This Makes Me Sad.

[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]

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."

[Gunny]

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

[Human No More]

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.

Originally Posted by Anima

again debaterules

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.

[Anima]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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.

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"

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Your premise that all slaughterhouses cause suffering is debatable.

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

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sovereign

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."

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.

[Gunny]

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

[Anima]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

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

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Anima

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

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

This is ONE study. 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

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.

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

Again, I agree with shatnerpossum here.

[Gunny]

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

[Anima]

Originally Posted by Gunny

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

Nor do they eat other animals for fun, (they do it because they must to survive), so it still works...

[Gunny]

We eat to survive, one source of food is animals. We still need to eat regardless that some people eat to much. Food is a part of survival.

[Anima]

Hey everone

I have to stop now, have to go to bed and I'm feeling really missunderstood and accused of stuff I never said and/or meant. I dont want to be everones enemy, as i said before, I visit this forum to feel good and I feel this has gotten out of hand. I'm sorry if I made some of you feel accused when I was trying to get through.

"Piethrowing" as we call it in Sweden never leads to anything good.

[Human No More]

No problem there, even if I disagree over something I avoid it influencing other things. It's good that you are willing to debate it.

[Lyra]

Haven't read the whole topic, so this will probably sound retarded...

Animals eat other animals. It's the way of life, like a lion eats a zebra, You can't be like hovis and have the best of both worlds, you either eat meat and stay healthy or you go vegtableairian (yes i spelt it like that on purpose) and have dietary muck ups.

Food Is food, it's how it works. NOM NOM NOM.
It would be different if i actually saw the animal being slaughtered, and there are a few i wouldnt ever want to see being killed (wolves, bears, tigers, dogs, cats, etc etc)
But it happens. There's nothing you can do, it's the circle of life. (damn lion king reference there.)