This Makes Me Sad.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Anima

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

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.

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

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.

[Anima]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

This is only your opinion.

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

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

It isn't wrong to eat meat.

I think that when something causes suffering and is unnecessary it is wrong in some way

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

We are ommivores and you will not be able to convince billions of people to stop.

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.

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

I agree that there does need to be better practices in how we obtain our meat.

I agree with you on this one

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

I would love to buy organic and free range meat but it is very expensive and I am just a poor woman.

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...

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

That isn't going to happen.

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

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

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.

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

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Anima

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

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

I think that when something causes suffering and is unnecessary it is wrong in some way

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

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

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

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

[Sovereign]

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...

[Anima]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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.

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 )

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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

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.)

[Gunny]

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.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Gunny

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!

[Anima]

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

Originally Posted by Gunny

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Gunny

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.

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

Originally Posted by Gunny

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.

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

[Sovereign]

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.

[Human No More]

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.

[Anima]

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

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

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Anima

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.

I disagree with both.

Argument: if something causes suffering and it's not necessary it's wrong.

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

[Anima]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I disagree with both.

again debaterules

•An argument may be wrong in fact or logic. If so, say how and why.

Originally Posted by Human No More

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

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

[Sovereign]

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.

[Sovereign]

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."