Why do you keep disregarding the fact that in the first case a person is eating the product and getting nutrients and in the second she's just rubbing the walls with it for nothing?

You can't "murder" an animal.

What nutrients come from pig or chicken blood that you can't get elsewhere?

I could just as well ask why it's being disregarded why no meat or dairy product offers any nutrients or substance that could be found in non-meat or diary products. And thus, because the nutrients could be found elsewhere, the eating of meat is being done for nothing, as well.

In the legal definition, no. You're right, since law views humans differently than animals. Animals in law are almost always seen as property, not living creatures.

In the philosophical understanding, murder can be categorized as killing with malice, and to kill something for your own selfish needs (hunger) and not, say for example, self-defense, would be a malicious act.

This is such an extreme posture--yes, you can get proteins and nutrients from non-animal products. "Science says we do not need meat" or whatever. But not all people can afford to live like this. Compare the price of regular milk against the price of soy or almond milk for example. It's also a matter of some people preferring to eat meat because that's what they're used to.

And no, it is not being done for nothing. People can find the nutrients they need in meat and animal products. Eggs, cheese, meat, you name it, they contain nutrients.

Vegans and vegetarians do not help when they dismiss animal abuse because "oh people eat meat anyway! get mad at that instead!!"

Meat consumption is not ending anytime soon. You can tell people capable of making more ethical choices to do so, but you cannot end the meat industry altogether realistically. Dismissing all cases of animal of abuse by citing the meat industry is just

See - once again, you have to reframe it to suit your agenda.

No one's dismissing anything.
The point being that your morals and constructed sense of cultural norms make you view x as abuse and y as okay, and people simply think x and y are both abuse and immoral.

And there's nothing wrong with pointing such out.

The ****? This went too deep.

Eating plants, which are living organism of varying complexities ain't much better than eating meat, except that it's probably more sustainable.

Biology overrides morality in terms of food procurement. And humans are omnivores. Us eating meat is natural. The Native Americans eating bison or the Inuit hunting seals weren't "selfish", they were fulfilling a biological need. It's no different than how bears are omnivores and can eat berries in one instance and in the next turn around and hunt a small mammal or go fishing with their teeth.

That said, animal abuse is looked down upon because it's an expression of human aggression we don't want to proliferate in our shared communities. That's aside from being perceived as wasteful in an already overburdened world. AND people are attached to certain animals based on cultural norms.

Meat eating =/= animal cruelty. Intent matters.

Yes.

It's a goddamn chicken that was raised to be chopped up for parts so we could enjoy our general tso. If they decided not to throw out the blood this time... well even better. Cause at least it's being used to it's most.

But if she went out of her way to raise chickens or steal them or buy them live just to hack them up in her room, that would be perceived as wasteful or antisocial behavior or both.

Although you haven't lived till you've had a vegan argue with you on whether or not humans are truly meant to be omnivores and meat something natural for us.

Also just for the sake of playing devil's advocate though, is intent really that key when the animal has still died? Surely it just means people are passing off the cause of such death to be rid of guilt. Ask the average modern human to kill their own meat and they will freak out, but it's okay when a factory does it in mass?

Can we really compare ourselves to folks who went out and had to hunt when we live in a society that has become so modernized and advanced that we have more options?

I'm speaking from view of those who have the means btw so I'm not talking about those areas where hunting and eating meat is still super vital to survival.

I was born in Africa. Grew up in Idaho. And currently live in Texas. I think my opinion on hunting might be a little skewed. I once helped my parents butcher a live goat in our backyard for a wedding. So yeah... dd

Anyway, options on their own don't mean they're viable for everyone. All of a sudden we stop selling meat and then what? Everyone flocks to their nearest pharmacy to buy Vitamin B12 pills? Aside from collapsing the world economy, the price of the pills would skyrocket due to demand and of course the poorest would get left behind.

These kinds of changes have to take place gradually and organically. The food supply would have to slowly shift to more plant production and some major modifications in the form of GMOs would have to implemented to take on the burden of expelling calorie dense meats from the food network.

Calling it "selfish" to eat meat, especially when we have an anthropological and anatomical connection with it, is quite ignorant of science and history.

Wouldn't say you'd be the average but slay that skill. I know people who hate even touching the meat from the package.

I think that doesn't take into account about other foods and their condition of availability to become replacements though.

I'm not talking in the sense of snatching all meat away from people immediately, but acknowledging the fact we do have more options should happen, if not there is no attempt at progressing away from relying on meat (which some will say there is no need to remove meat entirely).

"Selfish" is a bit too far I'll agree, but maybe... it can be seen as regressive to say meat is a necessity just because of the past?

I mostly agree that we need to move away from extreme meat dependency.

But what's really not sustainable is our current methods of factory farming for grains. This has destroyed the soil here in the US and has been largely responsible for the destruction of the soil around the world. Agriculture started in the Middle East, in what is now Iraq and Iran. It used to be called the fertile crescent, but because of agriculture is now a waste land.

Desertification on Earth can be reversed by properly using animals on the land. Which is where the need for grass-fed ruminants (cattle, goats, sheep, etc) comes from. Soil profits from the hoof action and manure of these livestock. The grass thrives and grows back stronger, the animals proliferate, and human beings as hunters AND gatherers get the proper balance of animal proteins and plant nutrients to evolve their enormous brains.

The problem requires a holistic solution. The emphasis should be on uplifting grass-fed meats versus trying to stamp out meats entirely as that's not really good for the earth anyway. Pushing veganism or vegetarianism is mostly politics.

Also, more condoms and abortions >>>



I'm really getting annoyed by all these problems being caused by unsustainable human populations. Because even if we stop eating meat, where are we going to find the land to grow enough grains to sustain 8 billion and counting people? Especially when only 9% of the Earth is suitable for farming...

Humans need to keep it in their pants. I blame religion for encouraging unmitigated growth. Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, etc. And then persecute the most obvious natural form of birth control, gay people, to push their rabbit agenda.

So in general the food system needs to improve itself, I definitely agree.

The bolded, I guess. I see a lot of morality, health and environmental discussion surrounding it.

This is interesting though.

Okay, I can let up on the "politics" opinion. It's a bit of a mischaracterization as I can see where some health and environmental arguments are made in favor of veganism.

It's just that we always get down to the "morality" angle of "killing animals" and that's when they lose me. And it becomes their abstract principles versus science, logic, and ecology.

If anyone is interested:

It's less if we take meat completely out of the equation.

Sunshine. serving HOT TEA once again! And meanwhile certain member being so extra, but what else is new?

Whew!!

So then wouldn't this same ideology apply to religion and that to paint people who try to use religion for good with extremists ignores this important factor?

"Islam still says homosexuality is a sin so Islam can't not be homophobic" - yet there's tons of Muslims who don't interpret that as such and work to make Islam into something great, and thus their intent counteracts and makes one's assumptions about their faith irrelevant.

Though this isn't aimed at Sunshine, who doesn't do the "call every person who practices a faith an extremist/bad person/terrorist" thing that some people in here do.

Because religion literally teaches and approves hateful ideologies and ideas. Why would anyone sane allow that? Would you say the same if someone who identifies as a neo-nazi and teaches peope about nacism and how great it is, but says he doesn't hate jews or gays be also okay? I mean, sure he doesn't hate such people, but the problem still stands that nacism DOES hate jews and gays despite what few people like to twist it. It's a problem and we shouldn't be apologetic about belief systems that spreads such hateful ideologies.

You think that liberal religious folk can't become homophobic? Well honey, my aunt was homo-friendly and had nothing against homosexuals when I was younger. She was a non-practical Catholic, until she went thru divorce and had tough time in her life and she looked up to her faith. Now she's one of the most homophobic people in my family, she goes to church every Sunday. All that because of religion. So stop defending problems and be so apologetic about them, it's never going to help any progress.

With that being said, nobody here thinks people who practice those religions are terrorists. We criticize and acknowledge of problem that is religion and what their religion stands for. It's important to distinguish religion and spirituality. Nobody cares how people want to believe in for their afterlife or hope someone gives them in this current life. The problem is with people who follow harmful religion. Such religions shouldn't be taught just like nacism. I know it's hard in 2017 to do that, hence why education and good conversation about this problem is important to have in order to build a better world where looking at abrahamic religions in the future would be the same as we look at Greek mythologies now, instead of banning religions because that doesn't work, never have and never will be, until people themselves realize how problematic that belief system in religion is.