Ethical Treatment of Animals in Meat Industry

[jverne]

it's really sad how we came to be such a meat addicted society. i like meat but my ideal meal would consist only of 1/3 of meat products the rest is vegetables.

we already have 5 chickens at home, no we're not at a farm but a more suburban type landscape. we have enough fresh eggs daily. a few years ago we also bred broiler chickens for food. i can vouch for the fact that they grow so fast they can't even move, most of the time they just sat and eat. the egg layers grazed around in our back yard.
i might even raise more of them someday. they had a much better life than the factory farm ones.


people should realize themselves that eating less meat is better i doubt forcing them to will work.

 

[smwScott]

There's nothing particularly righteous about being a vegetarian. There's nothing wrong with eating animals killed for food. We are animals, we're at the top of the food chain, we eat the ones below us. That's how life on Earth works...

However, of course they should be treated humanely. The video posted above me is obviously unacceptable. It should also be noted that that video was of a plant that was shut down for inhumane treatment. Obviously the majority are no longer like that.

While I agree just as strongly about humane treatment - the vegan hipster douchebags that take someone eating a hamburger as their cue to start preaching about how morally superior they are for not eating meat can go **** themselves.

I think that's what Nurizeko was getting at (the plant thing is dumb - I'm not associating myself with that). The vast majority of vegetarians are so because of social reasons, not because they really give a shit. These people are annoying, and they are constantly trying to impose their fad on others. **** them.

The one's that genuinely prefer to be vegetarian for whatever the hell reason - more power to them. But unless it's relevant to a conversation or debate at hand, keep it to yourself. You're not any better, you just have a different diet.

 

[Saturos]

people should realize themselves that eating less meat is better i doubt forcing them to will work.

I like beef. Preferably raw, but only if it's fresh. Blood gushing through my teeth like a hemoglobin flavored Starburst as I chomp down on a hunk of raw steak is delicious. I also like livers, spleens, and intestines. Plus, slurping on bone marrow filled bones like pixie straws is pure ecstasy.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

You uh, better get checked out. You might have all manner of bacteria and parasites squirming in ya. My grandmother actually used to eat cannibal sandwiches. That's a quarter pound of raw ground beef (or raw Sirloin) + onions on rye. She's Danish.

In the case that your post was a joke, I lol'd.

 

[Solaris]

There's nothing particularly righteous about being a vegetarian. There's nothing wrong with eating animals killed for food. We are animals, we're at the top of the food chain, we eat the ones below us. That's how life on Earth works...
Naturalistic Fallacy


I think that's what Nurizeko was getting at (the plant thing is dumb - I'm not associating myself with that). The vast majority of vegetarians are so because of social reasons, not because they really give a shit. These people are annoying, and they are constantly trying to impose their fad on others. **** them.

The one's that genuinely prefer to be vegetarian for whatever the hell reason - more power to them. But unless it's relevant to a conversation or debate at hand, keep it to yourself. You're not any better, you just have a different diet.

I'm not a vegetarian, by a long shot. However, I am increasingly moving to the view point that eating meat is a moral wrong. Especially in the case of factory farms.

If that's the case, then I cannot simply just abstain from eating meat myself, without opposing others doing it too.

If I become a vegetarian, there will still be chickens cooped up in factory farms, and that is unacceptable so I must preach and protest until it is abolished.

 

[VirusType2]

I like beef. Preferably raw, but only if it's fresh. Blood gushing through my teeth like a hemoglobin flavored Starburst as I chomp down on a hunk of raw steak is delicious. I also like livers, spleens, and intestines. Plus, slurping on bone marrow filled bones like pixie straws is pure ecstasy.

You uh, better get checked out. You might have all manner of bacteria and parasites squirming in ya.

Yeah, that would explain Saturo's brain not being par for the course. Parasitic controllers.

 

[Raziaar]

If everyone was veggies there would suddenly be a few new species to put on the endangered list.

I have a big issue with vegetarians/vegans and omnivores being militant. It's ridiculous. Just eat how you want.

 

[Solaris]

I have a big issue with vegetarians/vegans and omnivores being militant. It's ridiculous. Just eat how you want.

Then you're missing the point.

Imagine for a second we're all Cotton Farm owners. My farm does not use black slaves as I believe it's unethical. You however do.

When I try to get you to stop using slaves, you don't understand why: "Why does he have to be militant about it" you think, "why can't he run his farm the way he wants, and I'll run mine how I want."

I'm not equating slavery and meat eating, nor am I saying you condone slavery. I'm trying to help you understand why I can't agree it's justified for everyone to 'eat how you want'.

 

[smwScott]

I'm not a vegetarian, by a long shot. However, I am increasingly moving to the view point that eating meat is a moral wrong. Especially in the case of factory farms.

If that's the case, then I cannot simply just abstain from eating meat myself, without opposing others doing it too.

If I become a vegetarian, there will still be chickens cooped up in factory farms, and that is unacceptable so I must preach and protest until it is abolished.

First of all, a naturalistic fallacy is not a formal logical fallacy. It means that that which provides pleasure (natural) isn't necessarily morally "good."

The way you used it (as many people do) is to suggest that any appeal to the literal "nature" as a source of influence is fallacious. This is crap.

There's a lot to be said for the natural order of things. Eating meat is healthy and natural. We are not herbivores. Just because it is possible to survive without it (due largely to advances in agriculture such as genetic modification and pesticides - which your typical vegan still stupidly abstains from) does not equate with a moral imperative to do so.

And while you have the right to preach your own personal viewpoints, understand that it makes you a douchebag. You're no different than an evangelical, which is ironic (and amusing) as most of the hipster asses that prescribe to vegetarianism/veganism take great pleasure in deriding their practices. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have a serious problem with religious groups trying to convert you, right?

I will say it again - the vast majority of vegetarians/vegans are so purely because of social reasons. In addition to fitting in with a little clique of people, they get the added benefit of feeling superior to others. They like to have something to stand on a soapbox about so that they can talk down to others.

 

[Eejit]

Wrong. With the exception of the broiler chickens who are grown at an insanely fast pace and the laying hens who cannot use their muscles and limbs properly due to their cramped quarters and wire floors, the meat we raise currently would be fine in the wild--at least as fine as other herbivores. Pigs, in particular, would fare quite well as they can become feral in a matter of weeks and begin to grow tusks and coarse fur. Cows can be extremely protective when in groups as well. Feed a cow with your hand while it is content and then imagine it and its mates being at all annoyed with you--you will be scared; they are huge.

Wrong. They've been selected for hundreds of generations artificially, in a natural environment most livestock would be easy prey. Pigs are the ones most likely to succeed. Sheep for example have to be protected if they've been caught outside in heavy rain - their waterlogged fleeces immobilise them and they can easily be stuck lying in the field as crows come and peck their eyes out. None of them have been subjective to natural predation, and many breeds could easily be wiped out without our help.

The argument that they wouldn't exist if not to be eaten is bad as well since these species most definitely did exist before we domesticated them and would continue to exist and evolution would lead them to a new way of life once freed from the confines of our torturous industrialized system. In no time at all they would be hard to recognize as the same species.

None of them existed in their current forms prior to domestication. We've forced rapid and specific evolution on them through selective breeding. Like I said, they're about as "natural" as the crops we eat.

Exactly. They have not evolved sufficiently enough to try to avoid pain or cry out when their structural integrity is compromised.

Plants haven't evolved sufficiently? Arrogant much? They've evolved in a different direction and have a much longer history than animals. It's worked pretty well for them so far.

 

[Solaris]

First of all, a naturalistic fallacy is not a formal logical fallacy. It means that that which provides pleasure (natural) isn't necessarily morally "good."

The way you used it (as many people do) is to suggest that any appeal to the literal
"nature" as a source of influence is fallacious. This is crap.

There's a lot to be said for the natural order of things. Eating meat is healthy and natural. We are not herbivores. Just because it is possible to survive without it (due largely to advances in agriculture such as genetic modification and pesticides - which your typical vegan still stupidly abstains from) does not equate with a moral imperative to do so.

I'm sorry, the correct term is 'Appeal to Nature'. However, it's still fallacious. Becuase it is natural, does not imply it is correct or just.

And while you have the right to preach your own personal viewpoints, understand that it makes you a douchebag. You're no different than an evangelical, which is ironic (and amusing) as most of the hipster asses that prescribe to vegetarianism/veganism take great pleasure in deriding their practices. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have a serious problem with religious groups trying to convert you, right?

I will say it again - the vast majority of vegetarians/vegans are so purely because of social reasons. In addition to fitting in with a little clique of people, they get the added benefit of feeling superior to others. They like to have something to stand on a soapbox about so that they can talk down to others.

I'm a douchebag becuase I believe there are moral wrongs in the world and I would like to change them.

Factory Farming should be banned.

 

[Raziaar]

Then you're missing the point.

Imagine for a second we're all Cotton Farm owners. My farm does not use black slaves as I believe it's unethical. You however do.

When I try to get you to stop using slaves, you don't understand why: "Why does he have to be militant about it" you think, "why can't he run his farm the way he wants, and I'll run mine how I want."

I'm not equating slavery and meat eating, nor am I saying you condone slavery. I'm trying to help you understand why I can't agree it's justified for everyone to 'eat how you want'.

The fact that you equate people eating meat and the meat industry to ****ing slavery of Africans throws every bit of credibility you have out the window.

It makes it entirely pointless to argue with you. It's like arguing with myself back when I was a neocon and I mentioned Homosexuality and Pedophilia/Bestiality in the same breath.

ABSOLUTELY RETARDED.

And yes... you ARE equating slavery to meat eating. Read your post from an objective point of view.

Animals have been domesticated and consumed by man, bred specifically for purposes of flesh and clothing for countless thousands of years. There's nothing different about how it happens now, other than the whole fact that it's on an unhealthy massive scale.

 

[VirusType2]

I will say it again

Stop generalizing and being a douchebag.

 

[Solaris]

The fact that you equate people eating meat and the meat industry to ****ing slavery of Africans throws every bit of credibility you have out the window.

It makes it entirely pointless to argue with you. It's like arguing with myself back when I was a neocon and I mentioned Homosexuality and Pedophilia/Bestiality in the same breath.

ABSOLUTELY RETARDED.

And yes... you ARE equating slavery to meat eating. Read your post from an objective point of view.

For ****s sake Raziaar, I am not equating the two things.

What I said was an analogy. An analogy takes a principle and then applies it to a totally different set of circumstances to test the principle.

In our case, the principle was 'if you believe an action to be unethical, do not engage in it yourself, but do not try and stop others doing it.'

You were proposing that principle in the case of eating meat, so I took that principle and applied it to a different situation where the activity in question was one you believed to be unethical.

In doing so, I proved your principle does not hold up and so you cannot reasonably expect vegetarians to be content allowing other people to eat meat without opposition.

Jesus, maybe you should learn a little more about rational argument before you engage in debates. Analogies have nothing to do with equating two things, it's testing a principle. I find it very strange you don't understand that.

 

[Raziaar]

For ****s sake Raziaar, I am not equating the two things.

What I said was an analogy. An analogy takes a principle and then applies it to a totally different set of circumstances to test the principle.

In our case, the principle was 'if you believe an action to be unethical, do not engage in it yourself, but do not try and stop others doing it.'

You were proposing that principle in the case of eating meat, so I took that principle and applied it to a different situation where the activity in question was one you believed to be unethical.

In doing so, I proved your principle does not hold up and so you cannot reasonably expect vegetarians to be content allowing other people to eat meat without opposition.

Jesus, maybe you should learn a little more about rational argument before you engage in debates. Analogies have nothing to do with equating two things, it's testing a principle. I find it very strange you don't understand that.

I know what the **** an analogy is. An analogy is done to point out the similarities of two things. That's precisely why I say you're equating, because you're saying they're very similar. What are the differences? The fact that one is done to humans and one is done to animals?

You making slavery analogous to factory farming is ridiculous. The two shouldn't ever be mentioned in the same breath together, because they are nothing alike. When I hear somebody say things so patently stupid, I feel the need to call them out on it.

 

[VirusType2]

I think people intentionally killing insects for no reason should be severely punished. And I'm in the mind to be the deliverer of this punishment. It's not hard for me to understand why people could be protective of docile or simple species. Because I don't think that they are insignificant.

 

[Solaris]

I know what the **** an analogy is. An analogy is done to point out the similarities of two things. That's precisely why I say you're equating, because you're saying they're very similar. What are the differences? The fact that one is done to humans and one is done to animals?

You making slavery analogous to factory farming is ridiculous. The two shouldn't ever be mentioned in the same breath together, because they are nothing alike.

No, an analogy is not done purely to point out the similarities between two things, that would be just a comparrison. It's a tool used to test a principle under different circumstances.

I never said slavery and factory farming are very similar. Just as if I was comparing economic policy to garden maintance I wouldn't be doing so becuase I thought economic policy was nice to look at, it would be becuase I thought both required detailed planning.

If I did make that point though, I imagine you would jump in "Solaris thinks dealing with the credit crunch is as simple as mowing the lawn". It's intellectually dishonest of you to talk like that, you're taking my analogies and twisting the words in them to make it look like I was trying to make an entirely different point.

In the original analogy I could have used genocide or video piracy as examples. It wouldn't matter at all to the validity of my reasoning. If you think it does, you seriously understand how analogies work.

However, I think it's more likely you're just being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Saturos]

First and foremost, the problem is not being omnivorous, it's overpopulation. Until science can provide a way to keep up with the growing mass of meat-eating humans and produce more, there's an alternative, a much much less moral solution which I'm sure nobody's willing to do. Genocide.

Secondly, I actually agree with some who've said that factories should provide a cleaner habitat for market animals. If only to raise them more healthy for consuming.

Lastly, there's a reason why there are farms. To sustain and regulate the market. In less fortunate third world countries, do you really think these people really give a damn about our first world ideals and political correctness when their stomachs are growling? They'll eat the first thing they can fry up. (or eat raw) None of us have ever been truly hungry, so stfu.

In first world countries however, market animals are closely regulated and there are game laws (should be anyways) that protect endangered species in the wild from hunters. Some other animals in the states however such as deer are open game during season because they are actually a pest due to overpopulation. Why? Natural predators in first world countries normally dangerous to humans are slowly being weeded so that the only predators herbivores have left are rednecks. Deer are destructive, cause traffic accidents etc. so it's all part of the plan. Big brother is keeping tabs on the rednecks.

Trust me.

 

[Solaris]

'None of us have ever been hungry so stfu'????!?!

What kind of reasoning is that? However I'll be happy to use it. It seems if you can make a statement about two entities, you can tell people what to do immediately following it.

Saturos you are not a dragon. So **** off.

 

[Saturos]

What kind of reasoning is that? However I'll be happy to use it. It seems if you can make a statement about two entities, you can tell people what to do immediately following it.

There should always be a chief, even in a democracy. I for one am ALPHA beyotch!

BTW, as chief I hereby revoke your status as hunter. Your too much of a misfit idealist to get the job done. My people will starve if left in your hands.

and I don't mean first world fast food junkies either:



This is cruelty. How could the parents of these kids let them get this way?


Why do fat men insist on wearing singlets? Jesus, this guy just might as well wear a f**ing bra. No meat for you fat ass.


Ditto. Nobody wants to see your cellulite woman. Wear some sleeves, and no meat for you. There are people out there who actually need protein sustenance, and your not one of them!

 

[smwScott]

I'm sorry, the correct term is 'Appeal to Nature'. However, it's still fallacious. Becuase it is natural, does not imply it is correct or just.

You don't have a firm grounding on the use of these fallacies. You should stop flippantly throwing them around. I will get to some ACTUAL fallacies that you used momentarily.

The "Appeal to Nature" is fallacious because it is a fallacy of relevancy (which is itself STILL not a formal logical fallacy). This means you are arguing for or against an issue on the basis of something that is completely unrelated and therefore irrelevant.

Specifically, the "Appeal to Nature" is based on someone claiming moral "goodness" of an unrelated subject based on biased and vague interpretations of what is "natural." This is commonly used in debates over homosexuality, where someone will claim that it is unnatural because it doesn't fit into their concept of "goodness." If you told this person they were committing the "Appeal to Nature" fallacy, you would be correct.

I didn't draw any far-fetched or unrelated parallels, nor did I rely on a personal interpretation of "natural." Eating meat is objectively "natural." It is also instrumental for the survival of nearly all life on Earth. It is also directly relevant to the subject at hand. I didn't say eating meat was "good." I said it wasn't wrong.

Now, you equated nagging normal people about eating meat with fighting against slavery. In addition to providing an amusing insight into how you see yourself, you do realize you are using a fallacy of irrelevance yourself by equating meat eating with with slavery. That was clearly your intention, there was no other reason to bring it up.

I'm gonna help you out here. The logical and effective retort to my argument is that human beings are capable of cognition that surpasses other animals, and therefore should hold themselves to a higher standard of morality. Telling me I can't say it because it violates some fallacy you don't really understand is not effective debating.Not only that, you have also committed "fallacy fallacy." That is, disregarding or assuming false an argument because you think it committed a fallacy.

I'm a douchebag becuase I believe there are moral wrongs in the world and I would like to change them.

Factory Farming should be banned.

I simply said that such a person who chooses to force their beliefs and own way of life down someone else's throat is a douchebag. If you choose to take that personally then that's on you .

You never answered the question, how do you feel about evangelicals trying to convert you?

 

[VirusType2]

I simply said that such a person who chooses to force their beliefs and own way of life down someone else's throat is a douchebag. If you choose to take that personally then that's on you .

Eh. I don't think so. If someone is murdering people and raping women and finds it natural to do so (cavemen did it) - if I were to say that it's wrong, and they shouldn't do it, that doesn't make me a douche-bag. It depends on your viewpoint.

 

[Solaris]

I didn't draw any far-fetched or unrelated parallels, nor did I rely on a personal interpretation of "natural." Eating meat is objectively "natural." It is also instrumental for the survival of nearly all life on Earth. It is also directly relevant to the subject at hand. I didn't say eating meat was "good." I said it wasn't wrong.

Fair enough, I thought you were trying to say becuase eating meat is natural it is ethical.

Now, you equated nagging normal people about eating meat with fighting against slavery. In addition to providing an amusing insight into how you see yourself, you do realize you are using a fallacy of irrelevance yourself by equating meat eating with with slavery. That was clearly your intention, there was no other reason to bring it up.

Yes, you understand. I was comparing nagging 'normal' people with fighting slavery, as in they are both moral actions. I wasn't saying they were moral equivalents, my intention was to disprove the idea that it's okay to ignore the unethical actions of others.

I simply said that such a person who chooses to force their beliefs and own way of life down someone else's throat is a douchebag. If you choose to take that personally then that's on you .

You never answered the question, how do you feel about evangelicals trying to convert you?

I hate evangelicals, but I understand why they do it. If I believed my friends were going to hell, I'd try and convert them too.

Also, I'm not a vegetarian. I'm not even trying to convert people to vegetarianism.

 

[Saturos]

Anyways, I think I made my point clear. Don't ban meat and ruin everyone else's day just because of the capitalist agenda to make alot of money and the lack of self-control of a demographic. Just ban certain farm factory practices deemed unethical so that market animals can live in a paradise up until the day they are throttled.

BTW, I have really have no idea why I posted those pictures. I guess they relate somehow to unethical slaughtering and how so many amoral ignorant first-worlders don't really need to eat meats high in fat and protein content, but my point remains clear. Don't ban meat factories.

 

[Dinnesch]

I hate factory farming, I actually feel guilty everytime I eat meat that comes from a factory farming animal..
For that reason I don't eat much meat anymore

 

[Raziaar]

No, an analogy is not done purely to point out the similarities between two things, that would be just a comparrison. It's a tool used to test a principle under different circumstances.

I never said slavery and factory farming are very similar. Just as if I was comparing economic policy to garden maintance I wouldn't be doing so becuase I thought economic policy was nice to look at, it would be becuase I thought both required detailed planning.

If I did make that point though, I imagine you would jump in "Solaris thinks dealing with the credit crunch is as simple as mowing the lawn". It's intellectually dishonest of you to talk like that, you're taking my analogies and twisting the words in them to make it look like I was trying to make an entirely different point.

In the original analogy I could have used genocide or video piracy as examples. It wouldn't matter at all to the validity of my reasoning. If you think it does, you seriously understand how analogies work.

However, I think it's more likely you're just being intellectually dishonest.

No, it's me thinking you making an analogy using slavery in discussing factory farming is disgusting and a horribly bad analogy, just like discussing anti-homosexuality and making analogous references to pedophilia and bestiality as other "lifestyle choices".

It's a piss poor analogy and you know it.

You're smart enough to realize that if you're using Slavery as an analogy to factory farming, you're going to catch a lot of flak for it.

 

[VirusType2]

The holocaust was worse than slavery. This is farm animal holocaust we are talking about.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Why do fat men insist on wearing singlets? Jesus, this guy just might as well wear a f**ing bra. No meat for you fat ass.

This is a photoshop.
Of Brad Pitt.

 

[Stigmata]

This is a photoshop.
Of Brad Pitt.

 

[Raziaar]

The holocaust was worse than slavery. This is farm animal holocaust we are talking about.

Holocaust used in this context is just a buzz word typically used to evoke feelings people have about the Jewish Holocaust by Nazi Germany.

These animals are being slaughtered to feed people, because we as human beings are omnivorous. They're not being killed due to their religion, their race, or anything similar to what happened to the Jews during WWII.

Animals die on a massive scale in nature, spread throughout the globe on the surface and in the water. That's life.

Do factory farms need to be forced to maintain a higher standard of living for these animals until they are slaughtered? Absolutely. Does the industry need to be abolished because people feel it is wrong to eat animals and have an objection to many animals being killed to feed us human beings? Absolutely not.

 

[smwScott]

I hate evangelicals, but I understand why they do it. If I believed my friends were going to hell, I'd try and convert them too.

Also, I'm not a vegetarian. I'm not even trying to convert people to vegetarianism.

True enough, after all - if a friend of mine genuinely believed I was going to hell, what kind of a person would he be if he didn't try and "save" me?

But that brings me to my next point - evangelicals are wrong. There is no hell to be saved from. I think we are both of that belief - and therefore we both find it incredibly annoying, intrusive, and maybe even offensive when they try and convert us.

While I 100% sympathize with and support ethical and humane treatment of animals, I do not believe it is wrong to eat them. Therefore, I feel exactly the same way when I am chastised and belittled for eating meat as I do when an evangelical attempts to convert me - a feeling I believe you can sympathize with. The feeling is made even worse because, unlike most evangelicals, a large portion vegetarians are so more for social reason than a genuine conviction to their ideology.

I have many strong feelings, however I do not try and force them down peoples throats. I love an open debate, but if I see someone partaking in an activity that I myself do not condone or enjoy, I'm not going to start preaching at him. This isn't slavery, or genocide, torturing animals, or whatever the hell else. It's just eating meat. It is natural, and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Saturos]

This is a photoshop.
Of Brad Pitt.

I know, except Brad Pitt really let himself go. The real photoshop jobs are pictures of him skinny and sexy in celebrity articles. No mortal man is capable of such flawlessness otherwise.
Why do you think him and Angelina Jolie are having troubles? Cuz he's getting too fat!!!

 

[VirusType2]

While I 100% sympathize with and support ethical and humane treatment of animals, I do not believe it is wrong to eat them. Therefore, I feel exactly the same way when I am chastised and belittled for eating meat as I do when an evangelical attempts to convert me - a feeling I believe you can sympathize with. The feeling is made even worse because, unlike most evangelicals, a large portion vegetarians are so more for social reason than a genuine conviction to their ideology.

When and where are you chastised and belittled for eating meat? Are you constantly attacked by militant vegetarians?

Bull. You guys are the ones 'chastising and belittling' vegetarians and vegans. The evidence is right in this thread - Nuriziko, you, Saturos, and others that haven't participated in this particular thread yet. Do I need to repost what's already been said?

Do you just imagine these scenarios? Too much TV? I've never met an aggressive vegetarian in my life. That's Hollywood mockery from folks like you. Those people don't exist.

My brother was a vegetarian for 8 years. I never even knew it until thanksgiving of this year. I remember many years ago a few times him telling Mom that red meat was bad for you, so he wouldn't have any, and that's my only memory of it. The only reason he eats meat now is because he's having problems digesting vegetables for some reason.

I've never liked meat. When I was about 7 years old, I learned what meat was made of, and that was that. Never been a fan since. I just find the veins and tendons in particular pretty revolting, especially when raw. Certain meats like well cooked pork chops taste pretty ****ing good though.

I've personally never tried to 'convert' anyone, I simply state my opinions when discussions of the topic come up.

If anyone thinks they are superior, it's carnivores. They get angry and can't stop with the insults, just like you've been doing for the past few pages. What gives?

 

[Raziaar]

Do you just imagine these scenarios? Too much TV? I've never met an aggressive vegetarian in my life. That's Hollywood mockery from folks like you. Those people don't exist.

Well no actually... they exist. Check out any of the veggie/vegan boards on the web... some of them are huge, and you can see they are constantly chastising stupid ignorant meat eaters.

I think militant vegetarians/vegans and militant omnivores are all retarded. People who insult others and classify them as fat or smelly because they happen to allow meat into their diets(without any actual basis for those aforementioned insults). As well as those people who insult vegetarians/vegans for eating tofu and whatever else they eat and calling them ridiculous names based solely on their eating habits.

I think vegetarians and vegans are just fine if they want to eat that way. It becomes a problem when they try to force their own ideologies upon me and change my way of life. It's those belief pushers in life that are the absolute worst, who try to make others adopt their lifestyle, even through through force of law.

 

[VirusType2]

Well no actually... they exist. Check out any of the veggie/vegan boards on the web... some of them are huge, and you can see they are constantly chastising stupid ignorant meat eaters.

I think militant vegetarians/vegans and militant omnivores are all retarded.

Hmm, well said.

 

[smwScott]

I've personally never tried to 'convert' anyone, I simply state my opinions when discussions of the topic come up.

THEN I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!

Jesus, this is the third post of mine you've quoted saying the same damn thing.

I have been nagged and hassled numerous times by vegetarian dipshits. They either come right out and say something like "You know animals suffered so that you could eat that" or they sit there passive aggressively talking about how they never eat meat because of how horrible it is and don't understand how anyone else could either. They come in two varieties: genuine hippies and smug hipster douchebags.

They are second only to evangelicals in terms of pervasiveness and overall annoyance. This is very common, and if you don't know what I'm talking about then you live in a better part of the world than I do.

Of course, I have quite a few friends (mostly chicks - they tend to be less douchey about it than vegetarian dudes from my experience) who are vegetarians and generally cool people. They don't give a shit what kind of food I eat, nor do I they. I have absolutely no problem with the act of not eating meat - it's the subculture that comes with it that needs to be ****ing shiskabobbed and served at a BBQ.

And I never, ever say anything derogatory towards someone because they're a vegetarian. I genuinely don't care. I am about as indifferent to it as a person can be. As I've said, MANY TIMES, I have a problem with attempts at forcing a personal philosophy on someone else.

 

[VirusType2]

I have been nagged and hassled numerous times by vegetarian dipshits.

Just tell them to mind their ****ing business, pussy. Under attack from all sides by vegans and peace signs, oh the horror.

 

[Sulkdodds]

This thread is full of stupid things. Some aren't worth addressing (such as jverne's ludicrous hunter fantasies and silly claim that abrahamic religion is the sole cause of attitudes to animals rather than, I dunno, reflecting them - not to mention Saturos bitching at a photoshop of Brad Pitt like a man screaming in rage at a portrait on the wall). Some are.


VEGETARIANS ARE STUPID

I do not personally believe there is any such thing as "ethical meat." I don't believe it would make a difference to a victim's family if you told them that once you stole their son away from them he lived a seriously protracted but otherwise healthy and natural existence up to the time when you slit his throat and let him bleed out.

The post you made was a good one but it doesn't cohere with this statement. You're drawing an equivalence between human rights and animal rights. You're saying that meat is unethical not because of the conditions under which the animal is kept or the treatment to which it is subjected but because its rights are violated - because it is imprisoned and killed, full stop.

See also:

I personally don't approve of meat produced in any way. All slaughter is cruel and violent and I refuse to be a part of it.

The problem is that you then go on to make a load of argumentative points about the conditions under which animals are kept and the treatment to which they are subjected. This is all very well - the identification of human welfare issues involved with the meat industry (eg economics, illegal immigrants) gestures towards a more sophisticated argument that lies beyond the "it's cruel"/"but who cares" animal rights argument binary. However, none of it is actually relevant to the claim that animals should not ever be killed for food. That claim surely doesn't require you to even look at the meat industry.

But moreover, said claim rests on ideas which very few other people are going to agree with. Even for most vegetarians the problem with the meat industry is that its practices are cruel and unhealthy, not that animals have a right to life that should never be violated unless absolutely necessary. In my experience many veggies say they might be willing to eat meat if it was guaranteed to be ethical. The distinction they are making is between 'animal rights' (we should torture animals because it's a violation of their rights) and 'animal welfare' (we should not torture animals because it's cruel and unnecessary). See this post.

Many people see the wisdom in animal welfare but few, universally, in animal rights. And once you start talking about animal rights it becomes very difficult to decide which animals should have what rights and which should not. Briefly, we can't use 'intelligence' as the decider because we have no certain way to quantify intelligence among humans, let alone among members of species who have no share in our culture and all our highly species-subjective measures of mentality. Even if we did have such a test, it could force us into a situation where our own logic demands that we imprison retards and give dolphins the vote. Alternatively we could say that all animals have rights full stop, but that's impractical; we kill a hell of a lot of germs. How does it all work?

If you're going to argue from rights and not from welfare, I wish you luck, but the vast majority of people will take a lot of convincing. You'd better get to work.

I am making the choices that I am making because I am (as Gandhi said) being the change I want to see in this world. People ask me if I think I am really making a difference at all; how much difference can one person make? I tell them that it only took one person to sit at a diner counter, or one person to not give up their bus seat to bring about a monumental cultural shift in thinking about the hierarchies of oppression that so many of us take for granted every day.

Oh, come on now. I applaud your effort but this is so silly and conceited. I fully expected you to say that when people ask you whether you're making a difference, you respond: "no, I'm not - but I am taking myself off the moral circuit by refusing to have a part in this unethical industry - I am as far as I can refusing to allow my money to contribute to its upkeep and refusing to allow myself to contribute to its operation. I may not be able to change much but at least I am not implicated". Which would be fair enough. But instead you seem to think that "it only took one person" to create the Montgomery bus incident. Well, no. It took great cultural and social weights; that context was what changed an insignificant incident into a flashpoint. Without them the incident would have meant nothing and gone unreported. Perhaps many others did. We should all act as we believe in acting. But let's not delude ourselves into believing that as we walk about in the world we might at any moment become the centre of a controversy that will change society. COME ON.


MEANWHILE, CARNIVORES ARE EVIL:

If you want to make up reasons as to why you don't eat meat (don't like the taste/over-sensitive nutjob who cant bear the thought of something fluffy and 4 legged dying but you'll tuck into a tomato even t6hough its basically the un-germinated young of a plant i.e. LIFE) thats your choice, as long as your cool about it and don't lecture me on my dietary habits its all good.

I don't have any problems with allot of lifestyle choices (even if I may think they are based on shoddy reasoning/ideology) its when people feel the need to spread their stupid ideas that it becomes an issue.

There's nothing particularly righteous about being a vegetarian. There's nothing wrong with eating animals killed for food. We are animals, we're at the top of the food chain, we eat the ones below us. That's how life on Earth works...

However, of course they should be treated humanely. The video posted above me is obviously unacceptable. It should also be noted that that video was of a plant that was shut down for inhumane treatment. Obviously the majority are no longer like that.

While I agree just as strongly about humane treatment - the vegan hipster douchebags that take someone eating a hamburger as their cue to start preaching about how morally superior they are for not eating meat can go **** themselves.

I think that's what Nurizeko was getting at (the plant thing is dumb - I'm not associating myself with that). The vast majority of vegetarians are so because of social reasons, not because they really give a shit. These people are annoying, and they are constantly trying to impose their fad on others. **** them.

The one's that genuinely prefer to be vegetarian for whatever the hell reason - more power to them. But unless it's relevant to a conversation or debate at hand, keep it to yourself. You're not any better, you just have a different diet.

You're both completely ridiculous. Who on earth are you talking to? Why are you coming into a thread that is about animal ethics and ranting about militant vegetarians trying to "spread their stupid ideas"? Where does this even come from? One moment, Scott, you're talking about the issue at hand, and the next moment a bizarre rant is intruding like a flasher running onto a football pitch mid-game. And what motivated this? What in the real world has inspired it? I live in Brighton, the hippiest hipsterest lesbian-vegan-communist-est place I know of in the entire country, and yet I have never been actually preached against for eating meat. Nobody I ask has experienced this either. Even if it happens to you, it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion. But on the evidence of this thread, you two take the merest mention of animal rights, or the simple statement "I am a vegetarian", as a personal attack which must be vociferously shouted down. I have to wonder what you find so threatening about vegetarians that you feel the need to screech about how stupid they are without even the slightest provocation. Nuri seems to believe that nobody is allowed to talk about their lifestyle habits except himself ("BURP") while to Scott I'm inclined on the evidence of this thread to suggest that what you perceive as "preaching about how morally superior they are" is actually them merely mentioning their preferences when you're all deciding what restaurant to go to, at which point you launch into a diatribe telling them that they're full of shit and they should stop trying to oppress you and how they don't really have any legitimate intellectual reason or any kind of argument to believe what they do, but that instead it's all social reasons (where's all the social pressure to stop eating meat? Can't say I've been put under it. you're like neocons under Bush who believe their opinions are being suppressed) and therefore they haven't a leg to stand on because they're just "vegan hipster douchebags" blah blah blah entitlement blah blah blah thin skin blah blah blah sandy labia blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

By the way, loving that No True Scotsman manouvre there at the end: if you are a vegetarian who does not 'force your beliefs' on people then I'm not actually talking about you, I'm talking about all those other vegetarians nobody else has ever met who I am going to imply are in the majority despite no evidence and so you should just shut up because you aren't who I'm talking about!! You make a similarly slippery move by claiming that while you disagree with inhumane practices, they are "obviously" no longer the norm (really?) and so there really is no possible argument against your position other than nonsense claims that killing flies is as wrong as killing humans.

Get a grip, you pair of blubbering vaginas.

NEXT UP: MY ACTUAL OPINION, POSSIBLY

 

[nurizeko]

As long as a lifestyle/ideology is based purely on notions of morality its never going to be applicable to the human race as a whole because morality is subjective and relative. What is right to you can be wrong to someone else, that doesn't mean that because one person believes something is wrong that it is somehow an innate property of the universe and that going against some code of morality is to break the laws of physics and transcend into some unnatural state of existence that unbalances the universal zen or whatever.

Be vegetarian, enjoy that lifestyle....but it is a lifestyle, your not a Mormon, so don't try and convert people and leave people to eat what they want to eat.

I have a vegetarian friend and you know how we get along?...he doesn't preach to me and I don't preach to him. :imu:

*blahblahblah*

Well said.

*Tucks into a Turkey sandwich*


Edit: Nice effort sulks, but what about my position is evil? Care to define evil?

We mentioned militant vegetarianism because that has been a strong motivator behind the majority of posts in this thread.

Nuri seems to believe that nobody is allowed to talk about their lifestyle habits except himself

Said no such thing, please read what was posted, not what you invented inside your head. I know your a raging moron most of the time Sulks but you usually are able to dress it up with a thin veneer of logic.

I live in Brighton, the hippiest hipsterest lesbian-vegan-communist-est place I know of in the entire country, and yet I have never been actually preached against for eating meat.

Your own personal experience = proof that militant vegetarianism/veganism doesn't exist. I can see why you made that mistake, its an easy one to make but if the world worked like that no-one but the Soldiers would be allowed to discuss the Afghan war or only mothers could discuss abortion.

If we went with your logic I could claim that animals don't actually die because I don't see it happen hence there is no moral basis for vegetarianism/veganism but I would 1) be incredibly retarded and 2) most importantly, wrong.

Get a grip, you pair of blubbering vaginas.

Aside from the fact that as far as I am aware neither me or smwScott have vaginas, blubbering implies some sort of emotional distress.

Yet you refer to us as evil (I'll let my mother know, and to think I was just another person with my own loves and hates but I really am the next Hitler!) which in the context you have used it is relevant because we are noticeably NOT crying over the fate of some chickens and other livestock reared for the meat industry.



The subject is about humane treatment of livestock in the meat industry?, simple, treat them a bit nicer, and all that, or don't.

Like most philosophical debates this one will never end, animals have rights?...why?....we cant even treat each other within our set of human rights, are they universal?, what constitutes a person, so on so on into infinity.


If you choose to not eat meat/use animal products because you think it is morally questionable that's your choice, but some of you people are arguing about it as if it is some black and white issue with clearly defined physical parameters in reality. Its not, your arguing for a certain set of rights and codes of behaviour regarding animals based on whether you believe animal;s are somehow equatable with humans or not, or whether they are "developed" enough to appreciate the rights they are afforded.

But it is all just a hypothetical exercise in your head. Animals feel pain?...so why is this the winning goal for the game?....can you prove animals appreciate pain on a level even approaching that of a human being? (and again treatment of other people is hardly a universal, many people have no issue inflicting suffering or pain on others) isn't sapience the basis by which we relate to others?...do animals have it?....are animals truly aware beings who just happen to not be able to convey their own thoughts and feelings or are they just zombies with no actual mental state, just with a basic biological computer that says eat, shit sleep and so on?

You don't get to change the world, an industry, the lives of other people based purely off of your own beliefs, and that is why militant vegetarianism/veganism/animal rights advocacy is treated by many in the same regard as a preaching faith.

And that is why I reject the notion I am measurably evil.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Be vegetarian, enjoy that lifestyle....but it is a lifestyle, your not a Mormon, so don't try and convert people and leave people to eat what they want to eat.

WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO

WHO IN THIS THREAD ARE YOU ADDRESSINGLKAKJSHRSGDJSK

I have a vegetarian friend and you know how we get along?...he doesn't preach to me and I don't preach to him. :imu:

The rest of us, who live in constant strife with our vegetarian friends/nemeses, can only hope to match your level of peace and serenity.

*Tucks into a Turkey sandwich*

Stop pushing your lifestyle on us by pointedly mentioning it all the damn time!