How do you, as a meat-eater, justify the violence inherent in your food?

[Bill3000]

I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to show the other side's reasoning to be ridiculous. If I'm wrong, well, I'm cool with that.

Showing that someone's reasoning is absurd is one of the most fundamental aspect of debating. If he wasn't trying to show that the aneesh's reasoning was false (that violence is inherintly negative, and that is the main reason why to not eat something which had been prepared through violence, e.g. being a carnivore) then it would mean that he finds it to be an acceptable argument - but that's contradictory to his post.

The idea that, for example, "plants has feelings and because of that we shouldn't eat them" is meant to be a satire, and is not to be taken seriously outside of the purpose of satire or a reductio ad absurdum. You could say that it's a strawman, of course, but then it's only a failed attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Bit different from simply saying that it's ridiculous, though.

 

[GenMarshall]

Women are "lower" than men on the "strength" chain. You'd rape one?

You're talking to a person who sees women as equal as men in terms of streignth. I have seen pics of bodybuilding women and I am in karate class with women and believe me they can be as equal in streignth as men. As for rape, I am opposed to it because it robs the woman's dignity and places unjust burden on men who are opposed to men raping women. My mindset is not set in the Spartan society mindset where they rape women. I dont see how this has to relate to eating meat.

To get the topic back on track, I enjoy eating meat because it tastes good plus giving the fact that humans are omnivores. I don't see any problems killing a cow, a chicken, a turkey, and a pig. Vegetarianism does not appeal to me because all you are eating are just strictly fruits and vegetables (The strict Vegan types). Meat just happens to be a normal part of my diet, though I mostly eat poultry most of the time and red meat once in a while.

 

[Atlas14]

Why is abstract thought not an instinct? Is it something we're not born with?

We are perhaps born (most of us) with the ability to perform abstract thought, but the actual abstract thought requires more than instinct, more than pure genetics.

By what method do you distinguish 'raw response' from 'non-raw response'?

When my daddy beats me every night with his leather belt, it is most likely that my roundhouse kicking him in the face is a learned, calculated response not a programmed one. And thus sitting there cringing from the pain might be a "raw response" because it would not necessarily require actual thought, only a reaction.

 

[Atlas14]

Are you saying you're no better than a lion? I thought we were "intelligent"...

We are "intelligent", and we do have a moral responsibility to keeping the killing of animals for our eating incredibly humane. However, all animals need to eat, and most animals are weaker than us, and so it is only logical that we include weaker animals as a renewable food source.

 

[Che Guava]

No there isn't. Yeasts are fungi.


Now if you ask what kind of fungi, then you're in trouble!

My supervisor just published a paper that cast some doubt on the whole classification of protists, yeasts, and algae, so I'm going to say that there are at least a few dissenting voices.

Aneeshm: I think a lot of the differences in opinion we (and others) seem to have is our definition of violence. As far as I can tell, you seem to equate death with violence, and death with a negative. Let me tell you a bit of what i beleive:

I find death to be a natural part of any creature's life, and I beleive that there is a lot to be said about the timeliness of said death. For a being such as a human, with enough capacity to comprehend and appreciate thier own existance, I beleive that life should be preserved for as long as someone is able to think, so long as they wish to keep living. Animals, while to a degree aware of thier own existance, do not have (IMHO) a consciousness that is indepedant of thier physical selves. While a person's personality may be independant of thier physical form, a cow's is very much tied to the four legs, four stomachs, and flipping tail that makes it a cow.

Having taken that into consideration, I beleive that the worth of an animal's life is not judged so much by its length, but by its quality. If a cow lives to maturity without the fear of being attacked by predators, without going hungry, without contracting painful untreated diseases, then in my humble opinion, that cow has had a good life. If that cow meets the end of its life in a quick, painless, and humane manner, then that cow has led what I deem to be a near perfect existance as a cow. There is nothing cruel or violent about how many a cow meets thier end, nor do I find anything wrong with people consuming the flesh of that cow, particuarly if they were inolved with tending to the life of said cow.

I have heard plenty a good argument for vegetarianism based on the efficiency of land use, the advantages of a veggie diet, and even the wonders of veggie cuisine. But no one will ever convince me that eating the flesh of an animal is morally wrong, cruel, or violent. My own experience raising, tending to, and yes killing animals, has taught me that.

 

[fishjie]

and how do YOU justify the merciless slaughter of the vegetables or whatever the hell it is that YOU eat? HMMM?? you just brought up an example about aliens who are more intelligent and have superior tech enslaving and eating us. PLANTS are living things too, we just happen to have far greater intelligence (just like your hypothetical aliens) and when you grow vegetables you are enslaving them. do you think plants want to get eaten? if that were the case why do roses have thorns? hmm....

the worst thing about slaughtering plants is that they are COMPLETELY defenseless. at least animals are mobile. plants are nothing but completely stationary targets, unable to even lift a finger to defend themselves from ravaging vegetarians like you. even sheep have a better chance of survival.

animals need nutrition to survive. whether from plants or animals they have to kill to get it.

oh and heres the problem with your hypothetical scenario - any alien race that advanced would have already invented some way to nourish themselves without needing to "kill". already TODAY, there are scientists who can GROW meat. yes, GROW it in a lab. i dont have the links to the articles though.

 

[GenMarshall]

I find death to be a natural part of any creature's life, and I beleive that there is a lot to be said about the timeliness of said death. For a being such as a human, with enough capacity to comprehend and appreciate thier own existance, I beleive that life should be preserved for as long as someone is able to think, so long as they wish to keep living. Animals, while to a degree aware of thier own existance, do not have (IMHO) a consciousness that is indepedant of thier physical selves. While a person's personality may be independant of thier physical form, a cow's is very much tied to the four legs, four stomachs, and flipping tail that makes it a cow.

Having taken that into consideration, I beleive that the worth of an animal's life is not judged so much by its length, but by its quality. If a cow lives to maturity without the fear of being attacked by predators, without going hungry, without contracting painful untreated diseases, then in my humble opinion, that cow has had a good life. If that cow meets the end of its life in a quick, painless, and humane manner, then that cow has led what I deem to be a near perfect existance as a cow. There is nothing cruel or violent about how many a cow meets thier end, nor do I find anything wrong with people consuming the flesh of that cow, particuarly if they were inolved with tending to the life of said cow.

Out of all of that, I share that simmilar view as you do and I am inclined to agree that death is a natural process. I mean Carnivorus animals see nothing wrong with eating other animals and it's part of the natural cycle of life. If it's alright for a tiger to eat meat, its most certanly alright for humans to eat meat (Though humans are Omnivores and can process and digest both meat and plant matter)

I have heard plenty a good argument for vegetarianism based on the efficiency of land use, the advantages of a veggie diet, and even the wonders of veggie cuisine. But no one will ever convince me that eating the flesh of an animal is morally wrong, cruel, or violent. My own experience raising, tending to, and yes killing animals, has taught me that.

Ditto on my part. No one can convince me that eating meat is wrong, cruel, and/or violent.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I would become vegetarian if it wasn't so expensive here.

 

[aneeshm]

Aneeshm: I think a lot of the differences in opinion we (and others) seem to have is our definition of violence. As far as I can tell, you seem to equate death with violence, and death with a negative. Let me tell you a bit of what i beleive:

I find death to be a natural part of any creature's life, and I beleive that there is a lot to be said about the timeliness of said death. For a being such as a human, with enough capacity to comprehend and appreciate thier own existance, I beleive that life should be preserved for as long as someone is able to think, so long as they wish to keep living. Animals, while to a degree aware of thier own existance, do not have (IMHO) a consciousness that is indepedant of thier physical selves. While a person's personality may be independant of thier physical form, a cow's is very much tied to the four legs, four stomachs, and flipping tail that makes it a cow.

Having taken that into consideration, I beleive that the worth of an animal's life is not judged so much by its length, but by its quality. If a cow lives to maturity without the fear of being attacked by predators, without going hungry, without contracting painful untreated diseases, then in my humble opinion, that cow has had a good life. If that cow meets the end of its life in a quick, painless, and humane manner, then that cow has led what I deem to be a near perfect existance as a cow. There is nothing cruel or violent about how many a cow meets thier end, nor do I find anything wrong with people consuming the flesh of that cow, particuarly if they were inolved with tending to the life of said cow.

I have heard plenty a good argument for vegetarianism based on the efficiency of land use, the advantages of a veggie diet, and even the wonders of veggie cuisine. But no one will ever convince me that eating the flesh of an animal is morally wrong, cruel, or violent. My own experience raising, tending to, and yes killing animals, has taught me that.

My objection is not to death, but to the act of killing, and the violence inherent therein.

 

[LucyDuke]

I would become vegetarian if it wasn't so expensive here.

Vegetables are more expensive than meat where you live?

 

[Che Guava]

I would become vegetarian if it wasn't so expensive here.

Unless you're living up north, I don't think it should be a problem in Canada. I did the veggie thing for a few years (actually to save money) and if you do your homework, it won't cost you much at all. Just stock up on good cheap veg protiens (lentils, chick peas, nuts) and avoid the more typical, but more expensive options (i.e. tofu)

 

[Truronian]

My objection is not to death, but to the act of killing, and the violence inherent therein.

So why do you now object to the act of killing a carrot and the violence inherent within?

 

[Che Guava]

My objection is not to death, but to the act of killing, and the violence inherent therein.

Ack! I feel like I'm debating with a brick wall! Death occurs whether one kills or not, should it not be the conditions of death that determine whether or not it is violent or immoral?

You can kill an animal while still showing a great deal of love and compassion for it. Ever had to put down a pet? It is probably the greatest act of love you can do for that animal, especially given the difficulty of doing the deed.

Killing anything without regard for the value of its life is violent, but killing in itself in neither immoral, evil, or violent.

 

[Winner]

As a vegetarian, I consider meat to be frankly abhorrent, for both religious as well as secular reasons.

The religious reason is that there is tremendous violence inherent in the way that food is obtained. Such violence is not good for the perpetrator.

Religious reasons are completely irrelevant, we're talking about the real world.

The secular reason is that killing animals and eating them is, frankly, disgusting. Another secular reason is that eating meat kills the seeds of great compassion.

Humans have been doing that since the beginning of our species. It is completely natural. Other animals do that to, so why should we be an exception? Because we have larger brain? Come on.

My less-philosophic reason: it tastes damn good.

How do you, as a meat eater (if, that is, you are a meat eater), justify the violence inherent in your food, and inherent in the act of obtaining it? Violence of that nature is, after all, negative, no matter which way you slice it.

Again, it is natural and I feel no shame. I don't say animals should suffer more than necessary, but I am not willing to give up on meat because of some unreasonable psychologic block or social taboo.

 

[fishjie]

My objection is not to death, but to the act of killing, and the violence inherent therein.

so you gonna respond to my post?

and how do YOU justify the merciless slaughter of the vegetables or whatever the hell it is that YOU eat? HMMM?? you just brought up an example about aliens who are more intelligent and have superior tech enslaving and eating us. PLANTS are living things too, we just happen to have far greater intelligence (just like your hypothetical aliens) and when you grow vegetables you are enslaving them. do you think plants want to get eaten? if that were the case why do roses have thorns? hmm....

the worst thing about slaughtering plants is that they are COMPLETELY defenseless. at least animals are mobile. plants are nothing but completely stationary targets, unable to even lift a finger to defend themselves from ravaging vegetarians like you. even sheep have a better chance of survival.

animals need nutrition to survive. whether from plants or animals they have to kill to get it.

oh and heres the problem with your hypothetical scenario - any alien race that advanced would have already invented some way to nourish themselves without needing to "kill". already TODAY, there are scientists who can GROW meat. yes, GROW it in a lab. i dont have the links to the articles though.

 

[punkbass2000]

We are perhaps born (most of us) with the ability to perform abstract thought, but the actual abstract thought requires more than instinct, more than pure genetics.

What does it require?

When my daddy beats me every night with his leather belt, it is most likely that my roundhouse kicking him in the face is a learned, calculated response not a programmed one. And thus sitting there cringing from the pain might be a "raw response" because it would not necessarily require actual thought, only a reaction.

Ok, but you're just giving examples. I want to know the method by which you're separating these examples. You're metaphorically giving me fish rather than teaching me how to.

 

[Urederra]

Unless you're living up north, I don't think it should be a problem in Canada. I did the veggie thing for a few years (actually to save money) and if you do your homework, it won't cost you much at all. Just stock up on good cheap veg protiens (lentils, chick peas, nuts) and avoid the more typical, but more expensive options (i.e. tofu)

Yeah, Why you want to buy the more expensive and tasteless option (tofu) if you can enjoy the cheaper tastier option (beans)?

But I quite prefer my beans with some meat swimming around.

Does anybody feel offended by the term "meat-eaters" instead of carnivorous/omnivorous?

 

[Che Guava]

Yeah, Why you want to buy the more expensive and tasteless option (tofu) if you can enjoy the cheaper tastier option (beans)?

But I quite prefer my beans with some meat swimming around.

Don't get me wrong! I loooooove tofu (especially with a thai peanut cover ), I just realize that it's probably not th cheapest option availible. It's more of a treat. Kind of the same way that i treat meat nowadays.

Does anybody feel offended by the term "meat-eaters" instead of carnivorous/omnivorous?

Why split hairs? We eat meat, we're meat-eaters.

 

[Gladi]

Yeah, Why you want to buy the more expensive and tasteless option (tofu) if you can enjoy the cheaper tastier option (beans)?

But I quite prefer my beans with some meat swimming around.

Does anybody feel offended by the term "meat-eaters" instead of carnivorous/omnivorous?

To full out aminoacids? The thing is if you are eating purely soy product you are not getting those acids at all, likewise if you are just ate full of beans and tommorow dish of peas.

Nah, I regularly call vegeterians I know "rabbits", and been known to ask them what they are "grazing on- that is unless they complain. But what is wrong with meat-eater? It is true. Though I much prefer, predator or might hunter .

 

[Narz]

aneeshm, what's the difference between killing a chicken for food and harvesting a corn cob?

Corn doesn't bleed all over the place and thrash in pain when you harvest it.

Matter of fact, from a biological perspective fruit & grain "want" to be harvested (and have their seeds shed on the Earth for their descendants to grow from). You could almost say an animal being killed vs. a fruit or grain being harvested are pretty much opposites.

I would prefer if they used less painful methods to keep and kill the animals, though. I was vegan for three years because of that. I don't have a problem with death per se. With regard to scenario, I don't really see a need to give a reason not to die. I don't want to, but if I were to die I would be ok with that.

You could buy organic and "humanely slaughtered" meat.