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

[innonimatu]

If the only argument those vegetarians can come up with against eating meat is that "violence against animals is wrong because any kind of violence is wrong" then we meat-eaters don't have to worry. They will never be able to force us to quit eating any animals we choose.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

If the only argument those vegetarians can come up with against eating meat is that "violence against animals is wrong because any kind of violence is wrong" then we meat-eaters don't have to worry. They will never be able to force us to quit eating any animals we choose.

Very true. Now I think the question everybody needs to know is do vegetarians eat animal crackers?

 

[Azash]

And, another question, why do vegetarians eat the poor animals' food?

 

[GenMarshall]

To Jeffery Dalmer YOU are lower on the food chain. Does that mean he should be able to lock you in a bathroom with twenty other prisoners, chained to the toilet and force feed you 'till you're good & plump and then slit your throat?

No, because I am a human being, not some animal.

It doesn't have to be "wrong, cruel or violent" if you eat an animal that died of natural causes (aka : roadkill). However factory farmed meat is most certainly wrong, cruel and violent, if you want to be honest with yourself you should accept that.

I don't care what happens in the farm and I don't see it as wrong, cruel, nor violent. I don't give a care what happens in these factory farms so long as there is no contaminated meat, I am happy.

Human's natural aversion to dead, decaying flesh (like roadkill) calls into question the "instinct" to eat meat.

Would you rather eat decaying meat that has passed it's exparation date or eat fresh meat from the freezer?

 

[LucyDuke]

I addressed this point. You don't have to kill any animals or plants to get nutrition.

Cats do. He did say animals.

It doesn't have to be "wrong, cruel or violent" if you eat an animal that died of natural causes (aka : roadkill). However factory farmed meat is most certainly wrong, cruel and violent, if you want to be honest with yourself you should accept that.

Roadkill is just about the most unnatural cause I can think of. Aside from that, if an animal dies of natural causes I wouldn't be so sure about its safety as a source of food, unless it fell off a cliff or something, but most deaths-from-natural-causes aren't too clean.

 

[punkbass2000]

You could buy organic and "humanely slaughtered" meat.

I could, theoretically, yes. I could, theoretically, raise animals myself.

 

[punkbass2000]

A brain that is designed to handle such functions.

Isn't that a bit circular?

Fine then, if you cannot extrapolate from my examples the necessary information...

I cannot. I'm quite slow; ask anyone.

"raw" responses are those that are already genetically programmed into us, they are essentially predetermined, normal responses to stimuli for healthy human beings, animals, and plants.

So you know exactly how an animal will react in every situation, since it is predetermined?

"non-raw" responses are those that either are a combination of genetic influence and actual conscious decision making.

I'll assume the "either" is erroneous. Nonetheless, the question seems to come back to itself again. I would ask: "How do you distinguish 'actual conscious decision making' from other decision-making processes" but:

(Any further than this and we are going to be diving into neuropsychology, which I know nothing about)

So, essentially, you believe there is distinction based upon things which you know nothing about?

 

[punkbass2000]

Would you rather eat decaying meat that has passed it's exparation date or eat fresh meat from the freezer?

'Fresh meat' and 'freezer' do not belong in the same sentence without some sort of negation

 

[Red Door]

Why is justification needed for killing animals? They're animals for christ sakes, if they wanted to evolve and stop being eaten, they would.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Alcosta, chrstian right? So God made us humans better than other entities with lives and so we're morally right to harmand killthese living creatures God created?

 

[Lotus49]

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.

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.


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.

But bathing an infant under a urinating cow as it roams the public streets... that's totally 'sane', isn't it.

 

[Red Door]

Alcosta, chrstian right? So God made us humans better than other entities with lives and so we're morally right to harmand killthese living creatures God created?

Yes, but I'm not going to bring up the religious reasons, which could be Genesis, in which God gives humanity dominion over all of the animals. I'll bring up the biological reasons.

 

[LucyDuke]

But bathing an infant under a urinating cow as it roams the public streets... that's totally 'sane', isn't it.

...what the hell are you talking about?

 

[LucyDuke]

Yes, but I'm not going to bring up the religious reasons, which could be Genesis, in which God gives humanity dominion over all of the animals. I'll bring up the biological reasons.

You just brought up the religious reasons, and you didn't bring up the biological reasons, you see that, right?

 

[Lotus49]

...what the hell are you talking about?

They do that in India. I am identifying cultural differences - things which are hard for people with closed minds to understand. What are YOU talking about?

 

[Red Door]

You just brought up the religious reasons, and you didn't bring up the biological reasons, you see that, right?

Prior post.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Cows are holy to most Hindus, guess its some sort of baptism!

Yes, but I'm not going to bring up the religious reasons, which could be Genesis, in which God gives humanity dominion over all of the animals. I'll bring up the biological reasons.

I'm all about te logical reasons, just interested in why god would sanction harming another living creature. Why mke them feel pain and allow that pain morally? Kinda anthropocentric for an Omniscient being.

 

[Red Door]

I'm all about te logical reasons, just interested in why god would sanction harming another living creature. Why mke them feel pain and allow that pain morally? Kinda anthropocentric for an Omniscient being.

God would sanction allowing harm to an animal because an animal has no soul.

 

[LucyDuke]

They do that in India. I am identifying cultural differences - things which are hard for people with closed minds to understand. What are YOU talking about?

I've never heard of that. It doesn't sound like common practice... though I really just don't know. Do you have a source for that? What am I talking about? I'll explain myself if you specify...

Prior post.

Oh, okay. I didn't notice, and that post on its own made me

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

So just 'cause it has no soul, nothing wrong with inflicting harm?