This Makes Me Sad.
 

In the thread "What are you eating Tree of Souls?" there's a lot of animal eating and that makes me so sad :'(. The way people talk about them "porkchops ,beef, ham ooh so yummy" and so on, feels like there's no respect at all for the poor soul that involuntary sacrificed his/her life. I feel that everyone should be treated with love and respect based on their ability to feel and not on their sex, race or species. I think some skypeople "dont see" the pain and suffering we are causing non human animals every day, every hour, every second. (I don't think a Na'vi would ever eat an animal from a slaughterhouse)

Thoughts?

(I don't mean to accuse anyone, just trying to tell how I feel)

Yeah I feel kind of the same way, saying "beef is delicious" is kind of weird now that I think about it. A lot of the people here have changed their ways though, they now think more about where the meat has come from and respect that fact rather than just mindlessly consuming it.

I myself am a pescatarian, have been for 2 months now and I have to say it has changed my views a lot...

That comes across as rather pointed, sort of "why don't you follow my dietary method?"

I'm free to choose my diet, as are you. I'd like to simply leave it at that and stop judging people.

I'm never going to stop eating meat, it's how humans evolved. I don't feel sorry about it for a moment, but I always respect the animal. I never waste anything, and where possible I try to buy organic/free range (not always possible as that stuff is expensive, I admit) and I don't eat it hugely often, just a couple of times a week.
If I could hunt for food, I would certainly try it, unfortunately there really isn't anything around here.

I agree with shatnerpossum though, everyone has the right to their own decision.

Anima, I can see your point. We should have more respect for the animals that we eat, I hate how most cattle farmers treat their animals and that's why I prefer buying organic food from well-known sources if I have the opportunity to do that.

I'm not going to be a vegetarian anytime soon, as I think that we need nutrients from all types of food.

Oel ngati kameie!

I'm sorry you feel that way, in what way was I beeing judgemental?

Of course everyone has right to their own desicions, but very much of our decisions affect others life. If I make a decision to punch you in the face, that very much affects your life, right? ;).

But I think it's great that you thinking about your choices (like you don't have to eat meat everyday and you try to buy free range and so on), IMO that is very important. To be aware.

I also want to believe that a lot of people have change their ways and think about their choices :)

That's what I mean, the awareness is very important. To see and sometimes change our ways. :)

We all feel different about this issue obviously, but it makes at least me feel so much better when people at least think about the consequences of their actions.

As a vegetarian (and of course vegan) you have to put out with a lot of attitude and often harsh words in almost all dinnersituaions in public/social situations and I would just great to not have to explain oneself everytime. That people could just see why we made this choice...

(And regarding the healthpoint I'm a lot healthier than my meateating friends, I'm almost never sick and and don't have any health issiues. And don't eat any pills either ;) )

You explicitly implied that because we eat meat, we are "sky people" who don't respect anything. Thats why I said you came across as judgmental.

I think that's a litte bit extreme interpretation of what I wrote and that's not what I meant anyway. And I really tried to not step on anybodys toes. I was trying to tell my feelings and see what other people in a forum like this felt, not to tell everyone to do what I say/think (English is not my first language and it makes me a litte bit insecure as well)

I know its probably not what you meant, thats why I just said it came across that way. This way you know it sounds a bit judgmental.

You asked why, and I told you. And if you ever need English help, just ask.

There are people on either side who claim to be healthier, I know I am healthier than every vegetarian I know (admittedly, not many of them, but I still am), and without needing to take anything. Really doesn't prove anything either way, it's just a difference in individuals (also, probably people thinking 'I do/don't eat/do x so that makes me healthier' - if you believe it, it likely has an actual effect).

Shatnerpossum is right again, even if it wasn't intentional, it did come off as fairly judgemental (your actual English is fine though).
Anyway, the Na'vi eat meat, they just do it right, like more people should.
Humans never evolved to be herbivores, we can't even digest cellulose, and there's a reason so many vegetarians get anaemia.

I still think it's everyone's choice, one person in my family is a vegetarian, and I know they can still be healthy if they make sure they get enough protein, iron and various vitamins plants mostly lack. It just doesn't make any sense to me personally.

Whatever you feel about it the simple facts are:

meatproduction leads to a lot of suffering and it's negative inpact on the enviroment is significant

(...animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases and is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all of the world's transportation (including all cars, trucks, buses, trains, ships, and planes) emits 13.5 percent of the CO2. Animal farming produces 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide and 37 percent of all human-induced methane. Methane has about 21 times more Global Warming Potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide has 296 times the GWP of CO2] - wikipedia )

And it's not necessary for our health and/or happiness

I understand where you are coming from, I realize that the animals are not treated the best etc etc etc...However, we as people are meat eaters, Im sure this is something you can understand. Now me personally I need that meet, I would not do well being a vegetarian. So while buying from local farmers, organic etc is an option I am a poor college student and that will not happen.

You may view us "sky people" as showing appreciation but I pray before my meals, thank for the food on my plate and such. I will always enjoy a big ol' steak and burger though. Would you think it better if I were killing chickens in my backyard and eating those? (I have done that btw lol)

Well, I know what you mean, and personally I have to buy the organic grass-fed beef anyways for health reasons (not the hormone-fed kind), but think of it this way:
We are meant to eat meat. We're omnivores. And, what are you really doing by not eating meat anway? The chicken/cow/whatever has already been killed, and now its just sitting there in the grocery store being wasted. Just saying. Don't mean to offend or anything :p

Hi Dreamwalker, nice to have a jake fan girl here :)

This only means that we can digest meat, not that we should or have to

No offence taken :)

If noone bought the meat it wouldt be in the stores for long. Money talks...

This is only your opinion. It isn't wrong to eat meat. We are ommivores and you will not be able to convince billions of people to stop. I agree that there does need to be better practices in how we obtain our meat. I would love to buy organic and free range meat but it is very expensive and I am just a poor woman.

That isn't going to happen. People of every culture, race, etc have been eating meat of various sorts and quanities for thousands of years. Vegetarianism is only possible either in a monastic situation or a completely urban situation. If any of us had to actually live like the Na'vi or live off the land there wouldn't be any vegans. It only works in a completely urban environment away from the actual land.

What I find interesting about some arguments for going vegetarian are the ones that are coupled to a "back-to-nature" appeal. One of my friends made this argument, and couldn't really counter my response.

Hello! Look at our teeth. We don't have only flat, herbivorous teeth! No one in this thread has, to my knowledge, made this argument that going veggie is part of "getting back to nature." However, I find it laughable to discuss "back-to-nature" while simultaneously violating nature's intent.

This "vote-with-your-wallet" mentality is easy to talk about, but very difficult to implement. Especially when it relates to something essential for life.

Unfortunately, the crux of the argument in this thread relates heavily to morality, that slippery concept that everyone agrees we should have but no one agrees on exactly what constitutes "moral" and "immoral." It is clear the poster of this thread believes eating meat is both immoral and economically inefficient (referencing the carbon cost of meat production).

The problem is that strength of belief in convictions alone doesn't make them true, nor does it necessarily convince others to agree with you.

Countdown to this being moved into the Debates forum in 3...2...1...

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. We can digest a lot of things we don't have to eat.

I think that when something causes suffering and is unnecessary it is wrong in some way
No noone can do that. But if i convince 1 I still would be happy ;) And if everyone ate less meat, that would change a lot to.

I agree with you on this one ;)

Theres always someone who has to pay the "cost" for cheap food. That is kind of the essence of the whole problem (the animals, some worker in a poor country, the eviroment and so on). There's a reason "good" food costs more...

No but the lesser meat we buy/eat the lesser will be produced

I manly talk about the western society and the way we abuse the animals and treat them as products without feelings.

Actually I only heard that argument made from the other side ("we have fangs and so on") The only thing our teath "prove" is that we are Omnivores as discussed before :)

Yes, it is difficult. I buy things now and then I know I shouldnt, I tough to always do the right thing (whatever we feel the right thing is)

I agree with you somewhat here. Moral issues is always a difficult subject. But I'm also trying logical conclusions. (If x causes pain, and pain is wrong, hence is wrong )

He he you're probably right...

(I wasn't trying to start a debate, but that was probably naive of me to talk about a delicate subject and still think it wouldnt start a discussion.)

You wont be able to cut down meat consumption even if one person stopped. Ever heard of the 72oz steak challenge down here in Texas? Now thats a lot of meat LOL!

Okay now seriously, based on your issue on if it causes pain it is wrong than the Na'vi are bad? They cause pain to the animal so that they can survive and stay healthy.

Also on your argument of being able to be vegetarian. As someone else stated before this is only because of modern society. If you were stranded in the wilderness you would need the protein from meat to keep your energy. Now that we are such a dominate species and have greater technology and ease of living things have changed. Though we are meant to consume a mixture diet. This is un-arguable, look at our teeth for evidence our digestive system. Just because you think it is wrong that I enjoy a big ol juicy steak etc does not mean it is truly wrong. Only wrong in your eyes.

Exactly Gunny!

hey Gunny, try to read the thread before posting, or I have to reaply to same arguments all the time ;)

I said that that it's a fact that slaughterhouses are causing suffering and to support suffering is bad.
I think the action to cause someone unnecessary pain or suffering is wrong, dont' you?

I've never claimed vegetarian is the best choice always and in every situation.

Se previous posts...I'm getting tired here :war:
I said why I think it's wrong and you haven't exactly proven me wrong...

And can't digest things we didn't evolve to survive exclusively on.

I agree. I don't like factory farming of animals, or killing them in inhumane ways.

I never said that it's the only thing to eat, but it IS important to get some in a healthy diet. It doesn't need to be often, just once or twice a week.

I agree that that's wrong, but there's still nothing wrong with actually raising animals for food.

Anima, Gunny, et. al. : You cannot prove someone else's moral convictions "wrong" as hard as you try.

I personally don't have a problem with vegetarians, so long as they respect my choice to eat meat as I respect theirs not to. Crossing into accusations of "supporting animal cruelty" (from vegetarians) or "eco-hippy-ism" (from meat-eaters) is where I exit the discussion since it's not productive.

Trying to make someone feel bad about eating (or not eating) meat using weasel words and loaded statements doesn't help anyone. A running theme in this thread seems to be that anyone who eats meat in the present is deliberately supporting animal cruelty or the infliction of unnecessary pain. While this may be true, repeatedly pointing it out in an effort to guilt-trip them won't accomplish anything because it returns to the arguments over the whole morality of the practice.

Sovereign has a good point there. It's not even really true, there's no unnecessary pain. I am opposed to any unnecessary suffering of animals, but people still need to eat. A quick, painless death after a proper life (not raised indoors in cramped conditions), I see absolutely nothing wrong with.

I should add I see agree that there is nothing wrong with the idea that animals can be raised for food. The idea itself is not to me inherently unethical, since animals eat other animals. Methods used are the primary concern, I think.

I do not agree with any stance of "humans should know better" since, if it was truly something we "knew" (as we know how to walk, eat, breathe and the like) there wouldn't be a debate since it would be part of our nature.

well I think one problem is that we talk about different things here. To simplify it:

Statement:I say slaghterhouses cause suffering.
Statment: I say it's not necessary to eat meat to be healthy.
Statement: when you buy something you support it
Argument: if something causes suffering and it's not necessary it's wrong.
Conclusion: it's wrong with slaghterhouses.
Conclusion2: if you buy meat produced in slaghterhouses you support suffering.

Most of the responses that desagrees with me, argue against the conclusions when you should be argumenting against the statments (can be proven) or the argument (moral statment therefore harder to "prove") IF you think my conclusions are wrong. The conclusions are only logical result

Remember "A guide to debating, by Spock" http://www.tree-of-souls.com/showthread.php?t=450 :war:

Or we all can take the easy way out and se it like Sovereign does: we have to agree to disagree :)

Anima, I did read the thread as you can see by my multiple posts in this thread. I am on my phone atm but will have a full rebuttal for you when my class is over.

Well that sure makes me feel better. Not :(

I started this thread because I was feeling sad about some stuff and hoped fore som support and thoughts, witch I got in the beggining but now most of you seems to think the most important thing is to crush me. I'm feeling alone here and even more sad.

I'm not trying to give hate to you meateaters, I'm just trying to explain why I feel the way i feel about this issue. I often cry when I think about the suffering and I come to this forum to feel good.

I guess today it didn't work....

I disagree with both.

Again, arguing something isn't necessary just because you don't like it isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

again debaterules
i said WHY it's not necessary and the reason was not because "i don't like it"

Anima, I hate to say it but you're veering dangerously close to Godwin's Law and slippery slopes (both logical fallacies).

What, exactly, mandates that I should accept your version of morality? That's what I'm choking on here. Attempting to accuse people who don't support your moral point-of-view of using logic capable of supporting murder and rape is precisely what set other people off earlier in this thread: a moral-high-horse stance that puts people off regardless of the merits of your arguments.

Your premise that all slaughterhouses cause suffering is debatable. A clean, well-maintained facility (ideal, admittedly but this is what the USDA wants) where animals are subjected to a single bullet to the head does not rise to what I would call unnecessary suffering. That's just my belief.

The premise that you do not need meat to be healthy is also debatable. It depends on the definition of "healthy," first of all. I cannot for the life of me find the article right now, but there was one that found vegetarians are more prone to certain diseases, while meat eaters are more prone to others. The net balance was essentially zero.

As for environmental damage, there isn't a consensus yet. So please don't go damning meat-eaters as anti-Earth resource-stripping zealots. At least not yet.

Using the logic of "buying = supporting" then many of us support the use of "blood minerals" in our computers. We also support the use of child labor and poor working conditions. I take issue with what I see as an attempt to smear everyone who buys something as having an attitude of "RAH RAH THIS IS GREAT" when it may be more from a lack of alternatives. I'm sure someone is likely to point out that there are alternatives to everything, but at some point most people (myself included) will sigh, say "OK so X supports Bad Thing Y that I don't like, but the cost of not having X is too high. You have to convince me to give up X in some other way than just repeatedly pointing to Y and calling me a bad person."

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

Anima, I support people's right to an opinion, but equating a view to murder and rape is not acceptable, particularly not simply because this view is different to yours. Please do not repost that again. Although not actually an occurrence of Godwin's Law, you were certainly getting close to making ad hominem attacks there.

Ok, fine. There is no suffering in proper slaughtering, the animal feels no pain and wouldn't even know what has happened. Eating meat is required for human health without having to specifically adapt a diet to include extremely large amounts of non-animal sources of protein, iron and some vitamins (and even then, many require additional supplements). Humans have evolved as omnivores, our teeth are more similar to carnivores than herbivores, we are unable to digest plant material such as cellulose, and even human physiology is evolved in a direction that facilitates hunting.

I simply meant that the argument "we can eat other animals cause animals eachother" is the same argument "we can murder eachother cause other animals murder eachother"

I didn't say ALL slaghterhouses, i just said "slaughterhouses causes suffering.

I didn't say eating meat isn't healthy, I said it isnt necessary

This is ONE study and it manly talks about tofu and other meat substitutes, witch only some veg eat. There are hundreds that show that it is damaging. And it a fact that it's a energywaste (about ten times more) - Laws of thermodynamics

As I said before, it's difficult to always to the right thing and I defenetly see your point here

OK people, chill!

This has gotten way to judgmental and "I'm right, you're wrong."

Eat what you want and don't let anyone harass you about it. END OF STORY.

As I said before, you will never be able to make me give up a big steak, slow smoked pork, chicken, its all freaking tastey! But like the other thing o said look up the Texas steak challenge to see a lot of beef lol

That is CERTANTLY not what I meant!!! I meant the logic was not vaild in the same way!

I'd be interested in which animals commit murder... AFAIK, they don't. they may eat prey animals, and even kill in self defence, but I have never heard of an animal specifically planning to kill an individual and then acting on it. You're also implying humans are somehow different to animals... why? Because of sentience?

I'd say it is, for a healthy diet.

So you think all life should only eat grass? Or photosynthesise? It's the most efficient, doesn't mean it's at all possible or practical. What about other animal species then? Should they all be killed off because they are contributing?
Anyone can find a study on google, for either side of an argument. Even so, it's not going to change anybody's mind either way.
Ironically, the impact of not eating meat is different than it appears to be, because many people replace minerals they aren't getting a sufficient amount of with industrially manufactured supplements.

Again, I agree with shatnerpossum here.

Animals do not rape nor do they murder for fun so that comparison does not work.