Meat is Murder?

[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! 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.

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?

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*]

Yep, it's murder

 

[Flax]

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

 

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

^^^




I f***ing hate those assholes who kill them poor animals... HATE them to the ultimate max!!!!

 

[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.