Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicskid]

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

• Freedom for all farm animals!
• Eating less unhealthy food
• No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
• Eating more healthy food!
• No more interference with the animals' life and death.
• Increase in animal population!
• More animals to conduct researches on.
• No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
• and many more!

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by physicskid
Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!

I guess the real issue is to save the species which are about to be wiped out (like whales, sharks, panda bears, Bengal tigers, and many others)
Last time I checked nor cows, nor chickens were on the brink of extinction...
So that would be the difference between eating a steak and eating a shark. Also when you eat shark you eat only one fin, while from a cow you can get a larger number of steaks...

 

[selfAdjoint]

People who want to be vegans are fine with me. I don't bother them, and I expect them not to bother me.

 

[full-time-climb]

Consuming animals at our current population levels is not serving us well. I would suggest anyone that has social concerns review a video called "Diet For A New America" by John Robbins.
Very enlightening.

John

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by full-time-climb
Consuming animals at our current population levels is not serving us well. I would suggest anyone that has social concerns review a video called "Diet For A New America" by John Robbins.
Very enlightening.

John

and yet I see only Yes in the poll...

 

[Kerrie]

i like meat, i am borderline anemic, and i need it...i am not saying that i have a fat steak everynight for dinner, but i do consume meat at least every other day, mostly fish and chicken...cows, chicken, pigs and fish are not about to be extinct one bit...the farms that specially raise these animals for consumption are horrid, but last i checked, americans have the choice to pick at the grocery store what meat they want to consume...

 

[full-time-climb]

Yes must be the default in the poll. Sorry I missed it.
Well at least I now how to get the "Not paying attention vote".

John

 

[decibel]

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

 

[mikelus]

Indians took only what they needed when they hunted buffolo. The white man took what they wanted thinking only of themselfs almost extincting the specie. When I think of america I think of the majority to be overweight, maybe it's because of where I live but I think that we just don't need to eat all the time. Only if we are trully hungry. Thats the reason why are animals are getting killed because of greedy fat people who think only of them selfs. no offense I myself am a little over weight too. The answers just not to stop eating meat, but just not as much. When there's less of a demand the animals will be treated healthier.

 

[THANOS]

Now we hunt moose because we don't have buffalo around here. I agree that people are eating more then is needed and a big change would hurt but who said we all need to change right away. It's not about changing everything right away it's about setting up the future to change in time.

 

[Iacchus32]

Anyone hear of the Atkins Diet? People are not fat because they eat a lot of meat, they're fat because of their sedentary lifestyle and they eat a lot of carbohydrates! This is also why we have such a high rate of diabetes in our society!

 

[Rader]

Good advice for a long life.

You are what you eat.

Good advice for a long life. This is the best diet. Eat a little of everything and not to much of nothing.

 

[Esperanto]

No one is safe. I turned vegetarian for a few weeks and during that time I was turning purple. look at this from http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydoerge.htm

"there is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolize of daidzen, demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid. This is true for a number of species, including humans. Additionally, isoflavones are inhibitors of the thyroid peroxidase which makes T3 and T4. Inhibition can be expected to generate thyroid abnormalities, including goiter and autoimmune thyroiditis. There exists a significant body of animal data that demonstrates goitrogenic and even carcinogenic effects of soy products. Moreover, there are significant reports of goitrogenic effects from soy consumption in human infants and adults."

I am outraged and I'm going to take it out on the farm animals. Anyways, I don't know how anyone can possibly know if vegetarians are healthy. I was pretty sick eating those toxic pellet raisins and soy products all those weeks. from http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art14546.asp

What Is Soy?
As many farmers around the world can attest to, soy is a product of the soybean. Soybeans have been grown in China since almost 3,000 BC and valued as a crop. The soybean plant is a short bush that grows podded beans. Soybeans were brought to the US in the mid-1700s. They are eaten whole as a food, squashed for their oil or, most often, mashed to form a base for other food products. The US currently has 65 million acres of soybean planted to support the gigantic processed food industry. 60% of all food on store shelves contain soy.
As a side note, the asians did not by and large EAT their soy. They fermented it for up to 3 years and then used it as a light condiment. 65% of the asian diet consisted of fish (Japan) or pork (China) - i.e. natural meats. The soy intake was around 2 Tbsp a day - a far cry from the huge amounts of "modified soy" found in a modern developed country diet.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Anyone hear of the Atkins Diet? People are not fat because they eat a lot of meat, they're fat because of their sedentary lifestyle and they eat a lot of carbohydrates! This is also why we have such a high rate of diabetes in our society!

that atkins diet is only good for a short period of time...you do need to balance your diet with carbs, and the whole grain ones are the best...

 

[wasteofo2]

Interesting study showing that eating beef results in less killing of animals than eating vegan.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm

 

[David Mayes]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Anyone hear of the Atkins Diet? People are not fat because they eat a lot of meat, they're fat because of their sedentary lifestyle and they eat a lot of carbohydrates! This is also why we have such a high rate of diabetes in our society!

Carbohydrates that haven't been refined are very good for you.
Both simple{fruit}@ complex{vege} are essential for proper health.
I have my doubts about whether any meat consumption is necessary, but this is only knowable via experiment{which the individual can undertake and prove}.

 

[Zantra]

I voted no that we shouldn't eat meat. Let me preface that by saying I'm one of the worst offenders of meat eating, so it may seem that I'm throwing the proverbial stone in the glass house. But with all our advanced technology, if we could find a way to eliminate the need for meat, I'd go for it. I'll admit I'm guilty of just following the herd on this, and I've never gone vegetarian. I've tried the various soy products and they are nasty. So I'd like to find a "tasty" alternative to meat before I chuck in the meat towel.


Also, being somewhat familiar with some asian cultures, I will agree that we do lead a sedentary lifestyle. We don't exercise nearly as much as they do, and we consume larger portions. If you go to any asian country, their large is our small insomuch as portion sizes go.
Asians do eat meat, and then some. They just eat less of it, and exercise more. So we cannot blame meat for our weight problem.

I'm not sure how much of an impact we'd have on the environment if we went meat free, but I'm sure the world would be a little more crowded.

 

[THANOS]

I guess you go all out with meat Zantra. You even have a meat towel.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by THANOS
I guess you go all out with meat Zantra. You even have a meat towel.

Keeps me warm, and it has riboflavin

 

[Esperanto]

I'm sure there have been some who thought plants were too pretty to eat. What makes us think eating meat is bad? Don't you kill a bunch of microorganisms all the time? I suppose only those willing enough to eat survive enough to pass on their eating er. Damn the circumstances, and then you'll realize this question is only meant to try to cull you into admitting you want to bash in Heffer the cow's head. Moo?

 

[Sting]

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

Freedom for all farm animals!

Eating less unhealthy food

No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess

Eating more healthy food!

No more interference with the animals' life and death.

Increase in animal population!

More animals to conduct researches on.

No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!

and many more!

More animals to conduct researches on.

Are you talking about animal testing or the such? If so, I think it's rather ironic that you mention the inhumane treatment of cramped up chickens.

But as for your question, I was a vegetarian for a while and I was not an healthier than I am now. People in this thread have already mentioned it but the key word is moderation.

Increase in animal population!

That's not always a good thing.

 

[THANOS]

I say skip the part where they test one pinky, brain and monkeys and just go straight to human testing. There's plenty of us we can spare a few people. Maybe clones but that just wouldn't be the same as real experinced humans.

 

[dduardo]

I eat meat.

Personally, I think going from one extreme to another is not healthy. I pefer eating a little of everything. I don't see how anyone could stand going vegan or on atkins. It would be impossible for me.

By the way, I'm USDA prime meat if any cannibal on this forum is interested

 

[FZ+]

I eat meat... because I like eating meat.

Sorry... Taste buds veto brain.

<Insert flames here>

 

[Rader]

Cannibals

All humans eat plants and animals while drinking beer.
Some animals eat humans.
Humans are eaten by man eating plants.
Humans, plants and animals all eat each other.

 

[fatcat]

Philosophic approach to dietetics

There is a page out there upon which to question anything, theorise upon anything, and - I'm sorry - the philosophical involvement in this polemic is?? Are there philosophical issues involved in the effects of Coca-Cola on the body? Is there a particular philosophy attached to my liking biscuits/cookies? There are none more confused than those who in lifting themselves from the pit fill their eyes with mud.

This issue is surely ethics tinged with basic denial of our physiological evolution & design. How long would it take for people to query the sense of filling your car radiator with water, your fuel tank with water, your oil tank with water? Different substances are required for different processes! But that is an aside.

My query is whether it would be possible at all to argue any philosophical case for filling every automotive orifice with water alone. And if not, surely the above falls victim to the same logical exclusion.

 

[seeker03]

Many people are vegans for ethical reasons. Thats fine, everyone has different opinions, and that's what makes this world great. Personaly, I think that evolution or creation made us the way we are; omnivores. We really are animals, with animal needs.
Just think, we worry about killing a semi-sentient bird to feed ourselves, but we often ignore how many people are starving in third world countries or dying of AIDS in Africa.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by fatcat
Are there philosophical issues involved in the effects of Coca-Cola on the body?

There is a philosophical and moral reason for not doing anything to yourself, that you would want done to anyone else either... Its called charity, so here is the info.

It is a scientific confirmed fact that when the blood in the human body has a Ph of 7.4 the blood is in a equilibrium state. Body balance, in terms of acid=alkaline, is pH 7.4 for blood in arteries. Acid=alkaline equivalence is a pH of 7.00. Thus, a healthy body means pH that is slightly alkaline. This means there are more buffering mineral receptors for electons than acid forming electron donors. The human body gets sick when the acid alkaline is out of balance. There is a way to keep it in balance. Your diet.
You are what you eat.
Most fruits and vegetables are alkaline, meats, milk, fish and cereals are acid. By use of a diet of 70=30 that's is fruits and vegetable=to meat, milk, fish and cereals, you can maintain a balanced pH in your system. On a scale of 0 to 14.7, 0=acid and 14.7=alkaline, Coca Cola is 2.0, coffee is 4.0, beer is 2.5, meat 3.0.

 

[fatcat]

Ergo any BEHAVIOURAL pre-disposition is automatically a philosophy now? What a convenient way of being able to qualify, justify and defend the validity of absolutely any possible thought or deed. What a brilliant way to make any insignificant, inconsidered, outrageous, idiotic, naive guff legitimate. And what a great way to feel as though discussing issues equal in merit to those that have tormented the minds of mankind for untold centuries. There is precious little for mankind, insecure and egocentric as it is, to grasp onto if un-prepared to accept that we are the same as every other grubby inconsequential species on this planet, eat, produce, die, and once we're gone the world carries on, but auto-justification of anything by calling it philosophy does not make it philosophy. Charity, that high and noble human attribute, is in this case nothing more than man having an ability to choose freely due to such a surfeit of comfort, ease and foodstuffs, 'No, I shall not eat you', forgetting that the suffix of this sentence should be 'I shall leave you for whatsoever decides it SHALL eat you'. There are far more species eaten with clean and clear consciences on this planet than we eat, and we didn't eat many of the species we've killed off. As the man says, we prop up the populations we eat - if anything, we are more likely not to give a damn about the ones we don't.
Said rest of the planet carries on its way, eating whatsoever it happens to eat, survival of the fittest et al, chewing down trees, tunneling, climbing, swimming, hunting, and defecating recklessly with little or no regard for either ecology or other species other than any immediately predatory threats, accepting that life is exactly as it sees it and doing as it sees fit in accordance with its requirements. Philosophy? 'Out of my way, there's something over there I want to eat'. As there are creatures out there regarded as intelligent, if one of our four-legged cousins makes a behavioural decision, whatsoever the basis, does this standpoint infer that such decisions are now issues of philosophy? Good god, my dog? Descartes must be ecstatic.

All-embracing simplification, bringing all thought, action, standpoint and decision onto the same nice, flat, level, playing field, all life = philosophy. I am, therefore I am a philosopher? A useful supposition if, perchance, you really want to be 'a philosopher'. If all behaviour or possible action is taken as philosophy, philosophy is no longer. Just as all un-necessary creation is similarly defined by some as art, throwing open the gates to allow the title to be adopted by whatever it is bestowed upon, if all choices and actions are philosophy the nomenclature becomes so worthless that surely a new term needs to be created that replaces the one that once defined the operating field of a philosopher? Art has Art and Fine Art. Is such a delineation now needed in the face of 'I am, ergo I philosophise'? The definition theories of why the world is etc? What is life? Why is life? Etc? 'I choose not to eat the pie, ergo I am a philosopher'? How very simple.
Is life so issueless, have all the questions been asked?

If food is philosophy, who knows - DO Smarties hold the answer...?

Good call on the bloods. There's nothing like fact, is there?

 

[David Mayes]

Originally posted by Rader
It is a scientific confirmed fact that when the blood in the human body has a Ph of 7.4 the blood is in a equilibrium state. Body balance, in terms of acid=alkaline, is pH 7.4 for blood in arteries. Acid=alkaline equivalence is a pH of 7.00. Thus, a healthy body means pH that is slightly alkaline. This means there are more buffering mineral receptors for electons than acid forming electron donors. The human body gets sick when the acid alkaline is out of balance. There is a way to keep it in balance. Your diet.
You are what you eat.
Most fruits and vegetables are alkaline, meats, milk, fish and cereals are acid. By use of a diet of 70=30 that's is fruits and vegetable=to meat, milk, fish and cereals, you can maintain a balanced pH in your system. On a scale of 0 to 14.7, 0=acid and 14.7=alkaline, Coca Cola is 2.0, coffee is 4.0, beer is 2.5, meat 3.0.

Excellent post Sir.
I believe that science supports fruit as the best food group, it best matches our anatomy and physiology.

What I'm curious about is if we accept that fruit is the best{but not exclusive food group}, does the concept of food combining make sense?

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by David Mayes
Excellent post Sir.
I believe that science supports fruit as the best food group, it best matches our anatomy and physiology.

Fruit and vegetables 70 perecent but also cereals, milk, meat and fish 30 perecent

What I'm curious about is if we accept that fruit is the best{but not exclusive food group}, does the concept of food combining make sense?

Experiment, your body will tell you the answer. Nature will automatically give you the answer, to what is best, listen to your body and be aware of it.

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

 

[David Mayes]

Fruit and vegetables 70 perecent but also cereals, milk, meat and fish 30 perecent
Experiment, your body will tell you the answer. Nature will automatically give you the answer, to what is best, listen to your body and be aware of it.

Good point and I agree that experiment will determine the "optimal" dietary needs of each individual.
I don't think we need any milk except our mothers milk, cow milk is for cows, human milk for humans...humans less likley to accept the conditions cows accept as farm animals.

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

I think this is incorrect,...the digestive juices are mainly water, but if you add more later, then you further dilute the acid/alkaline digestive juices, if the stomach contents are alkaline, the the body will secrete acid to help break down the food stuff, but if you add water, then the PH of the acid in the digestive juices will lose potency as basic chemistry confirms.

And by listening to one's body, you'll discover fruit is removed from the stomach inside of 30 mins, so if you eat it afterwards, you'll be dumping it on top of a mix match of food stuffs and digestive juices...inhibiting fruits natural passage to the intesines.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

I'm think that the undisputed{not absolute} dietary laws of humans can be determined by experiment, the goal is maximum metabolic efficiency leading to maximum health.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by David Mayes
Good point and I agree that experiment will determine the "optimal" dietary needs of each individual.
I don't think we need any milk except our mothers milk, cow milk is for cows, human milk for humans...humans less likley to accept the conditions cows accept as farm animals.

We have been talking in generalities about water in take and how much fruits and vegetable to meat milk fish and cereals. Cow milk causes antigens that is flem in most humans when they drink it. Although the major cause is the milk itself, the chemcials and antibiotics are a cause also. Read eat right for your diet by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo.

I think this is incorrect,...the digestive juices are mainly water, but if you add more later, then you further dilute the acid/alkaline digestive juices, if the stomach contents are alkaline, the the body will secrete acid to help break down the food stuff, but if you add water, then the PH of the acid in the digestive juices will lose potency as basic chemistry confirms.

By not having enough water in your system upon during and after digestion the body has to get it from somewhere. It then takes it from the large and small intestine and this water is putrified. The body rots slowly. You do not drink large amounts of water while eating but before and after. Observe yourself when you eat your next main meal.

And by listening to one's body, you'll discover fruit is removed from the stomach inside of 30 mins, so if you eat it afterwards, you'll be dumping it on top of a mix match of food stuffs and digestive juices...inhibiting fruits natural passage to the intesines.

Fruits can be eaten alone and they would have the most benifical value.

I'm think that the undisputed{not absolute} dietary laws of humans can be determined by experiment, the goal is maximum metabolic efficiency leading to maximum health.

This is true, but the same experimental data will not hold for all, as there are many factors what is the right diet. The body is the best tester.
There is the blood type to consider what is best to eat and the combinations of foods also, for the individual.

The Mediterranean diet is renowned as the best in the world and fruit instead of carbohydrate sweets is most often used. I have used it for 25 years.

 

[Galatea]

Meat is, in most cases, unecessary. I voted no.

 

[Monique]

Let's look at that from a different view: would the Earth be able to support our current population all going vegetarian?

I guess it might even be better, since less energy is wasted by skipping the middle man, right?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Esperanto
No one is safe. I turned vegetarian for a few weeks and during that time I was turning purple. look at this from http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydoerge.htm I am outraged and I'm going to take it out on the farm animals. Anyways, I don't know how anyone can possibly know if vegetarians are healthy. I was pretty sick eating those toxic pellet raisins and soy products all those weeks. from http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art14546.asp

If you read the article, it says:
"These findings have led Dr. Doerge to conclude that additional factors appear necessary for soy to cause overt thyroid toxicity. These factors include:

iodine deficiency
consumption of other soy components
other goitrogens in the diet
other physiological problems in synthesizing thyroid hormones. "

Many people have eaten lots of soy for many years without problems. Asians eat it all the time.

Some people do have allergies to soy, but I think that they are in the minority by far, and you do not necessarily need to consume soy to be a vegetarian.

If you want to compare the toxicity of soy to meat, meat is way more toxic, with all the free radicals, and the growth hormones and antibiotics that people feed the animals, and the fact that animal flesh decomposes more quickly than plant food, meaning that it rots in your intestines, which can lead to cancer.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Interesting study showing that eating beef results in less killing of animals than eating vegan.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm

This study uses flawed logic and comes from an non-credible source that loads itself with keywords. It is a web page about getting rid of "pest" animals, so obiviously it is slanted:
"Wildlife Damage Control information on the control of raccoons, squirrels, skunks and other wildlife causing property damage"

Firstly it assumes numbers regarding how many animals per amount of land are killed each year.

Secondly, it assumes that the same amount of food will be produced from land whether used for grazing or growing plant food, which is not at all true. Firstly, as Monique mentioned, there is an efficiency problem (a huge one) with the introduction of the "middle man". By using animals that grow and repair and stop growing and continue to repair, you are wasting food. Secondly, much less food is going to be grown in the form of grass than in wheat, corn, etc.

Thirdly, it assumes that ruminant food actually comes from grazing animals. The fact is that most comes from intensive confinement farms that require grown crops to be fed to the animals. The intensive confinement has its own effects on wildlife, as well.

 

[Dissident Dan]

We should not eat meat. It is not necessary for survival or proper health. Animals raised for food, at least in the USA, live in horrible conditions--crowded, confined, not cared for, abused, made to grow in ways that their bodies can't handle, etc. (check out www.factoryfarming.org).

There are environmental problems: fecal lagoons spills, contamination of water supply, overuse of antibiotics leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

It's really a very simple issue. It's just a matter of overcoming one's prejudices and/or greed.

 

[Kerrie]

i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, people in third world countries are in different conditions than we are in. That has no bearing on us.

"Should we eat meat?" is a perfectly valid extremely important question.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

Not all humans will continue to eat meat. Someone converts to vegetarianism every day, I'm sure (if not more.) In the end, arguing about anything is probably pretty pointless on a discussion board since, very rarely, does it change anyone's mind.

Many vegetarians view meat eating (and animal killing) as entirely unnecessary and, in fact, quite gluttonous. It is inflicting pain for no reason since there are suitable alternatives already out there. At the very least, people who choose to consume meat should get it in the least cruel way possible.

 

[Kerrie]

Gal, I can agree with your point, however, people will stop eating meat more for health reasons (such as the recent mad cow discovery in Washington State) then for the treatment of animals...

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I'm for eating Vegans. There docile and dim-witted, so they'll be easy to capture and butcher. Just think of it, all your vitamins, minerals and proteins in one tasty morsel.

 

[Kerrie]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1073135194312870.xml

face it...in some form or another, we utilize the cow in our daily consumer products...this link will be accessible for just a few weeks...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Are you trying to say that we are stuck on cows and can't do without?


The materials made with cow by-products, except maybe a few, like Jello, can and have been made without them. Sugar can be made without bones. Glue can be made without cows, etc. It's not like we will go without our consumer and industrial products if cows are no longer eaten. They will just get the materials in different ways. The link says that most of these uses weren't around until the latter half of the 20th century. These uses just evolved to do something with all the waste.
--------------------------

Robert, why are you so hostile towards vegans?

 

[Kerrie]

dan, yes, i am trying to say that the average consumer uses products made from cows, thus there will always be a demand for animals (cows in this instance) to be slaughtered...trying to convince a mass of people will take a huge effort in education and knowledge...this newspaper article took a step in that effort, as it was on the front page of The Sunday Oregonian-Oregon's biggest newspaper...because Oregon is affected by the potential threat of mad cow disease, this article is huge in our local news...the point i was trying to drive however is people will not stop eating meat for the animal's well being, but more likely for their own...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The question that I was trying to address was: "Should we eat meat?", not "Will people stop eating meat?".

 

[Kerrie]

the question is unrealistic...the question could be rephrased to say:

should we cut back on how much meat we consume? i think that is much more possible for the masses of people to attain, especially if the health of these people is at stake...through education and awareness of the treatment of animals prior to being slaughtered, this could happen...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The question is perfectly realistic? Its assumptions that there is meat, people eat meat, and there may be a "should" are all perfectly valid. What you consider unrealistic is people following reason if the answer should turn out to be "no".

But that should in no way hinder the discussion. The question is not one of what people will do, but what people should do.
Anyway, trying to end the argument in this way would be a great disservice to knowledge and one's own discussing abilities.
What if, when people asked, "Should people own slaves?", all discussion of the subject was ended by saying that people giving up their slaves is not going to happen?

 

[Kerrie]

i would temporarily stop for health reasons (especially since the mad cow disease in washington was found 3 hours from where i live), but i have low iron in my blood making me at risk for anemia...my doctor recommended me to eat more red meat at one point to improve my iron...no, i don't need red meat on a daily basis, once a week or a couple times a month is adequate...

my answer to this question is, yes, people should eat meat especially if it helps people who are the same condition i am, but in moderation...

as for the conditions that the animals are raised in, yes, i can imagine how horrid it is...perhaps if these farms were to raise them humanely (which would mean grains that are more costly) and incorporate the costs of doing this, meat would be more of a delicay rather then a daily food source...