If you eat meat, would you be willing to kill an animal to continue to be able to?

[Saya]

Ah yes, hunting down the animals that God designed for you with a gun. Not with the sharp claws, fangs, and fast speed you as a natural omnivore has to take your prey down, and consume raw. Its more natural with a gun.

The cat can't live off vegetation, humans can. Also a cat can't think abstractly and come to a moral understanding that the mouse is another living being with self interest, a human can. Evidently not you.

Mr E, why do you value a plants life just as much as a animals? Would you kill your dog because he sometimes eats grass?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Saya

Ah yes, hunting down the animals that God designed for you with a gun. Not with the sharp claws, fangs, and fast speed you as a natural omnivore has to take your prey down, and consume raw. Its more natural with a gun.

Not to start any form of debate here, I'm far too tired for that, but hunting with tools, including guns (at a stretch. Blargh, I hate guns), isn't necessarily 'unnatural' for us. From very early on in our evolutionary history our survival was based upon our abilities to imagine and create, and weapons were a huge part of that. We don't have claws, fangs or fast running speeds because we don't need them - we have our brains and hands instead.

Not to say I won't happily live off plant life, and I do believe it's best that we all try to as much as possible. I uh... really can't bring myself to feel much empathy for vegetables. Perhaps its the lack of faces. Or brains.

[Seidre]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Not to start any form of debate here, I'm far too tired for that, but hunting with tools, including guns (at a stretch. Blargh, I hate guns), isn't necessarily 'unnatural' for us. From very early on in our evolutionary history our survival was based upon our abilities to imagine and create, and weapons were a huge part of that. We don't have claws, fangs or fast running speeds because we don't need them - we have our brains and hands instead.

Exactly. As I said, I would never lay my hands on a gun because I do not like them. However, intelligence is an advantage we developed for the purpose of survival. Of course, going with that kind of logic one could also argue that taming animals and keeping them bred for food is also a part of our natural adaptation in order to ensure our survival as a species. That may be true, but I still don't like the idea. >_>

Yes, humans CAN live off of vegetation. But we aren't designed to. I won't begrudge anyone who chooses to live that way. More power to them. All I'm saying is that I have no qualms following the diet my body was designed for. Death is as much a part of this world as life. The predator-prey relationship is an important balance and humans are a part of it, even though we have taken control of that balance in a very big way.

My friend has a pet chicken, and I love it do death. I like cows and ducks and other prey animals. But I was taught to honor the earth that I live on, and part of that includes being a part of it (yeah, I'm Native American). We can debate morality for ages. Who defines it? Is it the innocence of nature or the teachings of a higher power? And that's what this debate is ultimately coming down to, it seems.

I can kill for food without being sadistic about it. It isn't as though I share no compassion for the flora and fauna. As I mentioned before, I love them. I enjoy taking care of things, whether it's people, plants, or animals. But I won't shy away from my nature, either. I am what I am and I feel no desire to change my place. It's part of the circle.

But I already warned everyone that my mindset can be rather animalistic.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Our intelligence which lead to the use of tools simply means that we are some tough motherfuckers that can survive in most circumstances. This should almost directly lead you to understand that our consumption of meat is simply one of our traits to survive if vegetation were scarce, not that we actually need it.

[KuroOokami]

I agree with Jillian. I mean, we don't need meat to survive, we can do just fine without it. If, however, vegetation is scarce then our biological whatsits allows us to also consume meat to survive. As for the topic of this thread, I don't know if I could kill an animal to continue eating meat. I suppose I would, if I were starving, but I think I would much sooner become a vegetarian. Or I'd eat fish....

[Seidre]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Our intelligence which lead to the use of tools simply means that we are some tough motherfuckers that can survive in most circumstances. This should almost directly lead you to understand that our consumption of meat is simply one of our traits to survive if vegetation were scarce, not that we actually need it.

Perhaps...
I will say that I agree with your first sentence, and the second sentence seems plausible enough. However, I do not understand the connection between "we can survive in most circumstances" and therefore "consumption of meat is simply one of our traits to survive if vegetation were scarce, not that we actually need it."
I mean, I understand how that CAN make sense as it is not an illogical thought, but at the same time I don't see how that is an absolute conclusion. The opinion is perfectly valid, though.

However, I stand by the fact that being an omnivore is natural. Let's say all humans survived off of plant life...because we CAN. We consume plants, plants that nurture the earth and clean our air. And animals like cows grow in population, consuming even more plants and polluting the air. We would use up our resources. As the most dominant living force on the planet, I think it is good that we consume both plants and animals. And that is taking my animalistic approach out of the picture and looking at it without moralistic bias.

Also, to get back to the actual question of this thread, I think it would be a bit on the hypocritical side to eat meat without being willing to kill the animal yourself.

[honeythorn]

Originally Posted by Seidre

Exactly. As I said, I would never lay my hands on a gun because I do not like them. However, intelligence is an advantage we developed for the purpose of survival. Of course, going with that kind of logic one could also argue that taming animals and keeping them bred for food is also a part of our natural adaptation in order to ensure our survival as a species. That may be true, but I still don't like the idea. >_>

Yes, humans CAN live off of vegetation. But we aren't designed to. I won't begrudge anyone who chooses to live that way. More power to them. All I'm saying is that I have no qualms following the diet my body was designed for. Death is as much a part of this world as life. The predator-prey relationship is an important balance and humans are a part of it, even though we have taken control of that balance in a very big way.

My friend has a pet chicken, and I love it do death. I like cows and ducks and other prey animals. But I was taught to honor the earth that I live on, and part of that includes being a part of it (yeah, I'm Native American). We can debate morality for ages. Who defines it? Is it the innocence of nature or the teachings of a higher power? And that's what this debate is ultimately coming down to, it seems.

I can kill for food without being sadistic about it. It isn't as though I share no compassion for the flora and fauna. As I mentioned before, I love them. I enjoy taking care of things, whether it's people, plants, or animals. But I won't shy away from my nature, either. I am what I am and I feel no desire to change my place. It's part of the circle.

But I already warned everyone that my mindset can be rather animalistic.

I fully agree with this.

I mean, at some point in evolution human beings developed the requirement for meat based protien. Yes our bodies and dentition have developed to consume a LOT of plant and fruit matter, but clearly something occurred in the evolutionary process that lead humans to hunt for meat. If we didn't need it in some way, I doubt it would have happened.

We certainly shouldn't consume as MUCH meat as we do ( well many people anyway ) Those who say our bodies cannot digest meat aren't quite correct. We can, just not loads of it all the time ( as in every day or more than about 2-3 times a week ) If we were completely unable to digest it we wouldn't be able to eat it full stop.

And also, for those who may argue that close relatives such as apes do not eat meat, Wrong. Chimps definitely hunt and eat meat. I'm sure many of us have seen the footage of wild chimps hunting down and killing a colobus monkey. Literally ripped it limb from limb whilst it was still alive and screaming. Then they ate it. Much like us, most of their diet is/should be plant based, but they do eat meat when they can get it. It wasn't simply killing for the enjoyment of violence,they ate what they killed.


I for one have absolutely no problem with killing an animal for food. I have always been of the opinion that farming of cattle and other livestock should be scaled right down to local or domestic levels , as opposed to massive farming corporations that use up a lot of land or else bring up their stock on feed containing all sorts of hideous chemicals and additives.

There are places where deer for example, are a problem/pest . They are literally destroying the habitat around them and due to the eradication of their original predators such as the Wolf, their numbers are out of control . I do not live in such an area but if I did, I wouldn't think twice about taking a deer for the meat. It keeps the numbers down, and if older/weaker animals are taken then that gives the fresh blood a chance to thrive. Venison is one of the healthiest meats you can get too. Much better for you than beef or pork.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Seidre

I do not understand the connection between "we can survive in most circumstances" and therefore "consumption of meat is simply one of our traits to survive if vegetation were scarce, not that we actually need it."

Your argument does not prove that we need meat, but rather that we merely can eat meat if we really have to. That's as far as you can actually assume, and that's what I'm arguing. You can't say that eating meat is necessary because 1) it isn't, and 2)such conclusion doesn't follow from 'eating meat is natural'

However, I stand by the fact that being an omnivore is natural.

Which, again, does not equate with necessary, and not even desirable.

And animals like cows grow in population, consuming even more plants and polluting the air. We would use up our resources.

That's just plain bullshit. Do you really think farm animals would by themselves breed to a population of over eight billion by themselves? I dare you to find a large mammal that exists in such obscene quantities. It's all human intervention.
I hate this argument because it's not based on anything. It in fact points out to precisely the environmental hazard that is our current diet, but yet they attribute it to veganism because of pure ignorance.

As the most dominant living force on the planet, I think it is good that we consume both plants and animals.

Why? So that animals know who's boss?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Seidre

Perhaps...
I will say that I agree with your first sentence, and the second sentence seems plausible enough. However, I do not understand the connection between "we can survive in most circumstances" and therefore "consumption of meat is simply one of our traits to survive if vegetation were scarce, not that we actually need it."
I mean, I understand how that CAN make sense as it is not an illogical thought, but at the same time I don't see how that is an absolute conclusion. The opinion is perfectly valid, though.

However, I stand by the fact that being an omnivore is natural. Let's say all humans survived off of plant life...because we CAN. We consume plants, plants that nurture the earth and clean our air. And animals like cows grow in population, consuming even more plants and polluting the air. We would use up our resources. As the most dominant living force on the planet, I think it is good that we consume both plants and animals. And that is taking my animalistic approach out of the picture and looking at it without moralistic bias.

Also, to get back to the actual question of this thread, I think it would be a bit on the hypocritical side to eat meat without being willing to kill the animal yourself.

Not "perhaps."
Yes.

[Desdemona]

I could easily kill an animal for it's meat.
I just couldn't think about it when I was eating it...

[Seidre]

Your argument does not prove that we need meat, but rather that we merely can eat meat if we really have to. That's as far as you can actually assume, and that's what I'm arguing. You can't say that eating meat is necessary because 1) it isn't, and 2)such conclusion doesn't follow from 'eating meat is natural'

I never once said that we need meat, nor did I say that your statement was wrong. All I said was that that particular statement was not an absolute conclusion.

Which, again, does not equate with necessary, and not even desirable.

True. It is not necessary, which is why I also mentioned that I have nothing against being vegetarian. Whether or not it is desirable is a matter of opinion. I see nothing wrong with acting within my nature.

That's just plain bullshit. Do you really think farm animals would by themselves breed to a population of over eight billion by themselves? I dare you to find a large mammal that exists in such obscene quantities. It's all human intervention.
I hate this argument because it's not based on anything. It in fact points out to precisely the environmental hazard that is our current diet, but yet they attribute it to veganism because of pure ignorance.

As you said, I highly doubt they would exist in such high numbers unless humanity suddenly went vegetarian right now. In that case, they would have very few natural predators to curb their population, as Honeythorn pointed out with her deer example (only moreso because human intervention has already gotten these mammals to such a high population). With that being said, my major is in theatre. I know very little about such things and am therefore willing to concede defeat on this matter if the facts are against me.

Why? So that animals know who's boss?

I believe I explained my reasoning in the post...In case I didn't, it's because I feel that such a diet helps keep the world more balanced. I would personally rather be a part of nature than a dominator over it. However, that is not the case. And if humankind is going to take control of the world as it has done, then they need to be consious of the balance.

I agree with Honeythorn's post.

[Godslayer Jillian]

But honeythorn's and your arguments are rendered useless because you believe that we are somehow balancers in nature, which, again, is plain bullshit.

We kill all the wolves in a region, therefore it's moral that we also kill the deer?
I assume you can see how stupid that is. Human intervention supervenes on human intervention, and you believe that we're doing something good because of how much we're ****** the world.

[Seidre]

Nah, I believe we've fucked the world over and intervened way too much. There SHOULD be balance within nature. And to a certain extent, I believe there still is. Especially in places with smaller human populations.
Which is why I also mentioned that I'd rather be a part of nature than hovering above it, and I'd rather hunt for my food than have animals bred specifically for that reason. But that's not the world I live in. I'm saying that if humans are going to play God, then they better not pick sides.

But my main point is the fact that I find nothing morally wrong with eating meat. It IS natural for us to do so. Necessary? No. And therein lies the freedom of choice. Desirable? That's opinion. I personally like meat. Now if someone can convince me why eating meat is wrong, I'll go vegetarian or vegan tomorrow.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

But honeythorn's and your arguments are rendered useless because you believe that we are somehow balancers in nature, which, again, is plain bullshit.

We kill all the wolves in a region, therefore it's moral that we also kill the deer?
I assume you can see how stupid that is. Human intervention supervenes on human intervention, and you believe that we're doing something good because of how much we're ****** the world.

Kill the deer, and then burn the grass.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Seidre

Nah, I believe we've fucked the world over and intervened way too much. There SHOULD be balance within nature. And to a certain extent, I believe there still is. Especially in places with smaller human populations.
Which is why I also mentioned that I'd rather be a part of nature than hovering above it, and I'd rather hunt for my food than have animals bred specifically for that reason. But that's not the world I live in. I'm saying that if humans are going to play God, then they better not pick sides.

But my main point is the fact that I find nothing morally wrong with eating meat. It IS natural for us to do so. Necessary? No. And therein lies the freedom of choice. Desirable? That's opinion. I personally like meat. Now if someone can convince me why eating meat is wrong, I'll go vegetarian or vegan tomorrow.

You need to come to the understanding that being natural doesn't make a thing ok or excusable.

[Seidre]

Okay. Then please enlighten me. Why is it wrong?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Seidre

Okay. Then please enlighten me. Why is it wrong?

You'd better shut that sarcastic mouth before you're humiliated in front of a few hundred people.

[Seidre]

I'm sorry, I meant no disrespect. I did not mean that to come off as sarcasm...I honestly want to understand your viewpoint.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Seidre

I'm sorry, I meant no disrespect. I did not mean that to come off as sarcasm...I honestly want to understand your viewpoint.

I'm not the one saying eating meat is wrong.

I just pointed out that your argument of it being ok because it's natural is bullshit.

[Seidre]

I understand that. But why is it wrong to base morality off of nature?

[Madarame]

Originally Posted by Seidre

I understand that. But why is it wrong to base morality off of nature?

Because it removes all thought from your decisions.

[Godslayer Jillian]

It's natural to kill other people. It's in our nature to be violent towards each other. It's also within us to discriminate against that which is different than us, i.e. racism, sexism, and ethnocentrism
What would you say to that?

[honeythorn]

We kill all the wolves in a region, therefore it's moral that we also kill the deer?

Moral? No. But if the population is excessive to the point where the environment is being severely damaged, and the natural predation of the wolf is no longer there, I see nothing wrong with choosing your meat from this source over buying it from a shop. It removes the old and weaker animals ( like the wolf would do ) allows the healthier stronger animals to survive, and you as the consumer of the meat would get a healthier type of meat than if you bought some Big corporation-barn raised ( chemically enhanced feed laced ) beef from a supermarket.

It's not a case of " oh I am a human being, I am superior and can weild a gun hahaha take that deer! I am god! " It's a case of ( where such situations exist of course ) here is an overpopulation. There are few to no natural predators, the deer are damaging the environment to the point where eventually it may not recover, and I want some meat. These animals have led free lives and were their natural predators still around, they would be "controlled" by such predation. Since this cannot be, why not take an older weaker animal?

There's no reason to support huge factory farms ( which damage the environment even more ) when such a natural (healthier )source is available. The animals are wild, they've lived their lives as nature intended, and if you are skilled with your choice of weapon ( which you should be ) then the animal's death should be quick.


The point of this thread isn't about racism or ethnocentrism being natural, it's about wether you could kill an animal for your food if you wanted to continue to eat meat. I could. As human beings we have evolved to hunt and kill as part of nature. That doesn't make us superior. All predators do that. Our choice or manner of killing has changed yes, It's had to as we have no teeth or claws designed for killing with our bare hands .

For myself I like meat, and I would rather kill and eat something that has lived wild and free as it's supposed to if I were in the position to do so. Since I am not, I choose to source my meat from smaller local farms, whose animals are not kept in tiny cages and pens, and live better free-er lives than the animals whose meat ends up on many supermarket shelves.

There is a balance. at some point it has to right itself. Be it by disease, natural disater, or by choices.

[Godslayer Jillian]

In your scenario, will you also take steps into restoring the normal number of predators in such an ecosystem until it resembles its functioning before our intervention?
If yes, then you will eventually have no excuse to eat meat there or anywhere else.
If not, then you're in fact justifying fucking the world so that we can 'balance' it by deciding how to fuck it further.

[honeythorn]

I would have no problem going without meat if that came to pass. It obviously wouldn't kill me to go without it. Deer aren't the only source of meat or indeed protien in the wild. But since I do like meat, if I were put into a position as the OP originally suggested - would I kill an animal to continue eating meat - My answer would be yes. If I wanted or needed the meat badly enough I would.


I would like to see predators returned to where they should be. I doubt it will happen though. And I stll stand by my comment that farming should be scaled right down. At the end of the day, farming or raising animals for meat will most likely never be stopped. It's just too ingrained in humanity now It seems to me. But I don't think scaling down farming, with better animal welfare is too far fetched for the future.