By the same token, should we keep other humans for meat so long as they are treated well and killed humanely?
[quote=“Exquire”]
Every time people tell me they tried a plain hunk of tofu and didn’t like it I can’t help but laugh (sorry). You don’t eat it like that!! Yuk! No wonder people don’t relate to vegetarians![/quote]
I have tried it cooked and raw and it was Yuck in both forms, sorry but it is probably a texture thing, it just felt wrong in my mouth, and i will eat raw oysters.
Pleasure is simple, do what you like, you like Tofu, I dont, Do you have to eat Tofu to be a vegetarian?
Besides Simple is good, i believe that half of the problem with our society is that we have to complicate things too much. You need a shirt to be warm, but a tie and cufflinks to be well dressed 
WOW! How about this for a hot topic! Maybe we could do a meat eaters vs. vegetarian larp about it 
Hehe
Jared
Ah i read this and instantly think of a “land before time” larp with SharpTooths Vs FlatTooths 
I’ve imagined futuristic games where everyone is vegetarian ;D
But if we were doing meaters vs. veg, what special advantages would the meat eaters get? Unless you don’t care about culture balance and just let the vego’s win… 
Spurious Logic.
Spurious Logic.[/quote]
+1 to steak knives
Actually, one of the worst things about being a meat eater is when these debates happen and you find out how bad many meat eaters are at debating.
Albert Einstein ate meat for most of his life, but at one point he stated:
It takes a lot of food to farm animals. If you grow grain and veggies instead of grass fed sheep and cows, you get more meals for the same effort.
[Edit] This was actually Andrew posting logged in under a different user name.
Original is reposted below.
(previously posted as Majandra)
Just thought id interject with my 10c.
In reference to the ‘cows vs extinction’ idea that has been brought up in this conversation, it should be remembered that modern cows are quite different from their prehistoric ancestors. When Humans domesticate animals and plants, they actually genetically alter them as they selectively breed specific traits. With animals, one of the first things that is “bred out” is what we might refer to as ‘intelligence’, while docility is bred in. Docility of course is a desirable characteristic when domesticating, as it means the animals in question are easier to handle. Other results of domestication are increased meat/wool/milk yield and in some cases larger animal size. IN some animals natural defenses like horns also gradually decrease in size. Getting back to the point, many modern farm animals have evolved to the point where without humans, they would find it difficult to survive without humans, one example of this are cows bred for dairy farming, they produce milk year round as opposed to just when they are calving, as such they have to be milked everyday… by humans. The dependancy on humans is also true of many other animals, particularly the small dogs that certain celebrities use as fashion accessories.
As for the eating meat vs vegetarianism debate, I am an omnivore through and through, I enjoy vegetables but I enjoy meat as well for many and varied reasons. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with eating meat, the way I see it, a person eating meat is no different to any other animal eating another. Is it ‘wrong’ when a lion eats a gazelle? or for an example closer to home, when a chimpanzee catches and eats a monkey (they have been observed to hunt in the wild). Now I realise that the strength of this argument will of course depend on your beliefs about humanity and it’s ‘place’ in nature. I myself am a firm believer in the theory of evoloution and humans as a type of animal, but thats a topic for another discussion.
In the end humans are omnivorous, our bodies are designed to proccess meat as well as plant matter. I’ve known people to argue that this fact is conclusive proof that we should eat nothing but vegetables, I’ve also heard people argue that it means we should eat nothing but meat. Really though, all it proves is that we have the choice and can eat one, the other, or both. really it just comes down to personal preference and ideological stance. That said, I don’t think there is any excuse for creulty to the animals involved in the process and the tuth is that there simply isn’t need for any, especially as we now have more humane killing methods.
As far as Vegetarianism being more or less healthy, I leave you with this gem of wisdom…
[i]1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than
the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.
3. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks
than the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.
4. The Italians drink large amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart
attacks than the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and
suffer fewer heart attacks than the Americans,Australians, British, or Canadians.
6. Ukrainians drink a lot of vodka, eat a lot of perogies, cabbage rolls and
suffer fewer heart attacks than the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.[/i]
[/i]
Are you seriously arguing that anything animals do is okay for humans to do too? Don’t make me start with the examples.
This whole “we’re evolved to do this so it’s right” argument is a load of crap. Evolution is a practical process with practical outcomes, it’s not some sort of ethical guiding light. Practically, as a result of evolution, humans don’t need meat. If we did, this would be a very different discussion.
Lions need to eat meat to survive. And they don’t know any better. We do.
On efficiency, there’s little doubt that re-allocating resources into non-meat foods and distribution would solve the world’s hunger problems.
Numbers, for one thing. Guns, as all the hunters are on our side. Bloodlust. The ability to watch seemingly endless amounts of footage of chicken batteries (I think that’s what you call them.) whilst eating KFC. Corporate support from most of the food industry. Cheap source of practical supplies like glue, soap and explosives. Better cold weather clothing. Trade resources such as horn, ivory, fur and leather. And some other stuff but I’m going to stop now.
This is just curiosity here, but if a vegetarian had to survive for an extended period of time on non-perishable food, how would they go about that?
By the same token, should we keep other humans for meat so long as they are treated well and killed humanely?[/quote]
My ancestors have already tried this. Turns out that killing slaves is counter-productive, ergo food=enemies. Not much motivation for humane killing in this paradigm is there ?
BUT, if humans (of sound mind) want to put themselves forward for consumption of their own volition, then perhaps your proposition might have some legs.
[quote=“exquire”]1. It’s not the same because they’re not humans.
In the progressive movements I listed, those things weren’t really considered human at the time either - and a lot of the time they couldn’t stick up for themselves (which is what might be at the heart of this). But the people in power still had to stop and take notice, and I think that can take place without the victims speaking out for themselves (this is, not to dis-credit them of course!) And in this case that would start with human representation (eg. vego’s etc). I hope my other case is better than this.[/quote]
I hope your other case is better than that too
Basically, humans are social creatures and it is possible for humans of different classes (in the capitalist sense) to gain insight to each other’s position via communication. So, I suspect that the human victims of injustice are able to communicate their predicament (and suffering) to others via human communication systems (verbal language, body language etc). With animals, it takes time and understanding to learn the basics of reading an animal’s feelings. This is a friction in terms of animal rights justice movements.
[quote=“Exquire”]2. People like the taste of meat
I think this one is stuck in the present.[/quote]
If “the present” means the last 50,000 years, you are correct.
[quote=“Exquire”]What if, in the future, meat is simply not available? I think this is the main reason, and for a bunch of reasons:
- People, governments etc. will cotton on to the fact that meat production is a Bad Thing. There’ll be legislation, popular social movements, etc. that will curb production big time.[/quote]
I think they will cotton on to the fact that current practices need reform (this is already happening), and rather than seek removal, a social sanction will be placed on unsustainable and undesirable practices, resulting in a humane meat production system.
It’s about as easy to practice now as it has ever been, and if the multinationals such as Mosanto get their way (with terminator genes and the like), it will become much harder to be vegetable farmer. Terminator genes are a long way off for meat farmers.
Unless we convert to organic farming (something the Green movement is working towards).
OK, um, sure. You’re welcome to eat that stuff, but the carnally-oriented may take some convincing…
Hasn’t happened yet. I suspect that unsustainable methods will result in economic failure (as soon as the capitalist approach of cost externalisation is addressed), so my prediction pre-empts yours.
I can’t argue with that.
Which will duly end up in the slops bucket…
… to be sent to the pigsty in due course…
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”] Evolution is a practical process with practical outcomes, it’s not some sort of ethical guiding light. Practically, as a result of evolution, humans don’t need meat. If we did, this would be a very different discussion.
[/quote]
Sorry, my previous post got a little jumbled (I started writing it when I got home from work and got interrupted half way through and didn’t finish it till I came back an hour or so later) and consequentially I forgot to add a couple of points.
Agreed, evoloution should hardly be treated as some sort of moral code and my apologies if I seemed to suggest so. Ryan, your reply raises an interesting point which was among those I intended to add. There is a tendancy in discussions such as these to seperate humans from the rest of the natural world. We have a tendancy to consider humanity and nature distinct from one another, but in doing so we tend to forget that we are a part of nature. As I stated previously, how valid this argument is will of course depend on your ideological position. To a creationist this distinction would be valid as humans and the rest of the world were created as two seperate entities. I however don’t think this is valid, as I regard humans as a natural part of the world, in the same way as any other animal (or plant for that matter). Perhaps a better term to use in explanation of the lion example would be ‘unnatural’. As in I don’t think a human eating meat is anymore unnatural then another animal eating meat.
Any argument as to the validity of eating or not eating meat based on evolution doesn’t prove much, as the fact remains that our bodies are designed to eat both(i do of course use the term designed in loosest sense of the word). I wasn’t trying to validate one opinion over the other, rather I was trying to show that both are equally valid from a scientific perspective.
Any argument for or against will therefore be based on personal and cultural perspective a good example of this is the practice of cannabalism. In many cultures it is considered abhorrent and unnatural, while in others it is/was considered a sacred rite often with many symbolic associations. Thus whether you do or do not eat meat will in almost every case come down to your own particular views
Humanity has no place in nature. Humanity is a mistake of evolution.
Let us go explode a nuclear device! 
About our vegetarian future: anybody remember that old movie with Stallone and Wesley Snipe, I think it was called “Demolishion Man”?
They had a very happy and vegetarian future. Yup.
And those who were not happy with vegetarian future were living underground and eating rats. Rats are meat too.
What is really good right now is that you have a choice. You can eat meat if you like it, you can eat only veges if you feel sick of thinking about killibg the cow - but you have CHOICE.
The moment when being vegetarian starts being compulsive will become the beginning of new witch hunt, or war, or whatever like this. Unless everybody on Earth would think by that time that meat eating is bad - but people will NEVER have one opinion, otherwise we would have extincted long ago.
By the way, I wouldn’t want to destroy the nice worldview of upcoming “we will all be nice to each other and to animals”, but you know, there are way too many countries in this world where lots of people are too much concerned about how to survive, and they would find it not interesting and not practical to think of saving animals when they hardly can save their own children. Of course, there are always those who hold on to the nice ideas no matter how hard their lives are, and those people really deserve a lot of respect, but they are no doubt a minority.
Ah, and if it comes to war - those guys struggling for surviving are usually the ones who are more skilled with fighting and killing others .
So let us have no compulsion. Let people eat what they like. If they like carrot - let them eat carrot, if they like meat - let them eat meat, if the like cake - let them eat cake.
By the way, about plants not being the beings with feelings - it’s a matter of religious beliefs. But we will not turn to that topic here.
Now the real arguments (everything above is an evil sarcastic blah-blah, so don’t even try to take it too seriously ). I’ve heard that you actually need meat at least sometimes to get all the elements your body require. Not sure how much it’s true in general, but people are all different.
I know some people just can’t live without milk and drink it all the time, while I can hardly make myself drink a bit, so I don’t make , and I can’t say that not drinking milk makes me feel bad.
I know some people like fish very much and eat it often, I almost never eat fish, and again - don’t suffer from it.
At the same time not eating meat for couple of days makes me feel very bad. And looking at my workmate who is vegetarian his whole life, I think - how he lives like that.
Maybe it’s just that different people need different food? How does that sound?
Plus what was there about energy? I always used to think that meat gives a lot, and plants not much, but does anybody have some scientific info on it? (though even science is not an omnipotent proof…)[/quote]
My ancestors have already tried this. Turns out that killing slaves is counter-productive, ergo food=enemies. Not much motivation for humane killing in this paradigm is there ?
BUT, if humans (of sound mind) want to put themselves forward for consumption of their own volition, then perhaps your proposition might have some legs.[/quote]
You’re avoiding the question. If you could keep humans as livestock humanely using modern technology, leaving aside the practicalities of how or why, would it be ethical? If not, why not? What is the difference between animals and humans that makes it okay ethically to eat one and not the other so long as you do it humanely, if there is any?
The parallel with slavery is useful again here. When people tried to abolish slavery, there was a lot fo conflict as a result. Should we have not abolished it to avoid the conflict? It’s only in the last few hundred years that the world’s dominent cultures have abhorred slavery. For the rest of human existence it’s been the norm, and it was commonly argued that economies couldn’t carry on without it. Some modern economists still believe this, and think that we only got out of slavery as part of our economies by advancing our technology.
Likewise, our technology for creating protein-rich food from plant matter has now advanced to the point that we no longer need to eat animals. The only remaining argument for eating meat is that you enjoy it. Much like the only remaining argument for slavery when it was abolished was that people liked having slaves. They didn’t need them - they just preferred not to be without them.
Your experience of going without meat and failing would be more convincing if you sounded more like you knew what else to eat to keep your energy up. Obviously just taking out the meat out of your diet and otherwise eating the same stuff is not going to agree with everyone.
Okay.
One of my reasons for eating red meat is health - I’ve skirted anaemia for most of my adult life and even so I periodically choke down offal (liver and bacon, not too bad if I don’t think about it) to kick things up a notch.
As a practicing vegetarian, Ryan, do you have an suggestions for keeping up one’s iron count that don’t involve meat or tablets and pills every morning?
Ryan, the part you quoted there was from the zone of “evil sarcastic blah-blah”, and the warning to not take too seriously was not there just for fun 
About slaves:
- Slavery still legally exist in some places.
- Slavery illegally exist in many places, and we can’t pretend it’s not there is we don’t see it clearly.
- History example: in 1861 Russian slaves became all free by the Tzar’s will. Most of them had no idea what to do with that freedom - their whole lives were ruined in one moment. The adjustment was difficult.
- I’ve heard some people play the BDSM games when they are being slaves practically all the time, so they are doing all the housework for their masters, and other things… I don’t think they would be doing it if they don’t enjoy.
Those four points are not about slavery, they are about people being different. And that’s how it will always be.
Amen.
Edit: just a bit more about health and pleasure:
Sweets are bad for you, they ruin your teeth, they make you fat, etc., etc., etc
But you eat them because they are tasty.
Ever tried live with no sweets? I did.
When in childhood my sugar level was found to be too high the doctor said to limit sweets, but my grandmother decided it would be better to give me no sweets at all.
6 months with nothing sweet - how do you like it? Poor little child me was 
And then we came to same doctor again.
The sugar level changed from critically high to critically low in just 6 months. Doctor was furious and ordered to give the child more sweets. The child was happy 
So you need to eat sweets to be healthy
Changes like this don’t come in overnight. Look at smoking tobacco as an example.
Smoking is introduced to Europeans in about the 15th century, they get hooked.
Hundreds of years pass, doctors come to the conclusion that it is bad for you so society slowly begins the big tobacco lock down:
- an age limit is placed on it
- advertising is restricted
- where you can smoke is restricted
Eventually, smoking tobacco will be illegal in most of the wealthy countries. This could as easily happen with meat consumption.