Poll on meat-eating

[Top Secret]

Don't mind Stern, he's a fanatic.

 

[CptStern]

Sentient life is taken every day and is part of the food chain. To argue that the food chain is a monument of evil is absurd, even if it is exacted in a grisly fashion (which it is most of the time).
We, as humans, were developed as omnivores. If you're going to yell at us for eating a pig, then you might as well yell at any other omnivorous or carnivorous species that exists. Who are you to lambast me for doing something I am naturally inclined to do and is, in all seriousness, existent in nature itself?

Treating it as a moral issue doesn't go very far either. You don't think it's moral to eat sentient life forms. Okay, fine. I think it's moral so long as they aren't subjected to unnecessary pain and torture.

woah woah hold on a sec ...no one is saying it's evil, no one's yelling, and I'm not lambasting you. I said these simple words, nothing more:

"isnt the fact your taking a sentient life enough?"

 

[CptStern]

Don't mind Stern, he's a fanatic.

/me shakes head


about what exactly?


you people are ****ing incredible ..I even mention the word animal or rights in the same sentence and you jump all over me as if I'm pointing a finger at you and screaming "there's the murdering scum bag!!!" ...this is exactly why I hate discussing this topic. Dont jump on my back for your subconscious guilt

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

By the way, I'd say that competition is in our nature and not necessarily violence

The aim of the individuals in a competitive environment is to beat each other.
Take a 100 meter sprint for example, For me to win, I have to run faster than the others. Now what would be the most logical way to win the race? train for 10 years or break the legs of my opponents? If you apply logic to competition, it always ends in at the detriment of others. I win, you loose. I Kill, you die. This is where competition leads to without rules and regulations. If you apply rules and regulations to competition, it can lead to great things, like the atheletes that the olympics produces. However it is controlled. It is controlled, because we as humans have the intelligence to realise that the as social beings, we must strive to live together in harmony, so as to reduce pain and suffering. Thus our innate nature is always controlled and regulated by society.

Relating this to the subject at hand; the systematic slaughter of animals purely for our own satisfaction is wrong because we are attaining pleasure at the expense of another lifeform. The problem is one of possesion, and possesion is deterimined by power. You can choose to posses the ability to eat hamburgers, because you have the money to buy them, and society has the power to systematically slaughter animals and turn them into hamburgers for you. Does that make eating hamburgers right? Does the fact that you have power over something mean that you can do what ever you want with it?

I would say no, and I would say this because I know that I do not own animals whether or not I have the power to own them.

Lets say you have a daughter. Now as her father, you have the power to bash her to get what you want her to do. Will you bash her to get her to do what you want? It depends on whether or not you percieve that you own your daughter. If you own your daughter, if she is yours, then you can do what ever you want with her, because you have the right, as the more dominate figure in the relationship to get what you want. However, if you percieve that you do not own your daughter, and she is an agent of her own free will, then you do not have the right to do what you want with her.

This is the same with animals, if you percieve that you own the cow, then you can eat as many goddamn hamburgers you want, if you percieve that you don't, then the act of eating hamburgers is wrong because it means you are killing something you do not own.

Treating it as a moral issue doesn't go very far either. You don't think it's moral to eat sentient life forms. Okay, fine. I think it's moral so long as they aren't subjected to unnecessary pain and torture.

By saying this you are indicating to me that you own animals, and their pain and torture and their life and death is in your hands simply because you have the power to control their life and death. The moral dilemma here is whether or not you own other life forms.

There is also another point that should be made. There is a difference between killing an animal for your pleasure and killing one to survive. Most carnivore kill animals to survive, humans do not kill animals to survive, they kill for the pleasure the taste brings them.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I think Im the one jumping up and down screaming murderer stern. There just taking it out on you because they think your taking my side.

Lets all hold hands and accept that we are murderers, whaddya say?

 

[Absinthe]

The aim of the individuals in a competitive environment is to beat each other.
Take a 100 meter sprint for example, For me to win, I have to run faster than the others. Now what would be the most logical way to win the race? train for 10 years or break the legs of my opponents? If you apply logic to competition, it always ends in at the detriment of others. I win, you loose. I Kill, you die. This is where competition leads to without rules and regulations. If you apply rules and regulations to competition, it can lead to great things, like the atheletes that the olympics produces. However it is controlled. It is controlled, because we as humans have the intelligence to realise that the as social beings, we must strive to live together in harmony, so as to reduce pain and suffering. Thus our innate nature is always controlled and regulated by society.

This is absurd. The absence of rules and regulations does not mean that we will automatically take a course of action that harms our competitors. If you believe that, then I'm sorry you have such a dark view of humanity.
For all your bitching about nature, you're very selective about what you rag on. Humans have developed with a conscience. We have an innate urge to create or be part of a social order. Communication between each other is essential. Therefore one can argue that these "rules" you speak of are just as much a byproduct of our nature as game football is.

Relating this to the subject at hand; the systematic slaughter of animals purely for our own satisfaction is wrong because we are attaining pleasure at the expense of another lifeform. The problem is one of possesion, and possesion is deterimined by power. You can choose to posses the ability to eat hamburgers, because you have the money to buy them, and society has the power to systematically slaughter animals and turn them into hamburgers for you. Does that make eating hamburgers right? Does the fact that you have power over something mean that you can do what ever you want with it?"

To an extent, yes. I have the power to satisfy my omnivorous diet with the meant of cows, pigs, chicken, rabbits, whatever, because they are lower in the food chain than I am. They are not human. They are so far beneath humans that they aren't comparable to us in any way.

Yes, I am attaining pleasure at the expense of another life form. I say "So what?".

Lets say you have a daughter. Now as her father, you have the power to bash her to get what you want her to do. Will you bash her to get her to do what you want? It depends on whether or not you percieve that you own your daughter. If you own your daughter, if she is yours, then you can do what ever you want with her, because you have the right, as the more dominate figure in the relationship to get what you want. However, if you percieve that you do not own your daughter, and she is an agent of her own free will, then you do not have the right to do what you want with her.

This is the same with animals, if you percieve that you own the cow, then you can eat as many goddamn hamburgers you want, if you percieve that you don't, then the act of eating hamburgers is wrong because it means you are killing something you do not own.

Except my daughter is a human and the cow is a dumb animal that just so happens to make a tasty meat patty.

Bottom line: I percieve that we essentually own animals.

By saying this you are indicating to me that you own animals, and their pain and torture and their life and death is in your hands simply because you have the power to control their life and death.

Bingo.

There is also another point that should be made. There is a difference between killing an animal for your pleasure and killing one to survive. Most carnivore kill animals to survive, humans do not kill animals to survive, they kill for the pleasure the taste brings them.

Yeah, and as the king of the food chain that's been brought to the top for through what could be considered very natural means, I can enjoy indulgence. I can eat lesser animals to satisfy myself.

Sorry, but I refuse to call myself a murderer just because you have guilt issue every time you eat a chicken nugget.

 

[YourMom]

I only eat vegetarian animals.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Humans are meant to eat meat. We are omnivores. If you say anything else you need to do some research and have a burger.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

We have an innate urge to create or be part of a social order. Communication between each other is essential. Therefore one can argue that these "rules" you speak of are just as much a byproduct of our nature as game football is.

Well obviously we have this kind of nature, with out religion, society and culture we would not have developed enough to prevent us from destroying each other.

To an extent, yes. I have the power to satisfy my omnivorous diet with the meant of cows, pigs, chicken, rabbits, whatever, because they are lower in the food chain than I am. They are not human. They are so far beneath humans that they aren't comparable to us in any way.

Yes, I am attaining pleasure at the expense of another life form. I say "So what?".

my daughter is a human and the cow is a dumb animal that just so happens to make a tasty meat patty.

Bottom line: I percieve that we essentually own animals.

Bingo.

So humans shouldn't be owned and animals should. Why? Because you percieve that cows are dumb animals, and you have the right to kill them, and humans arent dumb animals, so you don't have the right to kill them. Thus the disitinction you are making between whether or not it's right for a lifeform to be killed is the 'dumbness' of that lifeform. Thus if you percieve a cow to be dumb, then you can kill it. If you percieve your daughter to be dumb, then you can kill her. If you percieve Jews to be dumb, then you can kill them too.


Unfortunatly, your perception of whether or not a lifeform is dumb or not is not reliable enough to trust. Neither is any other human beings perception of whether or not a life form is dumb or not. Because ultimately, we as human beings are not perfect, and are not in a position to make such perceptions at the expense of other life forms. This is why we have religion; to give a perfect being ownership of the world so that our imperfect perceptions of ownership do not have power over the other life forms that exist in the world.

 

[Raeven0]

I heart cow. And pig. And deer. I heart animal in general.

God's given me dominion over all the animals, and I plan to exercise said dominion with authority

 

[Absinthe]

So humans shouldn't be owned and animals should. Why? Because you percieve that cows are dumb animals, and you have the right to kill them, and humans arent dumb animals, so you don't have the right to kill them. Thus the disitinction you are making between whether or not it's right for a lifeform to be killed is the 'dumbness' of that lifeform. Thus if you percieve a cow to be dumb, then you can kill it. If you percieve your daughter to be dumb, then you can kill her. If you percieve Jews to be dumb, then you can kill them too.

Oh yes, equate me to a holocaust perpetrator.

It's not just because they're dumb. It's because they are a natural source of food, a natural part of our diet, and a completely different species.

Unfortunatly, your perception of whether or not a lifeform is dumb or not is not reliable enough to trust. Neither is any other human beings perception of whether or not a life form is dumb or not. Because ultimately, we as human beings are not perfect, and are not in a position to make such perceptions at the expense of other life forms. This is why we have religion; to give a perfect being ownership of the world so that our imperfect perceptions of ownership do not have power over the other life forms that exist in the world.

Relevance? How you turned this into a religious discussion is something I can't figure out.

For the aforementioned reasons, I find it okay to eat animals. And I have no desire to continue this debate with you when you have the balls to compare my opinion to that of a Nazi's.

 

[Tr0n]

Hell yea cows are dumb...and I'm gonna eat those sons of bitches!

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

It's not just because they're dumb. It's because they are a natural source of food, a natural part of our diet, and a completely different species.

Firstly, yes, cows are a natural source of food. However, we do not eat meat to survive as other animals do. We do it for pleasure. Out of greed and out of the simple fact that we have the power to do so and that we believe its right simply because we have that power.
If you had to kill an animal to survive then I wouldnt see that as slaughter, I would see that as hunting.

Killing jews for hitler,was a natural way of assuring the aryan race's superiority. To hitler, jews seemed to be a completely different species. You are discriminating against other lifeforms simply because you have the power to do so. The fact that you have power over something doesn't give you the right to discriminate against it. This is my point. By saying cows are a inferior speices of life forms to us, you are claiming your ownership over that lifeform. So aslong as you have the power, you can state any lifeform, whether it be bacteria, a cow, or a jew, is an inferior speices. However life is equally precious to all, and we should not be claiming the ownership of other life simply because we have the power to do so and the belief.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I heart cow. And pig. And deer. I heart animal in general.

God's given me dominion over all the animals, and I plan to exercise said dominion with authority

My sentiments exactly.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Seppo]

As long as they don't suffer, and are not forced to live in shitty environments, it's ok to eat any animal.

 

[Absinthe]

Killing jews for hitler,was a natural way of assuring the aryan race's superiority. To hitler, jews seemed to be a completely different species.

Except Hitler was a ****ing nut that discriminated according to culture and heritage, not species. Oh, and his aim was extermination. Oh, and it most certainly wasn't natural.

In other words: You have no clue what in the Hell you're talking about.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Animals are lower in the food chain then us, thus we eat them. Deal with it.

Killing for any other reason then food is wrong though, as is causing unessacery pain.

 

[CptStern]

you people havent a clue ...you wont find a commercially sold meat product where the animal didnt live a brutal painful life ..here animals are butchered while they're still conscious ..if that isnt cruelty I dont know what is ...you people need to wake up and see the world around you ...it isnt as nice of a place as you think it is

 

[Tr0n]

We already know it isn't a nice place stern...we all live in reality, but most of us don't care. Even if they're brutally killed...I'm gonna eat me a steak, damn't!

 

[CptStern]

well lets hope at some point in your life you'll develop empathy for other creatures that share this planet with us ..if everyone felt as you did mankind is doomed (quicker than we think)




/me shakes head at apathy I see at HL2.net

 

[Tr0n]

I'll agree with you on that. I just have a cold heart I guess.

 

[CptStern]

again not just you specifically ..the members here, youth in general, society

 

[Absinthe]

Animals in the wild are brutally killed as well. But I'm not going to really attempt to use that as a justification for eating meat.

Yes, many animals used for commercial food products do go through painful processes on their way to my plate. But I'll be honest. Out of sight, out of mind. I place my standard of living over that of a cow's. That's just me though.

 

[CptStern]

animals dont have a moral center they cant differntiate from right and wrong ..to apply the same rules to animals as to humans is rediculous


oh and where do you think all these problems with e-coli, salmonella, swine flu come from? slaughterhouses with unsanitary un-safe conditions ...not too mention growth hormones, anti-bacterial agents contaminating the meat ...sooner or later you'll care one way or another ..whether it's early onset of prostate cancer or a child with digestive problems because of hormones/anti-bacterial agents in milk

 

[Absinthe]

Cheetah brutally kills and eats animal. Man brutally kills and eats animal.

I'm not seeing where morality factors into this.

And what you're complaining about is the unsanitary nature of slaughterhouses, not necessarily the slaughter itself.

 

[Raeven0]

Besides, what does the animal care if it's brutally slaughtered? I don't know of a creature besides Man whose mind has reached the emergence necessary to be more than a sack of nerve impulses. I'll be sure to alert all of you if ever I meet a cow that practices philosophy.

 

[CptStern]

Cheetah brutally kills and eats animal. Man brutally kills and eats animal.

the cheetah desnt have the capacity for compassion or empathy, man does

And what you're complaining about is the unsanitary nature of slaughterhouses, not necessarily the slaughter itself.

the unsanitary conditions and cruelty to animals are part of the same thing: profit ...profit motivates those things

 

[CptStern]

Besides, what does the animal care if it's brutally slaughtered? I don't know of a creature besides Man whose mind has reached the emergence necessary to be more than a sack of nerve impulses. I'll be sure to alert all of you if ever I meet a cow that practices philosophy.

so an animal wont run, scream/bleat in fear if you're about to kill it? no one's ever seen an animal cry out in pain right?

 

[Griz]

The fact is that the lifeforms we eat are lower on the foodchain than we are. Call it Darwinism, survival of the fittest, whatever: we do because can and subsequently choose to.

So why do we choose to? Personal pleasure? Convenience? Survival? I honestly don't know, and i suspect the answer varies greatly across the world depending upon personal circumstances.

But as the dominant species on this planet, and at our current state of evolution, i do believe that morality should enter consumerism. We are not unique among species in our ability to pick and choose what we eat but we are unique in that morality can assist us in making those choices.

So, for me personally, i decided some time ago that i wouldn't eat any animal unless i truly believed that i would be capable of slaughtering that animal myself before consuming it. This led me to giving up lamb. Why? Because i don't believe i could slaughter a lamb myself? Why not? Because the society i live in has conditioned me to have some sentimental attachment to (a) the young (both animals and humans alike) and (b) certain animals society deem to be endearing.

 

[Absinthe]

the cheetah desnt have the capacity for compassion or empathy, man does

The action itself is still the same. Compassion and empathy for my food? I accept that to a certain degree, but not enough for me to not want to eat it.

the unsanitary conditions and cruelty to animals are part of the same thing: profit ...profit motivates those things

But your argument seemed to focus more on the sanitary issues moreso than any ethical ones.

I only argued that I really don't have much issue with the systematic slaughter of my dinner. Health issues aren't the debate here.

 

[Raeven0]

so an animal wont run, scream/bleat in fear if you're about to kill it? no one's ever seen an animal cry out in pain right?

A human (excepting a few) will cry out in pain as well if you break his arm; and, if he sees some potentially dangerous object flying toward his face, he will close his eyes. Basic nervous responses. They don't indicate intelligence nor sentience, only that there exists a nervous system.

Furthermore, my computer cries out in pain (in the form of alerts) when a Web site tries to force viruses or popups onto it. By your logic, wouldn't it then be cruel to format my computer, or even use it at all, since it possesses the capacity to know when it's being hurt?

 

[Griz]

Furthermore, my computer cries out in pain (in the form of alerts) when a Web site tries to force viruses or popups onto it. By your logic, wouldn't it then be cruel to format my computer, or even use it at all, since it possesses the capacity to know when it's being hurt?

LMAO . Possibly the weakest argument ever!!! Congratulations!!

 

[Raeven0]

I don't see the difference between my computer and an animal. Except that the computer is much more useful. And probably wouldn't taste good.

[edit: ooh, and that it does what I tell it to, most of the time. Have you ever tried getting a dog to (quoth Erwin) look up anatomically incorrect porn sites for you? Blasted animal can't even read!]

 

[CptStern]

The action itself is still the same. Compassion and empathy for my food? I accept that to a certain degree, but not enough for me to not want to eat it.

what's the difference between a dog and your food? would you eat a dog or a cat?

But your argument seemed to focus more on the sanitary issues moreso than any ethical ones.

because they are intertwined ...the sanitary conditions are brought about by the motivating factor of greed. Animal abuse is brought about by those same motivating factors.


I only argued that I really don't have much issue with the systematic slaughter of my dinner. Health issues aren't the debate here.[/QUOTE]

but you voted:

"Eating any animal is OK as long as they don't suffer" ...well I'm telling you they suffer ..I've seen the killing floor videos they definately suffer ..it really is a chamber of horrors. but I'm leaving it at that ...too many people here are idiots (not you absinthe) and I'm not going to lower myself by discussing these issues any further ..nothing will change anyones mind

 

[Absinthe]

what's the difference between a dog and your food? would you eat a dog or a cat?

Some people consider it a valid source of nutrition. I would only have issues with it because I was raised in a society that treats such animals as pets rather than meals.

because they are intertwined ...the sanitary conditions are brought about by the motivating factor of greed. Animal abuse is brought about by those same motivating factors.

But I am differentiating between the two. In a hypothetical situation the slaughtering was sanitary, how much would the ethical aspect weigh in? I only bring it up because your argument focuses on the kind of damage it may cause me, but not on the actual killing of the animals themselves.

but you voted:

"Eating any animal is OK as long as they don't suffer" ...well I'm telling you they suffer ..I've seen the killing floor videos they definately suffer ..it really is a chamber of horrors.

TBH, my vote was pretty much based on preference. In a perfect world, it should be as such.

But any way... agree to disagree.