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

[Delkaetre]

Actually, we *are* attempting to reintroduce some predatory species that used to be native to the isles. It's taking a while, farmers aren't impressed, but it's slowly going on. Starting smaller with things like birds of prey that we managed to wipe out, but it's something.
I am omnivorous, and if I don't get a meal with proper meat in it at least once I week I find that I am... uncomfortable. Vegetables don't have the same texture, and an entirely veg diet just feels wrong to me. I end up more lethargic.
I can fish, and if taught I would hunt as well.
A moderate diet with one meat-based meal a week will not fuck the world if we had a sustainable population (lower than the current six and a half billion) and sensible environmental policies regarding habitat and wild species. One deer in the freezer will feed a family for a while, and the skin, bones and organs are all useful as well. We don't need the sheer level of waste or industrial farming we have now.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by honeythorn

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.

Not to pick on you but it does urk me that people think that meat has "better" protein. IT doesn't. Its protein rich, but so is tofu and beans and such. We don't need animals for their protein at all. The ONLY thing animals have that we can't get is B12, which we CAN synthetically produce from the bacteria. See, B12 is created by a bacteria in the dirt, it is a theory that in older times vegetarians would get their B12 by not washing their plants thoroughly.

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.

Chimps are savages, they will murder each other for fun and cannibalize their own babies, not something you want to compare our behavior to. May I suggest the peaceful gorilla, who at the most might eat bugs if he's hungry enough? Otherwise he flicks them off his fruit.

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.

Factory farms cram all their animals in a lot less space, if factory farming was outlawed and we went with "humane" free range large farms, it would take more space. As we have bred these animals to grow so large and are so inbred now, like "purebred" pets they develop a lot of health problems. For example, a egg laying hen has been bred to lay a lot more eggs than natural, so she suffers from calcium depletion. A lot of people who own pet chickens will let the chickens eat their own eggs so they can reclaim the calcium and other nutrients they lose, but since we're taking their eggs, this is chronic. If you want your egg and eat it at the same time, those additives are necessary now.

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.

Sterilization has always been far more effective than hunting, you kill only so many and they just fuck and replace those numbers next year. That is if you really like to play god with ecosystems.

Originally Posted by Seidre

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.

Most of these animals won't survive out in the wild. For one, a lot of the males are castrated. Farms don't want "unauthorized" breeding so if beef cows are in a feed lot together, for example, they rip the nuts off the males. Second, like I mentioned before, a lot of them have a plethora of health problems, they wouldn't last long without human care. If some were to go feral they wouldn't have a long lifespan at all. A turkey, for example, only lives a fraction of the lifespan of a wild turkey, one or two years. And lastly, I think if all the world would go vegan, and had that much compassion and mercy to suddenly spare their lives, there would be those who would take them in.

[Slap Your Love]

I'd kill the fuck out of them.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Saya

Chimps are savages, they will murder each other for fun and cannibalize their own babies, not something you want to compare our behavior to. May I suggest the peaceful gorilla, who at the most might eat bugs if he's hungry enough? Otherwise he flicks them off his fruit.

THIS. Insects would make a great source of animal protein if people were willing to give them a chance. Plenty of Asian, African and South American cultures do. They're low in fat, naturally in massive supply, and I've heard they don't taste half bad.

On the subject of eating the usual animals, it's not sustainable with our current population. Perhaps a solution to that lies in emulating the inhabitants of New Guinea - a good bit of revenge cannibalism might do this planet some good.

Really though I'm all for dropping meat from our diets, but it's unrealistic to assume everyone will. I'm a believer in a massive reform in how people view meat - it should no longer be considered a staple but a luxury. That's how it is amongst most remaining hunter gatherer societies, and they have some of the healthiest diets on the planet.

[Seidre]

Because it removes all thought from your decisions.

I beg to differ. Justice and morality are not one dimensional things. They require thought in order to exist. Just because I base my morality off of nature does not mean it is the only influence I draw from, only that it is the most potent.

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?

In nature, animals kill each other primarily for survival. I will kill in self defense, in order to survive. I would ONLY fight if my life depended on it, but I wouldn’t feel bad about it if I had to. Some animals kill in order to compete, find a place to live, or some other reason necessary for survival. As humans, we have adapted other ways of competing and living. As for discrimination, that is not a biological factor. It is something we have to be taught. When I reference nature, I do not mean the philosophical idea of human nature but the pure biological forces and adaptations.

Chimps are savages, they will murder each other for fun and cannibalize their own babies, not something you want to compare our behavior to. May I suggest the peaceful gorilla, who at the most might eat bugs if he's hungry enough? Otherwise he flicks them off his fruit.

Gorillas eat meat too, actually. And they’ve also been known to engage in cannibalism. Both species have been known to murder, though it is true that chimps are the more savage of the two. As of right now, I believe it is unknown why they do such things. But anyway, I think the main point there was that apes are omnivores.

Most of these animals won't survive out in the wild. For one, a lot of the males are castrated. Farms don't want "unauthorized" breeding so if beef cows are in a feed lot together, for example, they rip the nuts off the males. Second, like I mentioned before, a lot of them have a plethora of health problems, they wouldn't last long without human care. If some were to go feral they wouldn't have a long lifespan at all. A turkey, for example, only lives a fraction of the lifespan of a wild turkey, one or two years. And lastly, I think if all the world would go vegan, and had that much compassion and mercy to suddenly spare their lives, there would be those who would take them in.

That makes sense. =)

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Seidre

As for discrimination, that is not a biological factor. It is something we have to be taught.

Not true. Discrimination was an evolved defense mechanism that protects us from what we do not know.
Feeling that women and men are different enough to have different attitudes towards each is socially indoctrinated. Discriminating against the one which is more different than you is perfectly natural, and only after we understand better do we treat each equally.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Seidre

I beg to differ. Justice and morality are not one dimensional things. They require thought in order to exist. Just because I base my morality off of nature does not mean it is the only influence I draw from, only that it is the most potent.

Nature is a cruel mistress and has no mind for justice. All sorts of diseases, all sorts of animals who kill and **** each other and commit crimes, and us humans, the only one who seems capable of abstract thought and being conscious of "morality", do not want to utilize this gift, but wants to be like the animals.

In nature, animals kill each other primarily for survival. I will kill in self defense, in order to survive. I would ONLY fight if my life depended on it, but I wouldn’t feel bad about it if I had to. Some animals kill in order to compete, find a place to live, or some other reason necessary for survival. As humans, we have adapted other ways of competing and living. As for discrimination, that is not a biological factor. It is something we have to be taught. When I reference nature, I do not mean the philosophical idea of human nature but the pure biological forces and adaptations.

We enslave and kill in the name of gluttony, not survival.

Gorillas eat meat too, actually. And they’ve also been known to engage in cannibalism. Both species have been known to murder, though it is true that chimps are the more savage of the two. As of right now, I believe it is unknown why they do such things. But anyway, I think the main point there was that apes are omnivores.

Citation needed. I googled this and found two sites, one that didn't source anything at all and another that is correcting the mistake of saying that gorillas eat meat:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...getarians.html

[Mr E Nigma]

Originally Posted by Saya

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?

No I wouldn't kill my dog for eating grass, nor would I kill a cow for the same act, nor would I kill vegetarians for the same act...

But I'm pretty sure you already knew that... And equally I wouldn't kill anyone for eating meat.

Why would you think I'd kill a dog for eating grass if I wouldn't kill him for eating meat..? After all I did say I treat them equally.

[Seidre]

Not true. Discrimination was an evolved defense mechanism that protects us from what we do not know.
Feeling that women and men are different enough to have different attitudes towards each is socially indoctrinated. Discriminating against the one which is more different than you is perfectly natural, and only after we understand better do we treat each equally.

Touche.
“unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice”
This is taught. And it is wrong.
“the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished”
This is a survival adaptation that I see nothing wrong with.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...discrimination

Nature is a cruel mistress and has no mind for justice. All sorts of diseases, all sorts of animals who kill and **** each other and commit crimes, and us humans, the only one who seems capable of abstract thought and being conscious of "morality", do not want to utilize this gift, but wants to be like the animals.

Nature has its good points, too. It gives and it takes. It balances. It functions, survives, thrives, adapts, and changes. I believe in that. I believe in the way we are all connected, all a part of a circle. Of course nature has no mind for justice. It has no mind. No bias. It simply…is. It breeds disease, but it also heals. Animals kill to survive, but they also give birth. They steal from one another, but they also give. We have the ability of cognitive thought. And we have used that for good, and we have also used it to mess things up.

That being said, my point is not that nature is just. All I said was that justice is not one dimensional and requires thought. I base my own morality off of nature. I draw my influences from the biological world.

We enslave and kill in the name of gluttony, not survival.

Agreed. And that is wrong.

Citation needed. I googled this and found two sites, one that didn't source anything at all and another that is correcting the mistake of saying that gorillas eat meat:

Mainly I was drawing from a documentary I watched in my anthropology class that actually showed footage of the gorillas hunting and eating monkeys (though it also said that their diet consists mainly of leaves and fruit). I’ll see if I can dig up the title. If not, I’ll search the textbook for more information. =)
…Can’t find the sheet of paper with the movie title on it, and the book only vaguely mentions that “their ability to digest meat is limited.” And so, I concede this over to you, Saya, since you actually do have a reference to post.

[Mr E Nigma]

I was going to say that you're quite wrong and that Gorilla's are in fact vegetarians. But I looked at Saya's link and that happens to be the title... so I guess it speaks for itself..

[Seidre]

Also. I'm sorry Seidre but you sort of killed your own ethos by saying Gorillas eat meat.

Yeah, I failed that one. >_>
...Though now I really want to find that video again. I'll have to track down the teacher and ask for it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Seidre

Touche.
“unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice”
This is taught. And it is wrong.
“the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished”
This is a survival adaptation that I see nothing wrong with.

And yet when it comes to meat from something natural you justify that which is indoctrinated.

[Mr E Nigma]

Using evolution and naturality to say we shouldn't have problems with eating meat is sort of a double edge sword considering the natural evolution of our intelligence has led us to creating a way for us to be herbivores...

[Seidre]

And yet when it comes to meat from something natural you justify that which is indoctrinated.

No. I say I don't believe eating meat is wrong. That is my point. And if someone can prove me wrong, I will convert.

Also, I said, "This is taught. AND it is wrong." as opposed to "This is taught, therefore it is wrong."

[Seidre]

Using evolution and naturality to say we shouldn't have problems with eating meat is sort of a double edge sword considering the natural evolution of our intelligence has led us to creating a way for us to be herbivores...

That is a good point. And I have nothing against humans who choose to be herbivores. In fact, I admire it.

But we are biologically omnivores...And so I don't understand how following an omnivoric diet could be considered "wrong."

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Seidre

No. I say I don't believe eating meat is wrong. That is my point. And if someone can prove me wrong, I will convert.

Also, I said, "This is taught. AND it is wrong." as opposed to "This is taught, therefore it is wrong."

Christ.
Can we just put a stop to this bullshit?
Where do you get your meat?

[Mr E Nigma]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Christ.
Can we just put a stop to this bullshit?
Where do you get your meat?

Her point, I imagine, is that your moral beliefs and her moral beliefs are different.

You telling her eating meat is fucked up because of what is done to the animals or basically any evidence most vegans would give meat eaters that eating meat is wrong is also based on their moral standards.

This entire thread is full of opinions etc... someone's idea of something being wrong is wholly based on society and the independent views of that person.

She doesn't have the same moral views as most of the people in this thread, therefore for her eating meat is in absolutely no way morally wrong.

We can all go back and forth telling each other what's wrong and what's right, or reasons that eating meat is wrong, but it won't change her view on it because her morals differ with yours.

The only reason I even got into the debate with saya is because we have quite similar religious/moral life views or whatever you want to call them. And so I was quite interested in how she viewed things with relation to our buddhist views. Even though she follows a different view of it than I do.

By all means continue bantering about it if you feel like killing some time or you really just like to push your views on other people, but it really won't amount to much.

[blackwater1110]

To answer the OP, I am a vegetarian, but were it deemed necessary for my survival, I would hunt and kill animals. In fact, I would much prefer to know that an animal died by my hand in a way that I personally experience than namelessly and in torture as is perpetrated by the current system.

Seidre, nature as an entity does not exist. The nature you describe as the basis for your morality exists only in your mind and as a justification for your actions.

Your reasoning fails on many levels. You call chimps savages for killing other types of monkey to survive, despite that this occurs "naturally" in every sense of the word: without outside intervention; in the utilitarian sense of capacity for nourishment; in the sense that the animals suffer no physical or psychological blowback for their actions, etc. Yet, despite your round condemnation on a moral level of this animal's natural behavior, you are unable or unwilling to apply this same standard to yourself. Why?

Also, Saya, I've decided I like you. After every post, I found my thoughts mirrored in your words. Please continue to do so, as you have saved me untold strain on my typing fingers

[Mir]

Originally Posted by Mr E Nigma

By all means continue bantering about it if you feel like killing some time or you really just like to push your views on other people, but it really won't amount to much.

Finally! Another member sees the light.

[honeythorn]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I'm a believer in a massive reform in how people view meat - it should no longer be considered a staple but a luxury. That's how it is amongst most remaining hunter gatherer societies, and they have some of the healthiest diets on the planet.

This I also agree with. Those communities know that overhunting means less meat. So almost everything on the animal is used . Most of their diets tend to be heavily plant based, but with the addition of some meat when the hunting is good. We evolved to have such a diet, and I see nothing wrong with returning to such a diet where it is possible.

Saya- I did not say meat was a better source of protien. And I did state that there were other sources of it available in nature. As Cicero also said, Bugs for example. I have tried crickets before ( cooked) and they are actually not too bad. Slightly nutty , perhaps not something I'd eat regularly, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were the only readily available source.

I also dislike synthetically produced protiens and vitamins. I don't want my food created in a lab, I want it from where it's suppoosed to come from. Nature.

if factory farming was outlawed and we went with "humane" free range large farms, it would take more space

Which isn't what I said at all. I said LOCAL levels. Small farms . You do realise not all farmstock are inbred and full of health problems right? Not every farm on earth runs as a factory farm. As for the chickens eating the eggs, it's the shells they need for the calcuim. We do not eat the shells, so these can be ground up as "grit" for the birds and mixed with other food or scattered for them to pick up with other grit as they would naturally. You can still eat the rest of the egg.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Mr E Nigma

Her point, I imagine, is that your moral beliefs and her moral beliefs are different.

You telling her eating meat is fucked up because of what is done to the animals or basically any evidence most vegans would give meat eaters that eating meat is wrong is also based on their moral standards.

This entire thread is full of opinions etc... someone's idea of something being wrong is wholly based on society and the independent views of that person.

She doesn't have the same moral views as most of the people in this thread, therefore for her eating meat is in absolutely no way morally wrong.

We can all go back and forth telling each other what's wrong and what's right, or reasons that eating meat is wrong, but it won't change her view on it because her morals differ with yours.

The only reason I even got into the debate with saya is because we have quite similar religious/moral life views or whatever you want to call them. And so I was quite interested in how she viewed things with relation to our buddhist views. Even though she follows a different view of it than I do.

By all means continue bantering about it if you feel like killing some time or you really just like to push your views on other people, but it really won't amount to much.

I know I can never change minds, but with the enviromental and ethical implications of meat eating I can hardly call it subjective. It seems to always boil down to "BUT I JUST LIKE MEAT!" without any real argument.

Originally Posted by honeythorn

This I also agree with. Those communities know that overhunting means less meat. So almost everything on the animal is used . Most of their diets tend to be heavily plant based, but with the addition of some meat when the hunting is good. We evolved to have such a diet, and I see nothing wrong with returning to such a diet where it is possible.

I don't know how you imagine "smaller communities" are better conservatives, I'm from a place where we do have small local farms that no one will eat from because they can hear the animals screaming from the slaughterhouse, each year we're getting less and less fish, and they will defend to the death their right to kill baby seals and skin them, then leave their bodies behind.

Saya- I did not say meat was a better source of protien. And I did state that there were other sources of it available in nature. As Cicero also said, Bugs for example. I have tried crickets before ( cooked) and they are actually not too bad. Slightly nutty , perhaps not something I'd eat regularly, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were the only readily available source.

I also dislike synthetically produced protiens and vitamins. I don't want my food created in a lab, I want it from where it's suppoosed to come from. Nature.

You did state that we evolved to need protein from meat.

Well then eat nothing but organic, because EVERYTHING has additives, proteins and vitamins, even your drinking water. And there's nothing natural about farming to boot.

Which isn't what I said at all. I said LOCAL levels. Small farms . You do realise not all farmstock are inbred and full of health problems right? Not every farm on earth runs as a factory farm. As for the chickens eating the eggs, it's the shells they need for the calcuim. We do not eat the shells, so these can be ground up as "grit" for the birds and mixed with other food or scattered for them to pick up with other grit as they would naturally. You can still eat the rest of the egg.

Why on earth would yo do that? Are people really going to give their egg shells back to their local farmer? Is the farmer who is already overworked really going to take time to go around collecting the egg shells when his customers are done? Why go through so much trouble and bothering the chickens to boot just so you can stuff your face with their menstrual eggs?

[Mr E Nigma]

Originally Posted by Saya

I know I can never change minds, but with the enviromental and ethical implications of meat eating I can hardly call it subjective. It seems to always boil down to "BUT I JUST LIKE MEAT!" without any real argument.

Yeah... but it is subjective... ethics is if anything, opinions.

And really... I'm pretty sure most people eat certain foods because to that person it tastes delicious. So yeah, eating anything doesn't really need an argument apart from "I enjoy it"

People ask me why I don't drink coke, but instead I drink sprite or orange soda... because I enjoy it more. The reason I generally eat anything is for taste. You'd choose an apple over an orange if you found the apple more delicious. A lot of people enjoy chicken over tofu, so it's generally what they go for.

It really is as simple as that... food is if anything.. subjective. Ethics and all...

[Underwater Ophelia]

I will ask again.
Where do you get your meat?

[The Donor]

Hell yes, and I love the thought of the muscle and where it was positioned on the body of the animal. I've never done the slaughter myself but that's because the opportunity never arose, I would love to. I wouldn't just eat the flesh though, there's plenty of uses for the skin and bones. And the majority of the vital organs would probably be good too. Organs such as the bladder could go to waste I suppose.

While we're on the subject, live snail really isn't an advisable meal. It doesn't have a taste but the texture is horrible and it's really sticky so it gets all stuck in your teeth.
Not something I'll do again and not something I'd advise. If anyone's tried cooked snail I'd like to hear about that

[Delkaetre]

Donor- organs like the bladder are actually pretty handy. Good for storing things, can even be used as a primitive form of football. There's pretty much nothing in our usual food animals that needs to be wasted.