree to disagree, which is fine. I only have a problem with the ignorant who only eat to survive, and never question it. So all in all, I agree to disagree.

And I mentioned in my other response, I don't get satisfaction from indirectly saving a cow. In fact I'm aware that my efforts, will do little to nothing in the greater picture of "animal liberation". The satisfaction comes from changing your life, an continuously growing. To me there is no reason to live unless you constantly strive for something greater.

[Buzzetta]

but do you not eat meat for entertainment? clearly the burgers you ate was something you enjoyed? you were happy to report that you had a chicken salad and that a friend had the steak. i'm sure you savoured the meal and you were pleased by it. isn't dog fighting the same in the sense that people get a lot of enjoyment out of this practice? they talk to their friends about it, it's a shared experience. both are also at the expense of animals.

Okay now you are simply grasping at thin air. I ate because I was hungry which is a natural and inevitable occurrence that must be addressed and not because I was bored. I have news for you. I eat by myself, I eat with friends, I eat with one I eat with two.

Do I have to break this down into monosyllable Dr. Seuss terminology?

[2-J]

From a Peter Singer article

"Since, as l have said, none of these practices cater for anything more than our pleasures of taste, our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a clear instance of the sacrifice of the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy trivial interests of our own. "

not only does he say that animals have an interest in staying alive, but it is their most important interest.

No he does not say that. What you have quoted is consistent with the idea expressed in the previous material you quoted, and what it says on wikipedia, that animals only have an interest (in the abstract sense) of avoiding pain, not death.

Their 'most important interest' is, according to Singer, the avoidance of pain and suffering. Singer argues not only that even in humane farming practices, animals will feel pain, but that if we eat meat we INEVITABLY become desensitised to animal suffering so we will push for cheaper meat which will lead directly to animals suffering more and more in practice. Thus, he traces how eating meat inevitably leads to more pain and suffering in general for animals. So, choosing to eat meat leads to us impiging on 'their most important interests', as the quote says, i.e. the interest in avoiding pain and suffering.




i did not question your behaviour as if it were strange, i merely said, i do not share that way of thinking and couldn't in my mind, solve the contradiction. i think you're projecting.

Haha 'projecting' thanks miss pop psychologist. No doubt Singer would say the same. You say I am projecting, I say you and Singer are suffering from a severe lack of imagination. Seems we will not get past this one.




why? why would it naturally follow that i share the opinion of singer? am i not able to raise another's views unless it is the same as my own?

You are 'allowed' to, Christ, stop trying to paint me as some kind of monster. All I ever said was, it was not outrageous for me to assume that you were advancing his argument to support your view, given that you gave a view (an opinion) and did not say anything to support that, but did go on to outline a philosopher's reasoning which, if true, would support your view. You are 'allowed' to raise whoever's view you want, but if you do so in such circumstances don't be surprised, unless you specifically disown the view, that people assume it's a view you hold.




ok, here is my opinion. and yes, it does differ from singer. i don't care that you choose to eat meat. i think it is a personal decision that everyone must wrestle with and i choose to respect your decision. i am in no way trying to convert you, in fact, i raise those questions with buzzetta in order to understand his position more, not talk him from it. he replied on a previous thread about how he wouldn't eat horse meat based on taste. i understood his position and left it at that.

the fact remains that my life will be over in a blink of the eye and so will yours. if you choose to eat mountains of meat a day you should go for it. hey you could eat it with you hands shovelling it in and savouring the taste. good luck to you. all the animals around us will one day be dead. the planet will end one day, eventually wiping us all out, whether it be through climate change or the sun imploding. does it matter what i or you believe or how we choose to live our lives? not in the slightest. this is a discussion to waste the precious time that we have doing something of little consequence. when all is said and done, i am a bit of a nihilist. ?

Oh yes, the old vegetarian demonising image of the meat eater shovelling food into their mouths, greedy, thoughtless, EVIL...

Regardless, enjoy your nihilism then, but it's a view most people find hard to stick to in practice, given that it makes raping children and gassing jews en masse A-OK an' all.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

http://stencil.redapollo.org/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Love_me_don_t_eat_me.jpg

[Anaesthesine]

Almost everything in my life has consequences. I drive a car that consumes the finite resources of fossil fuels. I eat a lot of unhealthy foods. I drink alcohol.

I mostly eat meat because I like it although I do have many allergies to most veggies. I don't know what eating meat has to do with being counter-productive to global health. People have been eating meat forever.

If we really want global health we would be better served by getting rid of wheat gluten and high fructose corn syrup. Getting rid of fried food would be a good idea too.

Steroids in the meat is a problem.

Bottom line is I'm guilty of eating all the problem foods and I don't mind.

Whether or not there is some moral issue in eating animals is a subjective matter and my mind is made up.

My reply was in reference to nogodsnomasters85, who insists that political change is a zero-sum game, and that vegetarians are somehow less-than-effective in the political arena.

Of course all our actions have consequences. Soy-farming is destroying the rain-forests, and big agriculture is going organic. I am actually a bit of a fatalist who thinks that we are all f***ed, no matter what choices we make, and we should enjoy life to the fullest.

Enjoy your meat.

Enjoy your internal combustion engine. Enjoy your cell-phone and your petro-chemical clothing. Lord knows I do. Just don't try to argue that is it somehow more common-sense to eat meat, and that people who reject it are somehow pie-eyed dreamers who refuse to acknowledge reality.

I'm going to lurk on the frink thread for a bit. Those folks know how to party.

:mad: :( :D

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/images/vegetarian-food-pyramid.jpghttp://www.fabfoodpix.com/content/vegetarian-food/vegetarian-food-ff001113.jpg

YUMMY!!

[Buzzetta]

http://stencil.redapollo.org/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Love_me_don_t_eat_me.jpg

At what point do you run out of pointless pictures in every thread you post in?

[2-J]

The pictures thing is sadly symptomatic of the level of debate vegetarians typically engage in.

[underdog99]

even I agree with that, pointless propaganda

[Buzzetta]

The pictures thing is sadly symptomatic of the level of debate vegetarians typically engage in.

Nah - has nothing to do with vegetarians it has to do that all he does is post pictures in EVERY thread.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

At what point do you run out of pointless pictures in every thread you post in?

I have an enormous arsenal of images... but that's not the point. I keep seeing the same POINTLESS arguments going back and forth by the same people all over this thread.

EOH HATES bloviating!! :cool:

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

Nah - has nothing to do with vegetarians it has to do that all he does is post pictures in EVERY thread.

At least I haven't resorted to this kind of picture posting

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo181.jpg

~Let me take a picture of me eating a big-O hamburger dripping with grease to show these fucking vegeterians how rebellious I am~...... :rolleyes:

[Morrissey the 23rd]

Of course it isn't -

mur·der
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Just dropped in. Nothing's changed. Have a good new year kids.

In America the commandment isn't as it is in the bible, thou shalt not 'kill' but 'murder'. This subtle difference makes a huge difference. It makes it ok to kill a man for oil if a judge decides it isn't murder. A judge even decides who is president. Please excuse me for thinking America is not the world.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

At least I haven't resorted to this kind of picture posting

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo181.jpg

~Let me take a picture of me eating a big-O hamburger dripping with grease to show these fucking vegeterians how rebellious I am~...... :rolleyes:

Yeah! Look at me abusing the defencless. Look how big my cock is.

That what I see.

[2-J]

Well vegetarians aren't averse to employing 'shocking' images in their campaigns, are they?? They're well known for it!

Also, the majority of people worldwide would find little offensive or shocking in that picture. So it is an interesting question. Perhaps we should have a ban on images of black people here, just in case a white nationalist stumbles onto the moz-solo forums and is offended by seeing that? How far should we go in respecting minority sensibilities.

[Anaesthesine]

EOH HATES bloviating!! :cool:

That is one of my very favorite words. It makes me think of cows breaking wind, and televangelists.

[Buzzetta]

At least I haven't resorted to this kind of picture posting

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo181.jpg

~Let me take a picture of me eating a big-O hamburger dripping with grease to show these fucking vegeterians how rebellious I am~...... :rolleyes:

Nah more along the lines - of... lets piss a couple of people off. My level of rebellion of Moz Solo can be held down by my red stapler. I am sure there is an image for that.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

Yeah! Look at me abusing the defencless. Look how big my cock is.

That what I see.


Well, he or anyone can post whatever, but then they shouldn't bitch when others do the same or smililar... it's all I'm saying.

[Buzzetta]

Yeah! Look at me abusing the defencless. Look how big my cock is.

That what I see.

You see abuse? I don't. We have travelled this circle though. I actually read the majority of articles and do not see it as a moral issue.

[Buzzetta]

Well, he or anyone can post whatever, but then they shouldn't bitch when others do the same or smililar... it's all I'm saying.

Im teasing you. Take a hint. See even below I asked for a pic of a red stapler. GIS Office Space.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

Nah more along the lines - of... lets piss a couple of people off. My level of rebellion of Moz Solo can be held down by my red stapler. I am sure there is an image for that.

There's an image for everything

http://images.yuku.com/image/png/010153831e8d85eda5a3bae92d188f4245601a8_t.gif

http://www.survivorsucks.org/SucksBoardImages/dancingmuffin.gif

[Buzzetta]

In America the commandment isn't as it is in the bible, thou shalt not 'kill' but 'murder'. This subtle difference makes a huge difference. It makes it ok to kill a man for oil if a judge decides it isn't murder. A judge even decides who is president. Please excuse me for thinking America is not the world.

If you are going to quote the bible then be prepared to know your bible interpretation is so far off it is amazing. In the original hebrew the supposed law handed down of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is in reference to killing of fellow man in revenge or murder. I doubt you will easily find that on the internet amid the chaotic extremists.

The Old Testament Hebrew version of God made a clear distinction between the killing of one's enemies sanctioned under Yahweh's instruction over that where it was unsanctioned. In that area of what some consider historic and what others consider folklore, it was even demonstrated when the Israelites took the Ark of the Covenant to attack enemies without Yahweh's sanction and were defeated.

Of course... as I have clearly stated this is not a religious issue.

[Skinner]

At least I haven't resorted to this kind of picture posting

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo181.jpg

~Let me take a picture of me eating a big-O hamburger dripping with grease to show these fucking vegeterians how rebellious I am~...... :rolleyes:

Hey Buzzetta, this looks like a nice Long Island deli style sandwich on a roll. Yum!!! I love that shit! Seriously one of my favorite things about going to Long Island (I visit often in the summer), is the amazing deli eating! Egg, cheese, and ham on a roll for breakfast and any variey of amazing heros for lunch. The chicken culets are awesome.

Also there is some place called White Stone I went to last week and also after one of the Moz gigs in Oct and their stuff was bangin!

Also Buzzaetta thanks for quoting the OT for clarifications on the meat being murder issue.

For the record I eat meat. I was a veggie for about 6 months and felt HORRIBLE!!! I am a meat eater now and won't be looking back. I mean after all, it IS what's for dinner...;)

[Morrissey the 23rd]

You see abuse? I don't. We have travelled this circle though. I actually read the majority of articles and do not see it as a moral issue.

Help me understand you. Please expand on what makes humans so special. Is it just our ability to dominate? It seems your are displaying in a bid to become Alpha male. Eligible females will be willing to propagate your genes even if you don't murder.

Why does this 'higher level' allow you to abuse with a clear conscientia? Please don't just conveniently say yet again because we are human and animals are a food source. Your defence seems to be based on the intelligence of our species but you refuse to demonstrate that. A square is not a rectangle.

It also seems your think we have no responsibility and that we have no control over ourselves. Please explain and justify your beliefs on this subject. Classify your hierarchy.

Please explain what makes the abuse of inferior beings ethically and morally ok to, or doesn't that matter?

The other defences that has been raised by your buddies include language, emotions spirituality. All seriously flawed but before I can begin to question your beliefs, I need to understand them and I'm trying my American third Chimpanzee.

Perhaps the next step in evolution for Homo-sapiens is to become a new specie, perhaps Homo-civilized?

[CrystalGeezer]

I'm really open to the idea of vegetarianism and all of the positive karmic and healthful benefits that accompany it, but doesn't this look so. fucking. delicious?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2392/2151624957_81745f7a31.jpg

[Buzzetta]

There's an image for everything

http://images.yuku.com/image/png/010153831e8d85eda5a3bae92d188f4245601a8_t.gif

http://www.survivorsucks.org/SucksBoardImages/dancingmuffin.gif

I guess you are right
http://static.flickr.com/22/35276722_1ecd05a584.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/9/94/I'm_RickJames_Bitch!.jpg

There you go.

[Skinner]

Who is saying humans are so special?

Sorry to break it down kindergarden style but are we forgetting something here?...

Last time I checked, other animals eat meat as well. Its what we/they are programed to do. Sharks eat fish; Foxes eat rabbits; Bears eat people...it happens.

I'm not heartless and I don't think that people who don't eat meat are in the wrong etc. But I also don't think that people who do eat meat are evil either. I didn't think that while I was a veggie and I never will.

I don't have a great deal to say about the matter but I just wanted to say, why don't peta start going around to bears and yelling at them and calling them heartless killers because they take salomon right out of the water and eat them whole? I dont know...just sayin...

[Morrissey the 23rd]

If you are going to quote the bible then be prepared to know your bible interpretation is so far off it is amazing. In the original hebrew the supposed law handed down of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is in reference to killing of fellow man in revenge or murder. I doubt you will easily find that on the internet amid the chaotic extremists.

The Old Testament Hebrew version of God made a clear distinction between the killing of one's enemies sanctioned under Yahweh's instruction over that where it was unsanctioned. In that area of what some consider historic and what others consider folklore, it was even demonstrated when the Israelites took the Ark of the Covenant to attack enemies without Yahweh's sanction and were defeated.

Of course... as I have clearly stated this is not a religious issue.

My point is, just because a man says something doesn't make it right. Also, that America is not the world. You know I put religion in the same box as Santa and tooth fairies. It is a scary world when a judge decides even who is to be the American president. Makes America no better than Pakistan or Kenya.

[Buzzetta]

Help me understand you. Please expand on what makes humans so special. Is it just our ability to dominate? It seems your are displaying in a bid to become Alpha male. Eligible females will be willing to propagate your genes even if you don't murder.

Why does this 'higher level' allow you to abuse with a clear conscientia? Please don't just conveniently say yet again because we are human and animals are a food source. Your defence seems to be based on the intelligence of our species but you refuse to demonstrate that. A square is not a rectangle.

It also seems your think we have no responsibility and that we have no control over ourselves. Please explain and justify your beliefs on this subject. Classify your hierarchy.

Please explain what makes the abuse of inferior beings ethically and morally ok to, or doesn't that matter?

The other defences that has been raised by your buddies include language, emotions spirituality. All seriously flawed but before I can begin to question your beliefs, I need to understand them and I'm trying my American third Chimpanzee.

Perhaps the next step in evolution for Homo-sapiens is to become a new specie, perhaps Homo-civilized?

This is now going nowhere with you. I guess it comes down to the same debate with Dave. I do not subscribe to the same belief system that you do. I do not see it as a moral issue in the slightest. It is not a system where I recognize it and ignore it. Oh no... I honestly look at you as having a flawed perception here. It is not even remotely considered abuse to me.

[CrystalGeezer]

http://images.yuku.com/image/png/010153831e8d85eda5a3bae92d188f4245601a8_t.gif



I hasten to point out that Stewie and his family have what looks to be london broil and broccoli pretty much every single night of the week, even when they go out to dinner.

[Buzzetta]

My point is, just because a man says something doesn't make it right. Also, that America is not the world. You know I put religion in the same box as Santa and tooth fairies. It is a scary world when a judge decides even who is to be the American president. Makes America no better than Pakistan or Kenya.

I know you personally do but I stated that for clarification purposes. Don't even get me started on the election of 2000. Judges made a ruling based on the laws that were already in place. This is coming from someone that did not even vote for Bush in that election.

Excuse me while I rant here. The American media and people are to blame for that election and not a panel of judges nor Bush and not even Gore. The media reported that Gore was winning in several areas before the final votes were in because every outlet wanted to remain on top of the electoral process throughout the night.

Sheer laziness kept voters home under the guise of well if Gore already won in this state then what is the point. The point is that it cost him a couple of states. It was easy for the people to blame Bush when all they really should have done was look in the mirror.

If you want a REAL election that was stolen go look up the election of 1876. Basically there is a vote that undeterminable as no candidate received a majority. Hayes who was even more in the minority steps up and says to Congress... "If you make me President I will pull the troops out of the South" and Congress says.... okay sounds great. Sold.

[Buzzetta]

I hasten to point out that Stewie and his family have what looks to be london broil and broccoli pretty much every single night of the week, even when they go out to dinner.

LOL Thats because of the animation models given to the artists.

[Amatis]

Who is saying humans are so special?

Sorry to break it down kindergarden style but are we forgetting something here?...

Last time I checked, other animals eat meat as well. Its what we/they are programed to do. Sharks eat fish; Foxes eat rabbits; Bears eat people...it happens.

I'm not heartless and I don't think that people who don't eat meat are in the wrong etc. But I also don't think that people who do eat meat are evil either. I didn't think that while I was a veggie and I never will.

I don't have a great deal to say about the matter but I just wanted to say, why don't peta start going around to bears and yelling at them and calling them heartless killers because they take salomon right out of the water and eat them whole? I dont know...just sayin...

Carnivorous animals don't have a choice in the matter, they would die if they didn't eat other animals. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to reason and make moral choices and so forth, and can live perfectly healthy lives without consuming anything from another animal.

[CrystalGeezer]

LOL Thats because of the animation models given to the artists.

Yeah well PETA ought to get on that. It's the littlest things that make the biggest impact when it comes to changing the world. :p

[esheh195]

I hasten to point out that Stewie and his family have what looks to be london broil and broccoli pretty much every single night of the week, even when they go out to dinner.


http://blog.americanfeast.com/images/Stewie.gif

[Buzzetta]

Yeah well PETA ought to get on that. It's the littlest things that make the biggest impact when it comes to changing the world. :p

Just for esheh195

I wonder what PETA would say about my tropical fish tank in the back... That far glow in the corner? Oh wait... I forgot...

http://static-09.dailymotion.com/dyn/preview/320x240/3879638.jpg

It doesn't matter what they say.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

This is now going nowhere with you. I guess it comes down to the same debate with Dave. I do not subscribe to the same belief system that you do. I do not see it as a moral issue in the slightest. It is not a system where I recognize it and ignore it. Oh no... I honestly look at you as having a flawed perception here. It is not even remotely considered abuse to me.

It goes nowhere because you continually refuse to answer questions.:(
You must drive your pupils mental.

It isn't abuse? Are you redefining the dictionary?

I want to understand what you base your belief model on. Do ethics and morals matter? Please explain the reasoning of your beliefs on this subject to me. It must be more than just instinct. Why does the 'higher level' you speak of allow you to wash your hands of responsibility for the pain inferior animals in the meat industry endure?

[Buzzetta]

It goes nowhere because you continually refuse to answer questions.:(
You must drive your pupils mental.

It isn't abuse? Are you redefining the dictionary?

I want to understand what you base your belief model on. Do ethics and morals matter? Please explain the reasoning of your beliefs on this subject to me. It must be more than just instinct. Why does the 'higher level' you speak of allow you to wash your hands of responsibility for the pain inferior animals in the meat industry endure?

Because morally it is no different to me than picking a carrot from the ground a tomato from the vine or an apple from a tree. I guess you do NOT want to understand then. Its now turning into a matter where you simply do not want to respect my belief system. What you look at as abuse I do not.

By the same token you must drive your own wife mental.

[Skinner]

Carnivorous animals don't have a choice in the matter, they would die if they didn't eat other animals. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to reason and make moral choices and so forth, and can live perfectly healthy lives without consuming anything from another animal.


ok. I don't enjoy participating in online debates with strangers or anything, nor do I enjoy making enemies. I just wanted to point out that humans are not the only beings on earth that eat flesh.

It is a choice indeed and I have to wonder what the first veggies sounded like...probably got laughed and at ridiculed. Seems how many meat eaters get treated by these extreme groups. I know by saying I am not a vegetarian on this board I am fighting a pointless uphill battle because i presume the majority disagree with what I do/eat/think etc.

But I just wish that people would get off their high horses about the issue. I am not speaking of anyone in particular; I never would. But I guess I just wanted to make it clear that I understand if you feel passionately about an issue and want to spread the word to others in hopes of educating them or getting them to side with you, I understand that. But taking and low route and giving people shit for the choices they make is sad to me.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

Because morally it is no different to me than picking a carrot from the ground a tomato from the vine or an apple from a tree. I guess you do NOT want to understand then. Its now turning into a matter where you simply do not want to respect my belief system. What you look at as abuse I do not.

By the same token you must drive your own wife mental.

I can't understand if you do not want to answer.

I don't believe you think there is no difference between a pig and a carrot.

FYI: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:abuse&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

PS I do.

[esheh195]

Just for esheh195

I wonder what PETA would say about my tropical fish tank in the back... That far glow in the corner? Oh wait... I forgot...

http://static-09.dailymotion.com/dyn/preview/320x240/3879638.jpg

It doesn't matter what they say.

HAHAHAH! Thanks....I needed that! LOL

I was always taught that real men eat meat ;) In all seriousness though, who sits around in their mother's basement in their boxer shorts and makes these weirdass GIFs?
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x84/esheh195/gifs%20and%20comments/300burger.gif

Anyways, I do feel bad when I see videos like 'Meet Your Meat'. I believe that the animals should be killed and processed for food in a more humane and painless nature merely to save them from unnecessary suffering. But I still maintain that they are part of the food chain and evolution has placed us at the top of said chain for now. (unless, you are at the San Francisco zoo, that is)

[Buzzetta]

I can't understand if you do not want to answer.

I don't believe you think there is no difference between a pig and a carrot.

FYI: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:abuse&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

PS I do.

I could throw that back at you by saying since when is there a distinction between life and that the carrot is just as equal on the "life chain" as the chicken but you and I both know that neither of us believe that.

Once again however when it comes to food since both subjects are food - the processing of animals to be served as food has no more of a moral consequence to me than pulling a carrot.

[Skinner]

HAHAHAH! Thanks....I needed that! LOL

I was always taught that real men eat meat ;) In all seriousness though, who sits around in their mother's basement in their boxer shorts and makes these weird GIFs?http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x84/esheh195/gifs%20and%20comments/300burger.gif

Anyways, I do feel bad when I see videos like 'Meet Your Meat'. I believe that the animals should be killed and processed for food in a more humane and painless nature merely to save them from unnecessary suffering. But I still maintain that they are part of the food chain and evolution has placed us at the top of said chain for now. (unless, you are at the San Francisco zoo, that is)


In the profound words of Ronny James Dio "...Ride the tiger! You can see his stripes so you know he's clean, oh don't you see what I mean?!"

http://www.webdeveloper.com/animations/bnifiles/tiger.gif

[Morrissey the 23rd]

ok. I don't enjoy participating in online debates with strangers or anything, nor do I enjoy making enemies. I just wanted to point out that humans are not the only beings on earth that eat flesh.

It is a choice indeed and I have to wonder what the first veggies sounded like...probably got laughed and at ridiculed. Seems how many meat eaters get treated by these extreme groups. I know by saying I am not a vegetarian on this board I am fighting a pointless uphill battle because i presume the majority disagree with what I do/eat/think etc.

But I just wish that people would get off their high horses about the issue. I am not speaking of anyone in particular; I never would. But I guess I just wanted to make it clear that I understand if you feel passionately about an issue and want to spread the word to others in hopes of educating them or getting them to side with you, I understand that. But taking and low route and giving people shit for the choices they make is sad to me.


Perhaps it would be a good idea in order to further this debate to drop the discussion of animal rights and wrongs until we discuss the differences between our speices and the rest of the animal kingdom?

Nor am I by defintion vegetarian.:eek: I never said I am. Others have.;)

[Morrissey the 23rd]

I could throw that back at you by saying since when is there a distinction between life and that the carrot is just as equal on the "life chain" as the chicken but you and I both know that neither of us believe that.

Once again however when it comes to food since both subjects are food - the processing of animals to be served as food has no more of a moral consequence to me than pulling a carrot.

"You and I both know that neither of us believe that"

[Skinner]

This is why I ususally stay out of such matters.

where the hell is suprani with her Ramones videos?!!!

[CrystalGeezer]

http://blog.americanfeast.com/images/Stewie.gif

Clearly he eyes that floret with disgust, yearning for more broil or maybe even a pork rind.




Once again however when it comes to food since both subjects are food - the processing of animals to be served as food has no more of a moral consequence to me than pulling a carrot.

I agree to an extent. There is the problem of the lack of humanity in which it is done though. There is something noble about a field of carrots soaking up the sun all in a row waiting to be pulled. There is nothing noble about the squalor of a feed lot. I just think animals could be "processed" in a manner that suits their honor to this earth and asserts them more dignity.

[2-J]

Perhaps it would be a good idea in order to further this debate to drop the discussion of animal rights and wrongs until we discuss the differences between our speices and the rest of the animal kingdom?

How about this then?



To go off a bit on a tangent, I can only speak for myself, but were I reduced to the mental state of a cow, then I don't think I should much care whether I lived or died either. I think probably from my own perspective now, I would prefer that if I ever got to that stage, I would be euthanised. There are many things that make life worth living for human beings, not all the same for every being, but really the life of a cow (AND its associated mental life, - it is not even self-conscious, it does not see itself as distinct from its environment, so things like love, affection, any true attitude towards others, are right out) does not add up to a reason for living. From the cow's point of view, it is conscious of physical pain but as for death, quite clearly it can't even have a concept of it. And these arguments can be extrapolated and extended.

I do firmly believe that the passion this issue causes in vegetarians boils down to one thing only; their anthropomorphising of animals. Their empathising with animals on a human level. Which is to commit a serious mistake; no non-human animal (certainly and uncontoversially, the livestock we typically eat, anyway) has attributes which rationally justify that empathy.

You don't feel sorry for a rock when someone smashes it apart, do you? No - because you know it has no feelings. Some animals are, as far as we know, conscious of pleasure and pain. But to attribute things like self-consciousness to them, (and thus, ability to feel emotion, and so on), the idea that they have a concept of death, etc. This is just completely unjustified. A mistake. I can see WHY some vegetarians get so angry then - yes, if we were hurting these sensitive emotional, rational creatures it would be a complete moral outrage. But, in eating the livestock we typically do, we're not...

[Buzzetta]

"You and I both know that neither of us believe that"

Oh no... I most definitely do believe that. They are both processed for food. I have labored over this point repeatedly and it is as if you refuse to consider that people do not share your viewpoint / perception.

My belief system takes part in the notion that slapping a chicken just to see what it would do is abusive, however cutting it's head off to eat it is not abusive as it is now food. To me it is no different than picking and peeling a banana. You can disagree with me but do not tell me that you do not believe I have that viewpoint.

[2-J]

"Since, as l have said, none of these practices cater for anything more than our pleasures of taste, our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a clear instance of the sacrifice of the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy trivial interests of our own. "

additonally "Normally this will mean that if we have to choose between the life of a human being and the life of another animal we should choose to save the life of the human being; but there may be special cases in which the reverse holds true, because the human being in question does not have the capacities of a normal human being. So this view is not speciesist, although it may appear to be at first glance.

The preference, in normal cases, for saving a human life over the life of an animal when a choice has (his italics) to be made is a preference based on the characteristics that normal humans being have and not on the mere fact that they are members of our own species. This is why when we consider members of our own species who lack the characteristics of normal human beings we can no longer say that their lives are always to be preferred to those of other animals. In general, though, the question of when it is wrong to kill (painlessly) an animal is one to which we need give no precise answer. As long as we remember that we should give the same respect to the lives of animals as we give to the lives of those human beings at a similar mental level we shall not go far wrong. "

but, ok, whatever. if you choose to interepret it that way, go ahead. he has said on more than one ocassion that he would rather have a mentality disabled child killed then an animal.

All this is still consistent with him holding that (as he clearly does) animals have no 'interest' (in his abstract sense) in not being killed, but only in not feeling pain.

Additionally, he would argue that certain severely mentally disabled humans ALSO have no interest in not being killed but only in not feeling pain.

Which allows him to draw the conclusions he does. (NOT that he thinks animals have an interest in not being killed).

Actually I disagree with him on the humans point, because as I have said, as a matter of policy, to sanction the killing of mentally disabled humans would be very dangerous (possibility of misdiagnosis etc, however remote) which suffice to rule out such policies which might equate human and animal life.


maybe david should put that in the faq's for post writing etiquette.

I think it's just too self-evident to warrant inclusion... also I doubt most people would take offence at it the way you have (accusing me of being rude, etc). It's a total non-issue, really. You were discussing Singer's view but you don't hold it. Fine.


again, i never said any of that. i would inhale chocolate cake through a nostril if i could. meat eater had nothing to do with it. is that projection again?

It is a typical, and unhelpful, demonising image of a meat eater frequently used by vegetarians, regardless of your intent in using it.


that's why i said "a bit". really you should try to read things a little more slowly, comprehend them and then have your knee jerk reaction.

Can you be 'a bit' of a nihilist, lol? I would think not, by definition, but there ya go.

[Buzzetta]

HAHAHAH! Thanks....I needed that! LOL

I was always taught that real men eat meat ;) In all seriousness though, who sits around in their mother's basement in their boxer shorts and makes these weirdass GIFs?
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x84/esheh195/gifs%20and%20comments/300burger.gif

Anyways, I do feel bad when I see videos like 'Meet Your Meat'. I believe that the animals should be killed and processed for food in a more humane and painless nature merely to save them from unnecessary suffering. But I still maintain that they are part of the food chain and evolution has placed us at the top of said chain for now. (unless, you are at the San Francisco zoo, that is)

I am sensing a Sparta Spoof Thread.... in other topic...

http://13gb.com/media/images/caution_this_is_sparta.jpg

[bored]

I'm sorry you don't enjoy cauliflower, but don't worry I'm sure every restuarant has a kiddies menu, where you can get your chicken fingers!

I think you are saying that my opinions make me a child and thus the reference to the kiddie menu. I am not sure how this is remotely relevant to anything I said but if you think I am a child for my opinions I have no way of hoping to have a reasonable discussion but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some joke I didn't get.



I enjoyed meat also when I ate it, and alot of the healthy foods I eat, I don't find as tasty as it, but I changed my life around 180 degrees, and THAT for me is life's greatest satisfaction. I know everyone is different, but most people's indulgences take the best of them. I for one, was an alcoholic, fat slob, with high blood pressure/cholesterol, and depression, and I was 14!

I became a vegan, in highschool, and changed my life. It was much more pleasing to completely turn around my life , amidst the ignorant, and immature culture of my highschool brethren, than to indulge in a double bacon cheeseburger.


I'm glad you overcame those issues. I admit, if I had those issues and a non-meat diet was the answer to them I would embrace it. Not because I feel some remorse for the animals but because I believe self-improvement is one of the most important things we can do to for ourselves.




I'm not here to change the world, or 'save the animals' like most vegetarians claim, I do this to find meaning in my life, and have a reason to live through everyday. The only reason I enjoy life, is growth. I don't look to food to please my life, or fill some void. There are other reasons why I wake up in the morning...

I agree.
I have never had weight problems other than being underweight. I do find that living a life that is fulfilling includes indulgence but also self-control.

I like alcohol but I do not drink daily or get rip roaring drunk on a regular basis.

I like unhealthy food but at the same time, I don't make it the only thing I eat.

I do think that many people eat to fill a void but there are overweight vegetarians/vegans. They just eat non animal products to excess.

Food can be a vice but it's not exclusive to dead animals.

[Buzzetta]

I agree.
I have never had weight problems other than being underweight. I do find that living a life that is fulfilling includes indulgence but also self-control.

I like alcohol but I do not drink daily or get rip roaring drunk on a regular basis.

I like unhealthy food but at the same time, I don't make it the only thing I eat.

I do think that many people eat to fill a void but there are overweight vegetarians/vegans. They just eat non animal products to excess.

Food can be a vice but it's not exclusive to dead animals.

What is disturbing is that there are some here that believe that people who eat meat eat meat with every meal. I absolutely agree that everything must be eaten in moderation.

The notion though that engaging in a Vegetarian lifestyle will make you fit and trim is a farce. One can simply look at this site's poster boy to prove that. Despite what the Frink thread says, Morrissey is no poster boy for fit and trim.

[Buzzetta]

On this note kiddies I must bid you a farewell and to have a Happy New Year. It's 1:30 here and I meeting the parents for lunch and from there I am getting ready to leave for the night. I promise no pictures.

Everyone have a safe and Happy New Year. No drinking and driving. May your upcoming year be filled with happiness, success and good fortune. Whether you believe it or not... God Bless.

And all the above DOES apply to everyone- including kewpie.

[bored]

Why does the 'higher level' you speak of allow you to wash your hands of responsibility for the pain inferior animals in the meat industry endure?

The meat industry is not the reason people eat meat.

When people raised their own livestock or hunted their own game and killed it themselves there was no meat industry.

As far as the higher level, many people might simply look to the bible which says that people can eat meat as long as it's been drained of its life blood.

As an atheist I don't subscribe to this, I'm simply giving an example of how some might come to this conclusion.

For me, the morality issue is all based on our own opinions.

Some might find it amoral to be polyamourous.
Some might find it amoral to consume alcohol.
Some might find it amoral to kill helpless animals.

These are few things that society agrees with so much that only a tiny portion is in the minority. Murder of another person is one of these things and even that is something we can't agree one.

Death penalty or not?
Abortion or not?

I don't understand why people who do not eat animals for moral reasons expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with them. We just don't. A few might get converted. At the same time, the vegetarians/vegans I've known in my life, many of them have given up the diet.

My moral compass is mine. You don't have to follow it.

[Nikita]

Carnivorous animals don't have a choice in the matter, they would die if they didn't eat other animals. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to reason and make moral choices and so forth, and can live perfectly healthy lives without consuming anything from another animal.

Where you get this from ?

Even the Dalaï Lama eats some meat from time to time because it provides him some proteins he would not find in any other food

[Morrissey the 23rd]

Oh no... I most definitely do believe that. They are both processed for food. I have labored over this point repeatedly and it is as if you refuse to consider that people do not share your viewpoint / perception.

My belief system takes part in the notion that slapping a chicken just to see what it would do is abusive, however cutting it's head off to eat it is not abusive as it is now food. To me it is no different than picking and peeling a banana. You can disagree with me but do not tell me that you do not believe I have that viewpoint.

Would slapping the carrot be abuse?

Would you do me a favour? Next in school, could you pop along to biology and have a chat with a biology teacher?

This thread and 'Veggie xmas' has taught me more than ever that people doen't actually read.

[Amatis]

Where you get this from ?

Even the Dalaï Lama eats some meat from time to time because it provides him some proteins he would not find in any other food

Well, I've never heard a case of someone becoming ill from eating a balanced vegetarian or vegan diet. All the veg*ns I've met look perfectly healthy, and I myself am not emaciated or poorly or owt.

As far as I know there's nothing found in meat that cannot be obtained from non-animal sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just what I've read so far.

[2-J]

This thread and 'Veggie xmas' has taught me more than ever that people doen't actually read.


I could say the same thing to you mate considering your ignoring of my post exactly in reply to your question!!

[CharethCutestory]

EAT MEAT

http://www.jdbucksavage.com/photos/buck_thumbs_up.jpg

IT'S NEAT!

[pandora_cocteau]

YES YES YES YES it is murder, don't let anyone tell you different.

[underdog99]

I think you are saying that my opinions make me a child and thus the reference to the kiddie menu. I am not sure how this is remotely relevant to anything I said but if you think I am a child for my opinions I have no way of hoping to have a reasonable discussion but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some joke I didn't get.


I agree.
I have never had weight problems other than being underweight. I do find that living a life that is fulfilling includes indulgence but also self-control.

I like alcohol but I do not drink daily or get rip roaring drunk on a regular basis.

I like unhealthy food but at the same time, I don't make it the only thing I eat.

I do think that many people eat to fill a void but there are overweight vegetarians/vegans. They just eat non animal products to excess.

Food can be a vice but it's not exclusive to dead animals.

I'm not here to argue with people on why "meat is murder", it will always be an opinion in the end. I only care to explain to people why I do it, if they're generally interested in it. I never shove my opinions down peoples throat, like some vegetarians do (at dinner with friends for example; very rude)

I think right now its a matter of understanding that not all vegetarians are these smug know-it-all's, who flaunt cute vegan propaganda everywhere (though many are). I'm a humble vegetarian, I don't even care about PETA, and think a lot of what they do is WAY out of line. I do it for myself, I'm not here to brainwash anyone, or be bought an sold by vegan, or pro-meat propaganda. No picture on this website, or anywhere, can ever make up a life decision for me, and every picture here is worth nothing. And if you are that sold by a picture, or a PETA video, god help you...

All I ask of others, is not to conform to my belief system, but perhaps try and understand it, and at the very least, not have an equally smug attitude about it, like: "EAT MEAT WHAT ARE YOU, A PUSSY?!"

And if I came off smug, or pompous, I apologize, I didn't intend for it

[bored]

I think right now its a matter of understanding that not all vegetarians are these smug know-it-all's, who flaunt cute vegan propaganda everywhere (though many are). I'm a humble vegetarian, I don't even care about PETA, and think a lot of what they do is WAY out of line. I do it for myself, I'm not here to brainwash anyone, or be bought an sold by vegan, or pro-meat propaganda.

...

All I ask of others, is not to conform to my belief system, but perhaps try and understand it, and at the very least, not have an equally smug attitude about it, like: "EAT MEAT WHAT ARE YOU, A PUSSY?!"

And if I came off smug, or pompous, I apologize, I didn't intend for it

I didn't think you came off smug.
I don't believe that because one person is anti-meat that they have some agenda to shove it down my throat. I dated a vegetarian for 3 years and was best friends with someone who was vegan and not once did either of them pressure me or try to make me feel guilty.

I don't think the reasons people don't eat meat are unreasonable in anyway. They just don't suit my life.

[Dave]

wHEoMpMvz7A

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

I guess you are right
http://static.flickr.com/22/35276722_1ecd05a584.jpg

There you go.

http://a491.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/68/l_14402fc986ec33b532863c865c8a74ea.jpg :D

[Theo]

Well I would say Meat is murder. I just want to hear if all mozzers are vegetarians, if not why? And if you are, do you have anything smart I can say to people who eat meat. Cos I really tried to make them understand but they really love their steak. And I doubt most of them will ever understand.


Well, you're only 15, and you feel all enthusiastic about your extreme and simplistic point of view that eating meat is "MURDER". But you're really too young to be lecturing people about anything, as you have not had enough time on this earth to formulate anything but half-baked opinions. Yes, we understand you've read PETA's web site, and now you wanna run around asking people to explain why they are not vegetarians. First let's see how long you stick with both your diet and your self-righteous view of those who don't copy your diet. Get back to us when you're, say, 21.

[Amatis]

The original question may have come across as a bit naive, but the OP's age doesn't automatically render her opinions invalid.