How exactly do you kill animals "nicely"?

[Robodl95]

This is something I have never understood. There are a multitude of of people such as PETA and anti-hunting groups who argue against certain ways of killing (such as hunting, fishing or the various ways they do things at farms) and I simply don't understand it. How did your ancestors survive? We're just as much a part of the food chain as a bear, why can the bear go catch a salmon but not humans?

The point is that killing is killing no matter how you look at it, there is no way to "kill humanely". You could go either way with this, I have nothing against you if you are a vegetarian but if you are against hunting but still eat meat then HELLO! (for ethical purposes, it's fine if you couldn't shoot an animal personally, I know I never could)

To be clear, I love animals and I like the basic principals that PETA supports but they're a bit crazy. :rolleyes:

Edit: I would also like to add this (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/hunting.aspx) if you're looking for an example of some of this crap. They admit themselves that some deer (as an example) will kill each other from overpopulation due to starvation and disease yet that's okay? How is starvation better then a bullet? (starvation lasts much longer)

[crocobaura]

Apparently, the EU laws require you to tranquilise the animal first and kill it after. I guess, they should just not put them through unnecessary pain.

[el_flel]

The point is that killing is killing no matter how you look at it, there is no way to "kill humanely". I sort of agree and disagree with this statement. Whilst, yes, killing is killing and it's going to be unpleasant however it's done, there are ways of doing it which reduce the unpleasantness. I'd rather an animal was put down by injection than bludgeoned to death, for example.

[Robodl95]

Hunting now is an unnecesary activity, and hunters cannot justify killing an animal except for fun.

I disagree, I know people who live off a deer they shoot for a really long time and they certainly don't have enough money to go and buy the same quantity of meat at a grocery store.

Also is it really so wrong to go out and get your own as opposed to heading to the meat counter? On of the biggest problems facing the world today is that people are so lazy and expect things right away, it would do people good if more were exposed to waiting for hours in the woods (OMG outdoors!)

[geallach]

If people actually do need the sustenence that a hunted animal provides, then there is some justification for it. But hunting as a sport, for entertainment, or just out of mindless cruelty are the things that upset people. Here, people would not need or even eat the things they kill, so I would have experience of people hunting out of necessity, but you are right to point out that there are people who do.

[el_flel]

My dad shoots and does actually eat the animals he shoots. Pheasants mainly, sometimes rabbits.

[Robodl95]

I have never heard of a hunter not eating what they catch (whether out of necessity or not), a lot of the time they give meat that they don't need to family, friends or the local food pantry which is always looking for food (I know a lot of hunters too). Saying that hunters are wasteful isn't very true at all, I know those who hunt more for sport over food supply but they still use all the meat for good purposes.

Proof (http://www.nrablog.com/post/2010/10/29/American-hunters-donate-26-million-pounds-of-meat.aspx)
After gathering totals from local organizations all over the U.S., they've come up with a figure: 2,602,863 pounds of meat, or 10,389,912 meals. These totals include deer, elk, antelope, moose, pheasants, and waterfowl.

[iCad]

I'm not a hunter, myself, because although I'm a really good shot, I'm a big wuss. But living in a rural area as I do, I do think hunting serves a purpose even beyond putting food on the table, for some people. (I loves me some elk! Nom!) The reality is that we've gone about and eliminated/severely reduced predator populations, usually in order to protect livestock. It'd be nice if that hadn't happened, but it did, and now the situation is what it is. As a result, it gets to the point that the animal populations that those predators were "supposed" to be controlling go all out of kilter, and so disease, for one thing, runs rampant, diseased animals being the ones often taken by predators, thus helping to halt transmission of the disease to other members of the herd. (We've got a problem with wasting disease in the elk/deer herds where I live, for instance.) And in areas of poor resources, there's increased starvation, too.

So, since we initially threw predator/prey ratios out of whack, I think it is, in a way, sort of our respons4ibility to try to keep things in check. Hunters do that. The problem in my area, at least, is that there aren't enough of them. And, of course, hunters take the "prize" animals rather than the sick/injured individuals like predators do, so that's not exactly kosher, either.

Beyond that, there are "nicer" ways than others to kill an animal when necessary. An overdose of barbiturates is a "nicer" fate than being starved to death. A bullet to the brain from a skilled hunter is a "nicer" fate than dying of wasting disease or being hit by a car and slowly dying of the resulting injuries. Etc.

[pinketamine]

I disagree, I know people who live off a deer they shoot for a really long time and they certainly don't have enough money to go and buy the same quantity of meat at a grocery store.


That might be true... if they are hunting in an illegal way. Maybe it is not the same for all countries, but in mine you need to have a gun license and a hunting license, and they are not exactly cheap.
I don't agree with you that killing is killing no matter how you do it. It is not the same to kill and animal after sedating it so the animal won't feel anything than torturing an animal to death. So yeah, I think there are "nicer" way of killing an animal.

[Lavaster]

I totally agree with this thread. I loveee animals, but PETA goes too far. Without killing animals will kill many humans, some will die from starvation.

[Robodl95]

That might be true... if they are hunting in an illegal way. Maybe it is not the same for all countries, but in mine you need to have a gun license and a hunting license, and they are not exactly cheap.
I don't agree with you that killing is killing no matter how you do it. It is not the same to kill and animal after sedating it so the animal won't feel anything than torturing an animal to death. So yeah, I think there are "nicer" way of killing an animal.

It depends on the area probably, I'm sure there are different license prices in various states/countries.

I agree 100% about torturing vs. sedation. When I made the thread I was more inclined about hunting killing vs. like butcher-house killing. Maybe I wasn't clear enough :)

[Oaktree]

We've got a problem with wasting disease in the elk/deer herds where I live, for instance.

Just make sure you don't eat the ones that show signs of wasting disease. Prions are typically species-specific, but scrapie, which was originally a sheep disease, passed to cows due to frequent contact and ingestion of the misfolded proteins by cows. We don't know that the same will happen for wasting disease with humans, but it's best not to risk it.

/off-topic

My two cents: I think that it's alright to kill an animal so long as there is a good reason for it (reducing overpopulation, use as food, etc.) and it is done in the quickest, least painful way feasible. If you're out hunting, that means aim for the head or the heart, don't try to simply maim it. If you're putting down a sick animal, preferably have a veterinarian use a lethal dose of sedative, or whatever it is that they typically use. Don't give an animal a lingering death.

[kiwi_tea]

I think that it's alright to kill an animal so long as there is a good reason for it (reducing overpopulation, use as food, etc.) and it is done in the quickest, least painful way feasible.

The question very quickly arises though: When is using an animal for food necessary? If it is unnecessary, and against the animal's conscious will, is it justifiable? We don't consider it just to kill another human without very good reason. We recognise that other people have a will to live, emotions, consciousness, capacity to suffer, ability to dissent. We empathise with these traits. We do unto others roughly as we'd have done to ourselves. Roughly. So why one rule for our species, and another for any other (let's say avian or mammalian) species, when most (if not all) of the salient characteristics in this situation are the same: Will to live, consciousness, emotions, capacity to suffer, ability to dissent.

I've killed a lot of pigs in mind time, and their terror at being manhandled out of their home enviroment is clear and in only one way distinct from the terror of a man or woman in the same position - less coherent, less linguistic, that is all. A minor distinction, like the terror of a young child. The idea is it's okay if we kill them quickly, without pain, and without their knowledge (indeed, can they conceptualise death, or just fear injury?). Is killing pigs without their knowledge more ethical than killing a person without their knowledge? Does ignorance of one's death make one's death a non-issue? Even bearing in mind a pig's inability to seriously reflect on questions of mortality, I don't think it does. Once a human or a pig is here on this Earth, thinking and feeling and breathing, we have a responsibility within certain confines to respect their wishes. They are another person and "person of sorts". To justify eating meat we do something like "dehumanisation" to our prey, only there is no word for it, we're too scientifically backwards as yet to have coined one, we largely still believe in human exceptionalism despite biology's departure from it. We "demean" other animals. We "degrade" them. We "deanimalise" them. We pretend that their will to live, consciousness, emotions, capacity to suffer and their ability to dissent from being slaughtered are not salient factors in the ethical equation. Only by such a deep degrading of the non-human can we get ludicrous claims like "eating meat is a personal choice". Strictly personal choices don't usually involve a second conscious and dissenting party. It couldn't be more bullshit to say that eating meat is a strictly personal choice on the eater's behalf while the eatees actively protest their slaughter when given any remote chance to.

What necessity means is, I'll admit immediately, a loaded issue. While meat is not a dietary necessity for anyone living in a developed nation with a modest income, it probabably *is* necessary for those in poverty where edible crops are scarce. Desperate times necessitate desperate measures: Slaughter. I can see the justification for using an animal for in desparate situations, the same way I can see the justification for eating human flesh in desparate situations - I don't fault a soccer team trapped on a mountain without food for eating a limb or two, even if I'm not certain I could stomach it myself. But when it is unnecessary, why is such a brutal destruction against another's will ethical?

The whole problem hinges on this: What is a non-human animal?

[Rawra]

Hunting is a stupid and senseless action. People have pigs, cows, goats etc., why do they have to kill rabbits and deer? For fun and trophies, that's why. Taking the life of a creature for fun and trophies. I won't be surprised if people start to kill each other in a decade or two.

Domestic animals (not PETS. It's a difference) are born to be eaten. It's just how it works. But why kill the god damn wild animals? Are people blind, can't they see that they're destroying the planet? That tigers, pandas, and a lot of other animals are about to become extinct, because of THEM? Jesus...

The domestic animals should be tranquilized before cutting. It's "humane", because they don't suffer the way they do when they're cut to pieces alive.

And yes, killing for over-population is necessary, but not kill them while they are disappearing. But killing wild animals for food, as long as you have domestic animals at your disposal should get illegal once and for all.

[lethifold]

Hunting is a stupid and senseless action. People have pigs, cows, goats etc., why do they have to kill rabbits and deer? For fun and trophies, that's why. Taking the life of a creature for fun and trophies. I won't be surprised if people start to kill each other in a decade or two...

...yes, killing for over-population is necessary...I just want to make the point that, especially with rabbits, they are hunted due to over-population and not so they can simply become trophies. They may be used in food as a cheaper substitute for the more expensive meats bought at a butcher, and many farmers will shoot rabbits on sight. They are a pest here in Australia, particularly in the state of Queensland, and hunting them is entirely necessary to keep the population under control.

Hunting is, and always has been, part of the human nature. It's in our nature. I know virtually nothing about the slaughtering methods of animals when they are being killed at an abattoir, but surely a well-placed hunter's bullet is more merciful than starvation or slowly being killed by a greater predator in the wild.

[kiwi_tea]

Domestic animals (not PETS. It's a difference) are born to be eaten. It's just how it works.
Is the same true of children born to be slaves? It seems supremely backwards logic to say creating something to abuse it justifies the abuse.

Hunting is, and always has been, part of the human nature. It's in our nature.
The same was said of slavery. Human nature is not so rigid that we can't improve our behaviour. We have, and we will again.

killing for over-population is necessary...
Under careful controls, I agree. But we really should favour other controls where possible. Introduction of predators to islands like NZ has been incredibly tragic for endemic species, and goodness knows how to weigh up the costs and benefits of culling. It's a horrible situation.

[Simsclicker]

I would look at this in terms of the food chain and Darwinian theory.

I love animals, period. And no, I do not believe hunting them for sport is right. Before I say much more, I will say that I breed chinchillas and am gladly looking over a 3 day old kit snuggled up next to mum right now.

I also understand Darwinian theory, if a species is meant to survive (through whatever you believe in) then it will.
Example: Australian birds species were driven to near extinction with the introduction of the cane toad. However, one species (I believe crows but I'm not positive) learned how to eat the suckers by flipping them over.

Also, humans are not the top of the food chain naturally. If all humans were isolated and left to their own devices, they would be mauled by bears and wouldn't survive shark attacks. Of course, in society now, we don't have to worry about that, right? Wrong. Quite a few people still get themselves ravaged by bears, sharks and big cats quite a bit. (It is rare but it does happen. And we sure do manage to kill a lot of ourselves in wartime too :lol:

As far as hunting for food goes. I think it's perfectly legitimate. Not all people can easily breed animals for food and the starting cost to get farms are pretty high (at least where I live, not so much open space here). And not always do we have the cash to buy from the store either. So what's left?

Even though shooting Bambii sounds cruel. That deer wasn't smart enough, fast enough, or strong enough to survive the encounter with the predator (you).

Natural selection.

As far as slaughterhouses go. We domesticated the animals. And, we have kept them safe and mass bred them to a point where it isn't even naturally healthy for the environment because there aren't enough predators to eat them. (In my personal opinion)
Those animals should be tranquilized before killing or humanely euthanized by qualified veterinarians. And if they are too small (like rats and mice) than they should have an inhaled anesthesia gas overdose (I had to look at putting down a very old mouse recently, but she's quite well now)

Did you know that PITA kills over 2/3 of the animals it took in because they didn't want the animals being with humans?
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Pretty sad if you ask me. All their talk of "Oh, you humans are so cruel eating animals and wearing furs for warmth and keeping them as pets in your cushy homes where they would be eaten in the outside world" And yet they're doing more senseless killing than the worst sport hunter.
:Pint: <-- To PITA and what a good job they've done rehoming animals </sarcasm>
Please do not be offended of my view of PITA. I was speaking in pure statistics with humour on the side... It is not meant to be insulting in any way.

Edit: @kiwi_tea: Actually, humans are classified as omnivores. There are some proteins that our bodies cannot obtain from plants alone if we are limited to seasonal produce. To support a lifestyle such as that and stay healthy, it would require plenty of imported supermarket goods for plants that are essential sources of nutrients.
If someone is not close enough to a supermarket then the correct foods may not be available to them... thus leading to an undernourished lifestyle. Then both animals and humans will be sick... :(

[kiwi_tea]

The food chain is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes how animals do feed, it does not dictate how they must. If a species departs rapidly (in evolutionary terms) from their previous foodsources it can certainly be dangerous, but not always. Giant pandas are almost certainly goners in the wild because they have made a very rapid transition from a carnivorous diet to bamboo in an evolutionarily short period.

Also, humans are not the top of the food chain naturally.
There is no "top" to the food chain.

Moreover, you've completely misrepresented Darwinian theory, again making it somehow metaphysically and magically prescriptive: "if a species is meant to survive (through whatever you believe in) then it will." No. No. No. There is no "meant" about it. Who is doing the "meaning"? This is science, not magic. We can't just invent giant mechanisms to "mean" for animals to continue. We have rely on what we can see. Modern evolutionary biology does not and cannot assume any animals are "meant" to survive. It describes the process by which animals do survive.

Even though shooting Bambii sounds cruel. That deer wasn't smart enough, fast enough, or strong enough to survive the encounter with the predator (you).

Natural selection.

So basically, you're misinterpreting Darwin as meaning "Might is right." The same horrific misinterpretation could be used to defend the Holocaust. "Oh my, the Jews just weren't smart enough and fast enough."

Again. It's a deeply unscientific misinterpretation that you're pushing because the scientific method focuses on describing nature, not prescribing how it should be. We reach moral conclusions using (or abusing) our intelligence. We're the smart animals. We have the capacity to seriously work things out. We have the capacity to reason and be kind rather than cruel.

As far as slaughterhouses go. We domesticated the animals. And, we have kept them safe and mass bred them to a point where it isn't even naturally healthy for the environment because there aren't enough predators to eat them. (In my personal opinion)
The good old abusive patriarch, eh? "I brought you into this world and I can damn well take you out of it!"

Actually, humans are classified as omnivores. There are some proteins that our bodies cannot obtain from plants alone if we are limited to seasonal produce. To support a lifestyle such as that and stay healthy, it would require plenty of imported supermarket goods for plants that are essential sources of nutrients.
You're vastly overstating matters, but yes, some people, particularly in arid, poverty-stricken regions, will not have sufficient crops to get a balanced diet. It's really not even an eighth as hard as you pretend for vegetarians to get a balanced diet without subsisting on specialty foods though. Beans on toast provide one of the whole proteins that vegetarians don't have access to in a single foodstuff. It's just a matter of eating the right stuff in combination, and most of it we do already. How hard is it to get some beans and bread? Protein isn't an issue at all. Iron can be, particularly for women. But a full range of proteins isn't difficult at all - certainly it deoesn't require specialty foods - and the fact that you cite is as problematic suggests you don't have the first clue about vegetarian dietary requirements.

[game90]

Both PETA and Greenpeace have one thing in common: They always keep advocating extreme causes that makes no sense, and they like to use irritating, disruptive high-profile protest methods that wastes police resources and sometimes endangers lives.

[kiwi_tea]

I'm no fan of PETA or Greenpeace, but (a) the causes aren't all extreme (b) historically it's often extreme campaigning that paves the road for moderate views to bed themselves down - as with civil rights.

I'm not sure we'd have the same tolerance of racial differences in the US today without the riots in Harlem and Selma. Not at all.

Likewise, where would employment law be without striking workers and their riots?

Likewise, where would gay rights be without the riot at Stonewall?

Likewise, would the USA exist if the colony had not risen up in violent, yearning revolt?

Rights are worth fighting for, our own, and the rights of others. PETA is composed of idiots. Greenpeace are severely compromised. But their causes... ...those are often real. The environment is under threat. Amphibians are dying out like crazy, possibly due to water pollution. I haven't seen a frog in years. We are incredibly similar in important ways to other animals, and those similarities warrant consideration, not our wilfull, cruel ignorance.

Now that I've had to defend people I'd rather not, game90... ...do you have any argument pertaining to hunting and whether "humane slaughter" is a contradiction in terms... ...or is PETA just a pet hate of yours?

[Simsclicker]

Wow! I must say that I find it interesting that someone actually took the time to read my long-winded post (no, I'm not used to that happening because I tend to overanalyze) so I first must thank you for doing so.

However, I must counter due to some things that I think you misinterpreted.

I did not say there was a top of the food chain at all. Many people think that there are tops and bottoms to the food chain. I was merely expressing that it is not so. As for prescribing/describing, I did not say that the food chain tells anyone to eat anyone else. I simply stated that on our own, without the help of a billion others and technologies, some humans would eventually be killed by other animals. Bears and sharks are just two names I pulled out of an invisible hat, because of a bear's infamous portrayal (when being portrayed as hostile) and the fact that humans don't naturally breathe underwater without special equipment.

Regarding Darwinian theory, it has been used prescriptively many times before and tested time in and time out.
Many professional breeders (of any breeding type, particularly dogs and fish) select the offspring they want to pass on genes, and cull (not kill, cull) out the rest of the offspring. This usually is an aesthetic change for human-bred creatures, however, in wild creatures, the ones that had sense enough to stay well away from humans, will be able to procreate, thus encouraging a demeanor of the same kind over time.
It's like asking, Why do most dogs like humans? We have encouraged them to be social, rewarded those with 'good' temperaments to pass on genes, and thus evolve into a human-loving creature.
Lets take a deer for instance (I know this is made up), the fact that it is not curious and a fast runner have kept it alive to be able to let it procreate. Over time, if those mental traits were what kept the species alive, then they would be ingrained and more deer would be able to better hide from humans.
Now, I am not saying this is how it should be. I am saying this is how it might be due to the fact of how time tested and true it seems to be at the current time.
An interesting study once occurred on silver foxes. A number of wild foxes were taken and bred for a friendly personality (It was a domestication study). The project continued for five generations. Many interesting effects happened physically, but by generation five, the foxes were much more human oriented than the ones before them. This study proved that selective breeding of certain personalities will eventually create a different personality. Google yields some interesting genetics results that may be worth your time.

Also, the Holocaust is something completely different. Humans have however, developed complex politics and all sorts of other snags, and has anyone ever noticed, that due to the scale, that some escaped from the camps, and some were alert enough to leave before anything bad happened to them? News and history are cynical, they report everything bad and forget just about everything good that ever happened.
I was talking about a series of years, more than likely 10+, the Holocaust is merely a nanosecond on an evolutionary scale.
</offtopic>

My concern to slaughterhouses was not supportive at all. I do believe we have to eat, but I also meant that if, right now, we let all those animals free. The results would be disastrous on the environment. Due to the fact that some animals are not native to the lands they'd be released on, and the fact that predators are few due to the fact we've killed them, overgrazing and starvation deaths would be quick and rampant.
I was replying to Originally Posted By Robodl95
I was more inclined about hunting killing vs. like butcher-house killing. this prompt. It would bring up a new area for the thread to explore.
I meant to say that if we must kill these animals in slaughterhouses for food, they might as well be killed humanely.

As far as becoming a vegetarian is concerned. I was again looking at the "I am alone and do not have the technology to get these items from the supermarket I take for granted"
When I said proteins, I meant nutrients (I couldn't find the right word until later and didn't remember to change the other). I also stated ...if we were limited to seasonal produce. I have done my homework and know that one can have a proper diet as a vegetarian. However, that would not be the case if you could not access important nutrients that are "out of season" at the moment.

:jest: I suppose I did take the standpoint of a poverty-stricken region! Well, I suppose without supermarkets and technology, any place could be a poverty stricken region. I don't think it would have to be arid though to have some negative effects on vegetarians in winter.

No hard feelings okay? I just like bringing up apocalyptic and sudden-type situations on things. If you've ever seen any of the NatGeo "A world without humans" and "A world without oil" specials, well, I tend to try and think that way. :)

Simsclicker

[Robodl95]

The same was said of slavery. Human nature is not so rigid that we can't improve our behaviour. We have, and we will again.

Kiwi the example of slavery is really really different then that of meat. Slavery was not practiced throughout the entire world, the entire world (except for the small number of vegetarians,people with dietary problems, etc.) eats meat. I'm not saying it's impossible but it will never work on a large scale, every individual will not consent and if you tried to propose some anti-meat thing to the government then that would have people up in arms over violation of rights. Out of every thing the government controls would you really want diet a part of that too?

We have the capacity to seriously work things out. We have the capacity to reason and be kind rather than cruel.

Eating an animal is not cruel, it's called life and the food chain.

[pinketamine]

Hunting is, and always has been, part of the human nature. It's in our nature. I know virtually nothing about the slaughtering methods of animals when they are being killed at an abattoir, but surely a well-placed hunter's bullet is more merciful than starvation or slowly being killed by a greater predator in the wild.
It isn't part of my nature. I would not be able to kill an animal unless my life was at risk or something like that.

Even though shooting Bambii sounds cruel. That deer wasn't smart enough, fast enough, or strong enough to survive the encounter with the predator (you).

Natural selection.

Yes, except for the fact that deers don't own rifles. Guns are not part of natural selection.

[Robodl95]

"It isn't part of my nature. I would not be able to kill an animal unless my life was at risk or something like that."

Unless you have never eaten meat then yes it is your nature, buying meat simply gives money to the meat companies (to kill more animals). A lot of people would never have the heart to do it themselves (myself included) but unless you're a vegetarian you cannot complain about hunting.

"Yes, except for the fact that deers don't own rifles. Guns are not part of natural selection. "

Blasting everything in your path out of spite "cause you have a gun" is not right and as Kiwi said "might is not right" but guns are indeed a part of natural selection, people had the brains and ability to create them and so it is, guns are no different then lions growing fangs.

[RoseCity]

(except for the small number of vegetarians,people with dietary problems, etc.)
There are 400 million vegetarians in India alone.

[Robodl95]

By small I meant a minority, even in India it is a minority as it's about 40/60. Besides India, Israel and a couple other countries vegetarians are a really small minority (I think it's like 2-4% in the US and Western Europe)

There are still people everywhere who don't have enough to eat. Shouldn't we worry about making sure every person has enough to eat before we worry about the ethics of meat?

[Rectos Dominos]

There are 400 million vegetarians in India alone.

I believe in India it is for religious reasons, but most vegetarians seem to be for ethical reasons.

Probably the only "nice" way to kill an animal is buy euthanizing incurably ill animals where they're just going to suffer till they eventually die.

About hunting I don't see it as any more inhumane than the slaughterhouse. Hunted animals are often out in the wild and had at least some freedom, where as animals killed in slaughters usually where kept in squalid conditions with little to no freedom.

[Oaktree]

The question very quickly arises though: When is using an animal for food necessary? If it is unnecessary, and against the animal's conscious will, is it justifiable?

The first thing I would say you have already said:

What necessity means is, I'll admit immediately, a loaded issue. While meat is not a dietary necessity for anyone living in a developed nation with a modest income, it probabably *is* necessary for those in poverty where edible crops are scarce. Desperate times necessitate desperate measures: Slaughter. I can see the justification for using an animal for in desparate situations, the same way I can see the justification for eating human flesh in desparate situations - I don't fault a soccer team trapped on a mountain without food for eating a limb or two, even if I'm not certain I could stomach it myself. But when it is unnecessary, why is such a brutal destruction against another's will ethical?

Sometimes it is necessary to eat meat. If it is what is available and the alternative is starvation, it is absolutely justifiable to eat meat. If you have a disorder that prevents you from eating other high-protein foods, maybe an allergy to soy, for example, meat becomes a necessity. If you are anemic or have a predisposition to anemia, high-iron foods, such as meat, are important to include in your diet. Iron supplements don't always help, as iron isn't absorbed as efficiently in supplement form, and sometimes people have bad reactions to certain supplements like this (I happen to know someone who reacts badly to iron pills, so she has to get her iron from her diet). If you're living in or near polar regions, high-energy food is critical to survival, because keeping your body warm becomes a significant metabolic expenditure. The highest-energy food is generally meat.

I'm not advocating meat consumption at the level it is at now. The amount of meat that the average American eats is far more than necessary, and sometimes enough to cause medical problems. Eating meat in vast excess can lead to liver damage, because your liver has to turn the massive amounts of amino acids you consume into urea. If it has to work too hard for too long, it gets worn out. Anyone eating enough meat to cause this is not only causing the death of far more animals than necessary, but paving the way to his/her own early grave. (As an aside, a bucket of chicken wings does not make a good drinking snack, as it forces your liver to work twice as hard to process both the alcohol and the amino acids.)

I think that, if you are able to afford it and have no medical disorders that make it dangerous, going vegetarian is ideal. Many people can't afford to go on a vegetarian diet, though. Meat is highly subsidized in the US, which means that it's usually way cheaper to pick up a hamburger at McDonald's than it is to buy or make a salad. I'll use the example I'm most familiar with: the two cheapest places to eat on my college campus are Taco Bell and Burger King. The Burger King on campus does not have the full menu and it is notably primarily the healthier foods that are missing from the menu. The closest you can get to vegetarian food at that Burger King is tater tots, and I'm pretty sure those are cooked in animal fat. Taco Bell has the garden menu, but the veggie tacos are the same size and slightly higher priced than the non-veggie tacos, while it would take a lot more vegetarian food to match how filling and energy-providing a meal with meat is. I don't have to eat at the cheapest places on campus because I have a student loan that gets me a meal plan, but some students are paying out of pocket when they eat on campus, so cheaper is better.

And, if you're wondering, I do eat less meat when I'm on campus. I'd eat less meat at home, but I'm not going to object to my parents paying for my meals, so I'll eat what they buy.


To justify eating meat we do something like "dehumanisation" to our prey, only there is no word for it, we're too scientifically backwards as yet to have coined one, we largely still believe in human exceptionalism despite biology's departure from it. We "demean" other animals. We "degrade" them. We "deanimalise" them.

Animals cannot be completely equated to humans, though. You are arguing that we should not consider animals to be completely beneath us, which I agree with, but be careful that you do not take it too far the other way. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other rational animals. There are other animals that have a kind of intelligence, but there seems to be an emergent property that we possess that other animals do not. As terrible as it is to cause pain, I think it is far worse to destroy a rational entity. A rational being has more to lose, as that person has a greater understanding of what it is to live, as well as a greater ability to affect the world, for better or worse. In that way, I think that the survival of an individual human should be placed above the survival of an individual "lower" animal. It is often in our best interests to protect the interests of other animals, however, so it is still feasible for the needs of both rational and non-rational living things to be met.

The whole problem hinges on this: What is a non-human animal?

There are many different levels of non-human animal. While I think that torturing sea sponges would mark one as an odd kind of sadist, sea sponges don't even possess a nervous system, so torturing them would do little harm. I have to wonder if you would really object to people eating sea sponges, were they good eating. They don't have the same awareness and will to live that you feel impassioned to defend.

There are other animals, bees, for example, that can feel pain, but do not seem to have any sort of individual will or sense of self. Were you to torture a bee, it would feel pain, but it likely wouldn't think of the pain in personal terms. It would see you as a threat to its hive and would sacrifice itself to protect its home. Torturing bees is worse than torturing sea sponges, but it's something that is a little hard to get worked up about, outside of the fact that without bees, we'd all be screwed.

If we skip further up the gradation of animals, skipping over some intermediate levels of sentience, coming to the European magpie, we have an animal that passes the mirror test, meaning that it probably has some degree of self-awareness. Yet, it is an animal that is not capable of higher level reasoning. Dolphins also pass the mirror test and seem to possess an even higher degree of intelligence than magpies.

What I'm getting at is that I think that the moral implications of mistreating or killing an animal depends on its level of sensation along with it's intellect. I would not be willing to eat dolphins. They are highly intelligent creatures, possibly even more than we give them credit for. It's hard to judge without a common language, so, for all we know, they could be close to our own level of intellect. Most other kinds of seafood, minus whales (does anyone actually eat whales?) and possibly sharks, on the other hand, are fairly unintelligent, unaware creatures in life. I think it is far more permissible to eat crabs and fish than it is to eat dolphins.

This brings a question to mind: would you find it morally permissible to eat meat were we to create animals without any higher thought or pain sensation? I do not ask this to mock you; I am genuinely curious about your answer.

Hunting is a stupid and senseless action. People have pigs, cows, goats etc., why do they have to kill rabbits and deer? For fun and trophies, that's why. Taking the life of a creature for fun and trophies. I won't be surprised if people start to kill each other in a decade or two.

But killing wild animals for food, as long as you have domestic animals at your disposal should get illegal once and for all.

There are other reasons to hunt for your food. Despite the risk involved with hunting potentially diseased animals, for some people, it may outweigh the risks involved with eating meat from domestic animals. Domestic animals are pumped full of antibiotics. This is a serious problem, as it contributes to the development of superbugs. Further, the antibiotics used on these animals make it into the soil and water as they are excreted by the animals. And some of those antibiotics remain in the meat, so when you eat it, you are receiving a low dose of antibiotics, encouraging antibiotic resistance in your normal flora. Some people may feel that it is better to not support the meat farming industry when its practices are so likely to lead to catastrophe.


Yes, except for the fact that deers don't own rifles. Guns are not part of natural selection.

Guns are the product of our rational minds, which are the products of natural selection. It's a bit of a tangent, but people saying that human inventions are "unnatural" is rather silly, considering that we are natural, so anything that is a product of humans, is also a product of nature.

[kiwi_tea]

Eating an animal is not cruel, it's called life and the food chain.
Okay. Question, do you accept these premises:

(1) It is cruel to kill a human animal against their will.
(2) It is cruel to kill a non-human animal against their will.

If you agree with one, but not the other, what is the distinction that you are making? "It's called life and the food chain" is a fallacious appeal to nature, it's as poor an argument as "Being gay is unnatural", or "Rape happens in nature".

And again, because apparently it can't be stressed enough: The food chain is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Blasting everything in your path out of spite "cause you have a gun" is not right and as Kiwi said "might is not right" but guns are indeed a part of natural selection, people had the brains and ability to create them and so it is, guns are no different than lions growing fangs.

That's true. Guns are part of natural selection. Absolutely. But we have something lions don't: The ability to exercise intelligence and compassion.

In short, lions have an excuse for slaughter (I mean aside from the fact that they're obligate carnivores!). What's ours?

Edit:

Shouldn't we worry about making sure every person has enough to eat before we worry about the ethics of meat?

Do you have any idea how much edible food is consumed by meat animals across a span of years? The sheer wastefulness of meat production is another reason why people aren't getting food.

(Oaktree, missed this page and your reply. Reading it now)

Edit:

Animals cannot be completely equated to humans, though. You are arguing that we should not consider animals to be completely beneath us, which I agree with, but be careful that you do not take it too far the other way. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other rational animals. There are other animals that have a kind of intelligence, but there seems to be an emergent property that we possess that other animals do not. As terrible as it is to cause pain, I think it is far worse to destroy a rational entity. A rational being has more to lose, as that person has a greater understanding of what it is to live, as well as a greater ability to affect the world, for better or worse. In that way, I think that the survival of an individual human should be placed above the survival of an individual "lower" animal. It is often in our best interests to protect the interests of other animals, however, so it is still feasible for the needs of both rational and non-rational living things to be met.

Plenty of humans lack the level of rationality that you and I have. It raises the question: Why are we citing rational ability as a yardstick for life's worth? Is it any less a tragedy for an infant or a low functioning disabled person to be killed against their will? Maybe it is less a tragedy, but it is still a tragedy, right? An affront to another's right not to be killed?

Or is it only a social tragedy, without regard to the individual?

I think that the survival of an individual human should be placed above the survival of an individual "lower" animal.

I agree. But such "them or us" situations are extremely rare in daily life. Certainly meat-eating isn't such a question for most of us. For a lot of us meat-eating is unnecessary, it's an indulgence (indeed in any balanced diet it should only be an occasional indulgence), like a cigar. Many of us don't need it ... we just enjoy over any alternatives we might not be habituated to.

Again, that raises the question: It is ethical to derive enjoyment from another individual's slaughter?

[tyto astrum]

Everything dies eventually. Everything. Might as well get some use out of the body left behind. Whether it be animal or plant, every thing you eat, ever, with the exception of fungus, was killed to nourish your body. I see no real difference with raising corn or cows. The only way to not eat something killed or dismembered from a living organism is to eat mushrooms, which are dead as soon as their spores are released. And you're still eating dead matter then. And if you out of necessity supplement your diet with vitamins, well, where do those come from? Dead things.

While this example is one I find slightly ridiculous, singing and talking to a plant makes it happier and healthier, and it grows better. Would you object to someone eating a tomato which had received the same attention? I'm thinking not, but hey. I could be wrong.

I won't argue that there aren't plenty of people who eat far more meat than is healthy for them. I won't argue that there aren't many vegetarians and vegans who have completely healthy and nourishing diets not eating the flesh of animals.

Personally, I love me some tasty dead animals. I love me some fresh salad. I love food. I love feeding my body things that keep me healthy, and taste good, and are well prepared. Whether those things were raised to be eaten or hunted bothers me not in the slightest. I eat plenty of things grown out on the farm, and I also eat plenty of things hunted by those same farmers. Delicious.

[longears15]

Somebody - I apologise as I can't remember who and can't find the post - expressed their ignorance of how animals are slaughtered in an abattoir situation. The method varies slightly from species to species, but in Australia, the UK, US and (I would imagine) most European countries, law requires that the animal is rendered unconscious before slaughter takes place. In the case of cattle and other large animals (e.g. horses), sometimes also sheep, this usually involves something like a captive bolt pistol, which delivers a heavy blow to the forehea region that knocks the animal out. Some forms of captive bolt will kill the animal in their own right, but animals are always bled via a cut to the throad (needed to prevent meat spoilage anyway) to prevent them ever regaining consciousness. Pigs and sheep and poultry are rendered unconscious with an electric current before being bled.

Oaktree, I think you have summed up my other thoughts on this perfectly. I agree with you about hunting. I think that the issue of antibiotic residues in food is real, but overblown (at least in Australia), but if people are hunting, making a quick & clean kill, and utilising what they kill, I (as a very strict vegetarian) find that far and away preferable to people who buy a packet of meat in the supermarket. I think hunters seem to have more respect and understanding of where their food comes from, much the same as people who raise their own livestock. That is part of what upsets me about meat eating - not so much the actual killing, but that people buy a roast, a piece of steak, a packet of sausages or whatever, but don't appreciate that an animal was killed to supply them with that meal. The same even with staples like bread and vegies, and kids who grow up with no idea where their food actually comes from :(

[jooxis]

Yes, there are certainly some more "nice" ways to kill animals.

If my dog is old and sick, I'd rather humanely euthanize him than beat him to death with a baseball bat. Less pain for him = good thing.

[Weeaboo]

Well, usually, when a cat of ours got terribly sick....we'd let nature run it's course...because we couldn't afford to euthanize it....

[kiwi_tea]

While this example is one I find slightly ridiculous, singing and talking to a plant makes it happier and healthier, and it grows better. Would you object to someone eating a tomato which had received the same attention? I'm thinking not, but hey. I could be wrong.

This reason you find it slightly ridiculous is because, surely, you know that an organism needs a brain-like organ in order to think and feel. Plants may respond to all sorts of stimulae. That's not the same thing as plants experiencing those stimulae.

A deer can suffer. A pine tree can't.

"Let nature run it's course" ...is a terrible euphemism for "Let the animal suffer horribly." I recommend abandoning the syrupy cover-up and calling a spade a spade.

[kampffenhoff]

I am a Vegan and my 12 year old daughter is a vegetarian. However, we have four cats who regularly catch things and often bring them into the House. They certainly don't kill things nicely or neatly but they do sometimes eat bits of what they catch. The kids have funerals and bury the bits remaining in the backyard. We have a small graveyard marked with sticks saying things like "head of black bird", "part of dead mole" and "three bird legs". In some countries and in the past here people had to hunt to survive but I don't believe in killing things for fun alone.

[kiwi_tea]

it's an indulgence (indeed in any balanced diet it should only be an occasional indulgence), like a cigar

Although it's worth saying that calling meat-eating "an indulgence like a cigar" is a terrible comparison. Tobacco doesn't have a mind, emotions, doesn't suffer, doesn't kick and call out when killed. Tobacco doesn't think. Tobacco doesn't feel. Tobacco doesn't protest. This is the problem. All the accurate comparisons - murder, rape, etc - are too extreme in the eyes of any meat-eater for them to take them seriously. The emotional knee-jerk response we all have is just, "No, no, human deaths are more special!" I have that response too. But it is only an emotional, irrational response - what makes any human so much more worthy of compassion than any pig? Rationality? But not all humans have more rationality than a pig (speaking seriously). Humans are predisposed to prejudice against those outside our tribal groups, let alone those outside our species. If we are to be humane then it is up to us to overcome such predispositions as well as we can. We're smart enough to.

The other comparisons, the "acceptable" ones, are all far too weak and misrepresentative to be worthwhile even applying in a debate. Killing another mind against its will is nothing like indulging in a cigar. But "Pig ≈ Cigar" offends people much less than the infinitely more accurate "Pig ≈ 3-Year-Old Infant".

What is to be done: Offend or lie?

(≈ note this is an approximation mark, not an equals mark)

[kampffenhoff]

I am a Vegan and my 12 year old daughter is a vegetarian. However, we have four cats who regularly catch things and often bring them into the House.


Disagree??

[SimBud]

PETA (People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area) is definitely a pet peeve of mine. Those people are to Humane Treatment of Animals what sexually abusive Priests are to the Catholic Church, evil incarnate.

[Robodl95]

Kiwi Tobacco is a plant and plants have been proven to feel pain and to react. They're not very smart nor overly sensitive but if you're making the argument against killing say an insect which is not smart or very sensitive either then what exactly is your point? If you agree with the statement that "It is cruel to kill a non-human animal against their will." then you have to agree that it's wrong to kill plants. Just because they don't move (much) or have any characteristics that would endear you like an animal they are still very much alive. Why are animals put above plants if they're both alive?

Rather then PETA and other ANIMAL driven organizations shouldn't it be LIFE driven organizations? A termite isn't a whole lot different from a Venus fly trap when put in comparison. You say people ignore that animals have feelings and consciousness like humans but likewise you ignore that plants have those things too.

Proof (http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html)

Suppose there is a lush green plant and its leaves are a sparkling green in the shining sunlight. We feel like pulling out a leaf to feel it. But we do not think of what goes on inside the plant. Maybe, we feel that the plant does not suffer like us. But the plant does suffer. In fact the pulsation of the plant stops where the leaf was plucked. In a short time the pulsation again begins at the spot, but this time very slowly. And then it completely stops. That spot is as good as dead for the plant.

Researchers from Michigan State University have also recently discovered that plants have a rudimentary nerve structure, which allows them to feel pain. According to the peer-reviewed journal Plant Physiology, plants are capable of identifying danger, signaling that danger to other plants and marshaling defenses against perceived threats. According to botanist Bill Williams of the Helvetica Institute, "plants not only seem to be aware and to feel pain, they can even communicate."

This research has prompted the Swiss government to pass the first-ever Plant Bill of Rights. It concludes that plants have moral and legal protections, and Swiss citizens have to treat them appropriately. Vegetarians would do well to investigate this data before claiming to be superior to those of us who do not subscribe to the idea that eating meat is morally wrong.

[pinketamine]

PETA (People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area) is definitely a pet peeve of mine. Those people are to Humane Treatment of Animals what sexually abusive Priests are to the Catholic Church, evil incarnate.
Do you have any argument to support this, or you are just letting us know that you hate PETA?

[Oaktree]

Plenty of humans lack the level of rationality that you and I have. It raises the question: Why are we citing rational ability as a yardstick for life's worth? Is it any less a tragedy for an infant or a low functioning disabled person to be killed against their will? Maybe it is less a tragedy, but it is still a tragedy, right? An affront to another's right not to be killed?

Or is it only a social tragedy, without regard to the individual?

I don't know if I'd call it as much a tragedy for a human incapable of higher-level reasoning to be killed as it is for a human with higher-level reasoning to be killed. It's a very emotionally weighted issue, as we tend to feel for other humans more than we feel for other animals. If a person is unaware of his/her existence, maybe in a coma, for example, it is tragic that the person came to be in that state, but if the person doesn't appear to be coming out of that coma, I would say it is less tragic for that person to die than for another fully functional individual to die. But, yes, it is still a tragedy, and I agree that it is a tragedy for animals to be needlessly killed.

I agree. But such "them or us" situations are extremely rare in daily life. Certainly meat-eating isn't such a question for most of us. For a lot of us meat-eating is unnecessary, it's an indulgence (indeed in any balanced diet it should only be an occasional indulgence), like a cigar. Many of us don't need it ... we just enjoy over any alternatives we might not be habituated to.

Again, that raises the question: It is ethical to derive enjoyment from another individual's slaughter?

I agree again. Most people eat far more meat than is strictly necessary. The average person really doesn't need it more than maybe a couple times a week, tops. But habits die hard, so people become used to eating more meat than is necessary. I admit that I do it, though not to the same extent as some. I don't always consider whether I need a particular meat dish to balance my diet, or whether I would be better off finding a vegetarian dish.

And, no, it is not ethical to derive enjoyment from the suffering of others. I don’t think that there is any ethical system that allows that.

I have that response too. But it is only an emotional, irrational response - what makes any human so much more worthy of compassion than any pig? Rationality? But not all humans have more rationality than a pig (speaking seriously). Humans are predisposed to prejudice against those outside our tribal groups, let alone those outside our species. If we are to be humane then it is up to us to overcome such predispositions as well as we can. We're smart enough to.


Typical adult humans, or even typical children above a certain age do possess rationality beyond that of a pig. I think the reason why people do not want to allow for infants being considered less than other animals is because there cannot be rational adult humans without infants. By failing to act in the best interests of human infants, you are ignoring rationality as surely as if you simply valued humans equivalently to animals. Yet, I don’t think this can be rightfully done, for the reasons I mentioned before: that rational beings have a greater appreciation for life and a greater ability to deliberately change the world around them.

I’m not defending insensitivity to animals when I say this, but I think the main reason why people are so quick to ignore the interests of animals is because animals cannot communicate very well with us. If you look at human history, take two groups of humans without a common language and you are likely to see conflict. On the flips side of things, look at the way people react to commercials or other forms of media that portray talking food. Most people find the idea rather horrifying. Communication is crucial for understanding and empathy towards other living things, but we are unfortunately unable to communicate effectively with animals.

Kiwi Tobacco is a plant and plants have been proven to feel pain and to react.

<snip>

Proof (http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html)

I see no sources in the article you linked, other than possibly the mention of the Journal of Parapsychology. Parapsychology is a load of mystical nonsense, and there is no real explanation as to why plants reacting to stimuli must mean that they specifically react to a painful stimulus. Proteins can be activated by light, hormones, metabolic intermediates, or a variety of other substances, without having any direct involvement in sensation. When you're put under sedation, your body still functions, even though you are receiving no sensory input. Sensation requires specific structures to detect and interpret stimuli in a particular manner. There is little to suggest that plants have such mechanisms.

[Robodl95]

There has been real scientific research done on the subject and rejecting it as nonsense is jumping the gun a bit. Though research is inconclusive you still have to wonder.(Everyone used to scoff at the ideas that the world was round and that the earth isn't the center of the universe too) Insects don't feel pain either you know, is it fine to kill them? (not to be cruel... just making a point here :) )

[Oaktree]

There has been real scientific research done on the subject and rejecting it as nonsense is jumping the gun a bit. Though research is inconclusive you still have to wonder.

Parapsychology is one of those categories where the only kinds of things you find in it are things that are rejected by the scientific community. If any theory originating under the field of parapsychology were found to be strongly supported by evidence, that theory would them be subsumed into whichever branch of science it most closely related to. Parapsychology is, almost by definition, a pseudoscience. This is because it seeks to explore the supernatural and the supernatural cannot be explored in terms of a natural world.

Insects don't feel pain either you know, is it fine to kill them? (not to be cruel...)

I wasn't aware of this. I suppose my earlier example of torturing bees is slightly off-base. Still, as insects are aware (I don't mean self-aware; I simply mean aware of their environment, capable of sensation), I would say that it is not right to kill them without reason. As they do take in sense data, killing them would be depriving them of experience. Their brains are not complex enough to have true emotion, so it's nowhere near the same as killing a small mammal, for example, but a degree of consideration should be given to insects insofar as they are able to have some small amount of awareness of life.

[pinketamine]

Well, considering that the "research" begins with the author telling how he/she did these discoveries while visiting a marijuana plantation... my conclusion is that he was stoned.
There isn't any scientific proof of plants having "feelings" or intelligence or anything like that. I don't think you can compare plants to animals (even insects) for the reasons Oaktree said.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

death is natural. death, however we've twisted it to look, is not a punishment.

nature and preference are not the same things. i can choose to deny myself sex for my life, but that doesnt change that it is in my nature to partake in/deeply desire sex.


that being said, i do believe in merciful killings, basically, not causing more pain/trauma than what cannot be avoided.

for everything else, i have to say i agree with Simsclicker entirely.

[kiwi_tea]

Appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

[tyto astrum]

This reason you find it slightly ridiculous is because, surely, you know that an organism needs a brain-like organ in order to think and feel. Plants may respond to all sorts of stimulae. That's not the same thing as plants experiencing those stimulae.

A deer can suffer. A pine tree can't.

No, I find it slightly ridiculous not because plants don't have a 'brain-like organ,' but because most people don't spend much time in the middle of a field talking to produce. Several things counted as animals don't have 'brain-like organs.' All jelly fish, for starters. Many insects as well. All of these things do have something resembling nervous systems, though, plants included.

A plant wouldn't react to stimulae it wasn't experiencing. And simply because it doesn't think doesn't mean it doesn't feel. And it's just as dead as the animal is to become your food. It was still killed to become nutrients for you.

Now, I'm not trying to say your salad is screaming, because if it is, I can't hear it, and would eat it anyhow. I'm saying its also dead matter.

[Drakesecaravdis]

did someone seriously compare meat eating to a cigar? that is just about one of the most disgusting things I've read in a while. it's almost offensive even *gag*

cigars smell horrible...one of the most nasty smells (not as bad as weed but still a bad smell)
they rot your lungs, also a nasty concept
they make people around you cough

it's not equivalent. I cannot see cigars ok as an occasional indulgence
couldn't you at least say chocolate? that would be a more appropriate example.


some people can probly be healthy as a vegetarian but to sorta reiterate what Oaktree said, vegetarian substitutes would be costly. for poor people, meat is definitely necessary
I couldn't live off vegetables I just couldn't...not even cuz I'm picky as hell (true I am but that's not the point) I tried eating celery for dinner once. my stomach honestly did not feel satisfied, it's like it needed something more. when I ate meat later that day my stomach was happy
I've heard tofu is gross. if that's true then I'm sure I won't find it edible. I'm an off the wall/detached from the world type person (for example I have literally felt pain plenty of times when someone seriously injures themselves in a movie or I will have a weird feeling in my vag when I see something gory) so considering that if something tastes gross it won't be a surprise if I won't be able to physically take it. actually I do seem to recall a time where that has happened, I remember when my mom's bf made breakfast and I tried to eat it. I think it tasted so gross to me that I felt a little nautious. my mom was fine so don't think bad food was the problem.


that being said I probly do eat meat more than is necessary and less veggies than I should..what can I say? I'm like a carnivore.
in fact my dietary habits could easily be what's giving me those occasional stomachaches
but personally I think if it was eliminated completely from my diet I wouldn't be as healthy as I am.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Drakesecaravdis - Being a vegetarian is not about eating celery for dinner, or tofu. If all you had for dinner was celery, of COURSE you didn't feel satisfied. You wouldn't just have a piece of chicken for dinner either, would you? Celery is mostly water anyway - about as good for you as iceberg lettuce (i.e. not very).

As with any diet, it's about taking in a balanced amount of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, fiber, vitamins, and minerals. There are yummy vegetarian meals that aren't just vegetables - one of my favourites is beans, cilantro, cheese, tomatoes, and spices put together into a flour tortilla with the corners folded in and then grilled so it stays together in a neat little pocket. It's hearty, satisfying, healthy, and has no meat in it. I'm not a vegetarian, but it's one of my go-to meals as it's so easy, and any leftover tortilla pockets are great cold as a snack.

Tofu can be delicious, if prepared properly - when it's soggy and mushy, it's not very nice, but you can slice it thin and stir fry it with veggies and teriyaki/soy sauce so the outside is nice and browned and crispy, and serve it over rice in place of chicken and it's really yummy. It has very little flavour of its own - just sort of a proteiny taste, very similar to chicken but with less of a fibrous texture.

I'm not saying "go be a vegetarian the right way cos ur doing it rong" or anything, just... I think you maybe have an unrealistic picture of eating meatless meals, and it might be worth finding some yummy vegetarian recipes and trying them once a week.

[RoseCity]

By small I meant a minority, even in India it is a minority as it's about 40/60. Besides India, Israel and a couple other countries vegetarians are a really small minority (I think it's like 2-4% in the US and Western Europe)

There are still people everywhere who don't have enough to eat. Shouldn't we worry about making sure every person has enough to eat before we worry about the ethics of meat?

If you wanted to make sure everyone had enough to eat, I don't think you could accomplish that with meat. I've read that using land for meat production is an inefficient and wasteful use of resources. If you mean that everyone could run around catching and eating everything that's not human, don't you think hungry people already do that? There are places I think where there isn't a lot of wildlife left. Where I live there's a huge amount of white tail deer - maybe too many for the land to support. But if people in this area needed to hunt them for food, due to poverty or famine, their population would be wiped out in a relatively short time.
Worse to me than the method of killing animals for food are the conditions in which they're raised. I'm talking about the US, I don't know what other countries do. Feed lots, factory hog farms, chickens crammed in cages. That's the reason I'm a vegetarian more than any other. The sight of one of those hog operations makes me very ill. Not to mention the amount of pollution that comes out of them.

[longears15]

Straying slightly from the topic - I agree totallly with HP (as per usual :)) Vegetarian meals are actually very, very easy to prepare - all you need are a couple of good base recipes and away you go. If anyone wants a few, drop me a PM and I'll post some in the Culinary Delights social group. I love cooking and do most of the cooking for my family - and I've cooked many a vegetarian meal that they have half-eaten before realising that there is no meat in it ;)

It is possible to prepare a meal cheaply too...a decent piece of meat here costs anything from about $10-15/kg up to $30+/kg for the really prime cuts. Chicken is about $8-10/kg. Fresh fish, depending on the type is anything from $10-$40/kg and I find that I need about 500g to feed my family (I don't eat it obviously). Depending on the dish and what else is prepared with it, that amount often gives 1-2 leftover meals that can be had for lunch the following day or frozen for later use. A vegetarian meal is, if anything, cheaper. A tin of beans or lentils is $1.00 or less and a couple of them gives more than enough as a meat substitute. Then add in your vegies, spices or whatever for either a meat or vegie dish...

[kiwi_tea]

A vegetarian meal is, if anything, cheaper.

I have to attest to that. When my partner stopped eating meat a few years back our grocery bills dropped by nearly $30 a week!

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

didnt say it was "good or right"; just that it is.

i'll thank you not to skew my opinion to your liking.
good and right are made up terms anyway, used to describe what we feel to be worth encouraging and beneficial to ourselves/others. theres no truly right or wrong way to eat....just what is most beneficial, and least beneficial, to ourselves. oh yes, OURSELVES. we may all be the same on a fundamental level, but there are often times critical differences in how our bodies actually react and operate to certain food substances. im a bit tired of people parading around like they know whats best for everyone else.

vegetarianism work well for you? fine. not the case for me.

[el_flel]

A vegetarian meal is, if anything, cheaper. I have to attest to that. When my partner stopped eating meat a few years back our grocery bills dropped by nearly $30 a week!A friend of mine became a veggie sort of by accident because she couldn't afford to buy meat often so eventually just stopped buying it. That was years and years ago and she still doesn't eat it.

[Robodl95]

The biggest problem I see with a vegetarian diet is that it's harder to get your recommended daily amount of protein. Yes there are a lot of alternatives but none of them are as effective as meat, meaning that you have to eat a lot more. The average 150 pound person needs about 55 grams of protein per day. Go here (http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/highproteinfood.htm) to see the chart. You would need to eat 3 1/2 cups of tofu to equal about the value of a 6 oz steak and a hamburger patty. Tofu is one of the highest protein vege options there and 3 1/2 cups of anything seems like a lot. Maybe it's just me? Someone earlier mentioned a breakfast of beans on toast, most beans give you about 7-10 grams and so if that's all you eat for breakfast then you have a lot of protein still left to eat that day.

I suppose there's always the possibility of protein shakes or something but it seems like it would be much easier to miss the mark if you weren't committed. Remember that the 55 grams is talking about someone who is 150 pounds, most males and lots of women too are above that number. A 200 pound person needs 74 grams and 250 pounds need 92 grams.

[longears15]

I disagree - as long as you are still having a well balanced diet and including the sorts of alternatives that HP and I have mentioned, it's almost impossible to have a truly protein deficient diet. You also forget that grains such as wheat, and particularly oats, have good quality protein as well. So if you have toast or cereal with your breakfast, there is protein there too. If you have milk on your cereal - more protein.

I have been vegetarian for 17 years now. I also have a very serious medical condition - a complication of which is that my stomach packed its bags a couple of years ago and decided to stop processing normal food. For the last two years my diet has consisted almost entirely of porridge, vegetable soup made with lentils or split peas, and a yoghurt made from soya milk, because they are the only foods my stomach will cope with without me vomiting it all up again. Because of all this I have to have very regular blood tests to monitor my protein, electrolytes, etc., and except when I become so ill that I can't eat at all my protein levels are perfect :)

[kiwi_tea]

good and right are made up terms anyway, used to describe what we feel to be worth encouraging and beneficial to ourselves/others. theres no truly right or wrong way to eat....just what is most beneficial, and least beneficial, to ourselves. oh yes, OURSELVES.

So, in short, you advocate we all become sociopaths. Because frankly your championing of antisocial values here says volumes more than I could say about the moral bankruptcy of your position.

You want to live for yourself/your family/your country/your race/your species alone? Whichever. Then just don't expect you have a right to avoid a bunch of young punks hanging your cat (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/693433).

You don't have to care about non-humans. No one can make you, just like no one can make you care about all other humans. That's not the point. The point is it's the responsibility of we who value reason and ethics - who value ourselves and empathise with others - to reason out what is humane and respectful to all parties involved in a situation. If you haven't made a commitment to care for others regardless of irrelevant categories like race, gender or species, that's sad, it's destructive, but it's not something I can argue with effectively. You can't argue people into being compassionate if they're not compassionate people. My arguments will only matter to those who have made a commitment to caring for others, understand the arbitrariness and controversy in science surrounding terms like "species". The commitment to respect a cat's feelings is the same commitment as to care for a stranger on the street's feelings. I refuse to disregard others. If you want to: That's your fault.

Fault by any reasoned measure of morality.

I agree that good and bad are socially defined. That doesn't mean that we can abandon reason and empathy just to arbitrarily enforce a double standard all in service of treating non-humans with callous disregard.

We either define good and bad consistently and intelligently, or we do what you did and devalue the very idea that good and bad matter socially. I refuse to do what you just did.

[Robodl95]

Good and Bad depend on the person/situation. As the person you quoted said there is no good or bad. It works for some people and not the other, some see eating anything with a face as "bad" but to others it's not. Take the Holocaust for example, to the world now (and then) it was a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad thing right? But to the Germans they believed in the nazi regime and so exterminating the world of "inferior races" was a good thing to them.

No one is saying to be cruel to animals and to argue that anyone who eats meat occasionally is uncompassionate is really shallow. If you were to save a puppy or a baby from a car/fire/wolf/something (can only save one) which would you choose? I want an honest answer. Would you put the life of a dog over the life of one of your own species? Because you're arguing that we're completely equal.

[kiwi_tea]

Robodl95. I've answered that question already. I'd save the child, not the dog. That doesn't justify meat-eating though.

I'd save a member of my family before a stranger. Is that an argument that I can kill strangers?

I've said time and time again that humans and non-humans are not exactly equal, only saliently equal.

And did you seriously just make a case for moral relativism citing the Holocaust? OMFG.

[Arisuka]

If organs and tissue can be grown in laboratories, why not meat too? Maybe that will be the future of meat production. Would sure be more environmentally friendly and way less cruel.

The thing that I'm most concerned with meat is the fact of how many westerners throw away vasts amounts of food these days! And that is a sign of over-production and/or over-consumption, which means more environmental problems and cruelty than what is absolutely necessary.

I think that rather than pondering about to eat or not to eat, it is more important to question the origin of the meat. I personally think that rather than not eating meat, the better and more responsible way of trying to affect to the industry is by buying and supporting products of which you know where it comes from and how it has been produced.

[Phoeberg]

Unless you have never eaten meat then yes it is your nature, buying meat simply gives money to the meat companies (to kill more animals). A lot of people would never have the heart to do it themselves (myself included) but unless you're a vegetarian you cannot complain about hunting.

I have never eaten meat but in a strange way I do agree with hunting. In my ideal world nobody would kill or eat animals but seeing as that is obviously not the case and is unlikely to be the case, at least for the foreseeable future, I prefer to know that people eating meat are willing to kill it. I know so many people, who like you, are perfectly willing to eat meat if it comes to them already slaughtered and packaged neatly, ready to cook and eat. If you're going to eat meat I feel you should be willing to go out there, kill the animal, skin it etc etc. If you're not willing to do that, then how can you say it's "natural" for you (that's a general you, not YOU specifically) to eat meat? It's not exactly "natural" to stroll into a supermarket and pick some chicken breasts, say, ready to cook, that isn't part of any "natural selection" or a foodchain. If you were living in prehistoric times and were unwilling to hunt your own food then you'd be dead. THAT'S natural selection. I guess I don't understand why people eat meat if they feel they have to put the thought of where it came from out of their head when they're eating it.

I think that if I hadn't always been a vegetarian then I would have at some point made the decision to become one, partly because I know I would never be willing to kill the animal myself.

[kiwi_tea]

It's not "natural" to have breast cancer surgery either, Bewitched Prue.

[Robodl95]

It's not "natural" to have breast cancer surgery either, Bewitched Prue.

Sorry but that does not have any connection to hunting and what we're talking about. The analogy you're trying to make is: Hunting vs. Grocery Store (Both result in eating meat) = Having BC surgery vs. not having it (One results in living -maybe- and the other results in dying) That is not a working analogy. Right now we're discussing the ethics of buying meat at a store vs. hunting.

[pinketamine]

Take the Holocaust for example, to the world now (and then) it was a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad thing right? But to the Germans they believed in the nazi regime and so exterminating the world of "inferior races" was a good thing to them.

This is probably one of the most disrespectful examples you could use. Nine million people died in a horrible way in the camps. Comparing this to eating meat is just...

BewitchedPrue, I agree with kiwi_tea on this. The fact of something not being natural does not make it bad. You can argue vegetarianism with many arguments, but saying that is not natural to eat animals if you don't haunt them does not make sense to me. Most people, vegetarian or not, but the food in some kind of supermarket/grocery shop; should the stop eating just because they are not doing things in a natural way?

Related to this topic, I wanted to ask you about bullfighting. Sadly for me, I live in a country with a GREAT bullfighting tradition. It horrifies me, but people justify is saying is a "honorable tradition" and shit like that.
Do you think these kind of things should be totally forbidden?

Sorry but that does not have any connection to hunting and what we're talking about. The analogy you're trying to make is: Hunting vs. Grocery Store (Both result in eating meat) = Having BC surgery vs. not having it (One results in living -maybe- and the other results in dying) That is not a working analogy. Right now we're discussing the ethics of buying meat at a store vs. hunting.
After making a comparison with the Holocaust and eating meat I find it creepy and oddly funny that you think kiwi_tea's comparison is not valid.

[Robodl95]

The Nazi example didn't have anything to do with eating meat. It was an extreme example (I understand that) to show how point of view affects things. Being a vegetarian isn't for everyone and it should be a personal thing rather then outlawing meat/hunting or making generalized statements about everyone.

To have a valid analogy the outcomes have to be the same, Buying meat and hunting lead to the same conclusion but surgery vs. no surgery does not.

[kiwi_tea]

Robodl95, on page one I stated:

The question very quickly arises though: When is using an animal for food necessary? If it is unnecessary, and against the animal's conscious will, is it justifiable? We don't consider it just to kill another human without very good reason. We recognise that other people have a will to live, emotions, consciousness, capacity to suffer, ability to dissent. We empathise with these traits. We do unto others roughly as we'd have done to ourselves. Roughly. So why one rule for our species, and another for any other (let's say avian or mammalian) species, when most (if not all) of the salient characteristics in this situation are the same: Will to live, consciousness, emotions, capacity to suffer, ability to dissent.

I've killed a lot of pigs in mind time, and their terror at being manhandled out of their home enviroment is clear and in only one way distinct from the terror of a man or woman in the same position - less coherent, less linguistic, that is all. A minor distinction, like the terror of a young child. The idea is it's okay if we kill them quickly, without pain, and without their knowledge (indeed, can they conceptualise death, or just fear injury?). Is killing pigs without their knowledge more ethical than killing a person without their knowledge? Does ignorance of one's death make one's death a non-issue? Even bearing in mind a pig's inability to seriously reflect on questions of mortality, I don't think it does. Once a human or a pig is here on this Earth, thinking and feeling and breathing, we have a responsibility within certain confines to respect their wishes. They are another person and "person of sorts". To justify eating meat we do something like "dehumanisation" to our prey, only there is no word for it, we're too scientifically backwards as yet to have coined one, we largely still believe in human exceptionalism despite biology's departure from it. We "demean" other animals. We "degrade" them. We "deanimalise" them. We pretend that their will to live, consciousness, emotions, capacity to suffer and their ability to dissent from being slaughtered are not salient factors in the ethical equation. Only by such a deep degrading of the non-human can we get ludicrous claims like "eating meat is a personal choice". Strictly personal choices don't usually involve a second conscious and dissenting party. It couldn't be more bullshit to say that eating meat is a strictly personal choice on the eater's behalf while the eatees actively protest their slaughter when given any remote chance to.

I stand by it. You know, I wouldn't mind seeing meat-eaters actually engage with this argument a bit more. Why is it taboo to dehumanise humans, but deanimalisation (to coin a term) is positively encouraged? Why are humans the sum of their parts in ethical debates, but non-humans less than the sum of their parts?

To have a valid analogy the outcomes have to be the same, Buying meat and hunting lead to the same conclusion but surgery vs. no surgery does not.
I have no idea how you've managed to misinterpret my point so immensely. All I was suggesting is that "nature" is a totally subjective term, and not a useful term when used the way most people in this debate have been using it. People in this debate are using the term "nature" to say "this is how things should be because I feel it's how they should be", an intellectually bankrupt position hiding behind a word.

[Rectos Dominos]

There is one common argument I hear on this forum and in real life when it comes to both meat-eaters and vegetarians regarding their point of view is that "it's not natural". I laugh when I hear this comment no matter who it comes from.

We humans are omnivorous meaning our bodies are adapted for both plants and animals, it doesn't mean we have to have both, or to only live on just one. Unlike carnivores and herbivores we can choose what we eat. There are other omnivorous creatures as well but our diet has the most variety of all species.

I feel both diets are neither natural or unnatural.

[Robodl95]

You know the strangest part about this thread is that I don't even meat regularly? I might have bacon or shrimp once every couple weeks but it's pretty much non-existent from my diet otherwise. I'm not pro-vegan or this horrible animal killer that I feel like I'm playing in this debate (it's a debate, I'm debating you), I'm sort of in limbo. I'm really sorry if I've offended anyone or if I've given you a poor impression of myself. Just thought I'd clear that up :)

[longears15]

Bewitched Prue, please be assured that I'm not trying to have a go at you in any way - was just your post that triggered this thought...

Is it any more unnatural to buy packaged meat than it is to buy tinned fruit and vegetables, or even fresh fruit/veg from a supermarket? Tinned food doesn't grow on trees. With fresh produce, you're not growing or harvesting the food yourself, often they are grown with pesticides, artificially ripened.

What is the general feeling about eggs? How many of you are aware of the conditions that battery cage hens live under/how many buy cage eggs. How many people buy barn eggs or free range eggs?

[pinketamine]

What is the general feeling about eggs? How many of you are aware of the conditions that battery cage hens live under/how many buy cage eggs. How many people buy barn eggs or free range eggs?
I do, for the reason you said. The conditions in which some hens live are HORRIBLE so my family only buys eggs from farms where the hens can be free. These eggs might be more expensive, but they don't come from tortured hens... and they taste a million times better, too.

[RoseCity]

.

What is the general feeling about eggs? How many of you are aware of the conditions that battery cage hens live under/how many buy cage eggs. How many people buy barn eggs or free range eggs?
Yes, I get my eggs from a woman my husband works with. I tried keeping my own chickens, but my neighbors complained to the town. (I only had 2)

[SuicidiaParasidia]

If organs and tissue can be grown in laboratories, why not meat too? Maybe that will be the future of meat production.

are you kidding? i honestly cant tell.
i dont trust those people with bread, let alone cloning. have you seen what they did to yogurt? and lowfat milk. now everything causes cancer, 'cause the labs got in on the "fun" that is our food.

and kiwi_tea, i dont think i need to say that personal attacks are just...silly. :)
maybe i do. just a reminder, if you have beef with my musings, you may take it up with me in PM. oh but i doubt you will; it would hardly do anything to deface me to others, would it.
maybe i should clarify....
good and bad/evil, right and wrong, are terms we humans use to describe in an instant what we are emotionally invested in, in a positive or negative light.
for example, if i tell you right now that spiders are EVIL/BAD, what does that tell you?
it tells you that i hate spiders. that i do not want to hear them, touch them, look at them--i may even have some bad experiences with spiders.
but does my feeling that spiders are evil, CHANGE their nature from spiders that are just spiders, into beings of doom?
NO.
theyre still just spiders, theyll always be just spiders.

now.
your turn.

[kiwi_tea]

SuicidiaParasidia

I think I spoke generally enough, at same time in direct response to your moral claims - this is a moral debate -, not to be construed as making a personal attack. Indeed, I don't believe you've even given thought to what it is you really said, if you're still trying to defend it.

Do I think you're a sociopath? No. Only that out of desperate desire to write-off non-humans you've made an argument you don't believe. You not only claimed that "good and bad" are subjective - to which I agree - you also claimed that good and bad only matters to ourselves. You made a clear argument that we should consider, each ourselves, arbitrators of our own moral kingdom.

I disagree. I think that is asking us to be sociopaths. We MUST factor OTHERS in. We live in a world inhabited by other minds, and if we want respect from them, we must treat them well. Beyond garnering just respect from them, we understand to some degree what it is like to BE them. We suffer and thereby understand another's suffering. We can empathise, and act kindly on that basis. We know to cause suffering needlessly is bad because it is bad for us when we suffer needlessly.

Only sociopaths, who lack empathy, fail to factor the feelings of others into their ethical decision-making.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

SuicidiaParasidia

I think I spoke generally enough, at same time in direct response to your moral claims - this is a moral debate -, not to be construed as making a personal attack. Indeed, I don't believe you've even given thought to what it is you really said, if you're still trying to defend it.

pretty sure i know the intent & sentiment of my own words. :/ whether or not you take them the way i intended, however, is another matter.

i am not speaking in hieroglyphs; what i say is what i mean. you have searched for, and found, a message that was neither intentionally implied nor considered in the making of my sentence.

Do I think you're a sociopath? No. Only that out of desperate desire to write-off non-humans you've made an argument you don't believe. You not only claimed that "good and bad" are subjective - to which I agree - you also claimed that good and bad only matters to ourselves. You made a clear argument that we should consider, each ourselves, arbitrators of our own moral kingdom.

correction: i said that what is beneficial is what matters to ourselves.
"theres no truly right or wrong way to eat....just what is most beneficial, and least beneficial, to ourselves. oh yes, OURSELVES."
and youll notice i was talking about food, since as inevitably as conversations about evolution turn into a raging war about religion, ethical treatment of animals turns into a Vegetarian VS Meat-Eaters argument.

now, what you see i do not agree with, but to me the bolded meant that we only know what is good for ourselves. we do not know what works best for other people, so its keenly pointless to turn such threads into Vegetarianism VS Meat-Eaters.

yes, that is it, that is all, thank you and goodnight.

[kiwi_tea]

"theres no truly right or wrong way to eat....just what is most beneficial, and least beneficial, to ourselves. oh yes, OURSELVES."

Which, in the context of this conversation, seems to imply that the food's thoughts and feelings - when it has/had thoughts and feelings - is not an important factor in the discussion.

<sarcasm>
"There's no truly right or wrong way to eat"? So cannibalism is just fine then, right? After all, it's eating, and there's no truly "right or wrong way to eat".
</sarcasm>

[Elyasis]

I know you meant that in jest but I can't help but agree with that. However, there are legal and illegal things to eat/kill. Cannibalism might be the last desperate action for a starving person and I don't think anyone can say they were wrong to rely on what they had to survive. That's why generalizing things so personal as human's diets is a dangerous course to take. There are simply too many variables. For that we rely on a persons own ethics to let them determine what is right for them. This may be any range of options. No matter what impassioned argument you come up with in the defense of animal rights there will be plenty who could not care less. I don't mean to be a pessimist or a breaker of bubbles (though I doubt this hasn't already occurred to you) but it is a realistic point of view to take.

Now as for the OP, yes I do think one can minimize the direct suffering you cause when killing it. Thereby making it more "humane". And I do think there are plenty of occasions where not killing the animal is worse than letting it live.

[kiwi_tea]

Cannibalism might be the last desperate action for a starving person and I don't think anyone can say they were wrong to rely on what they had to survive.

Depends. Did they kill the person? Because if they killed the person against that person's will then I'm quite prepared to call the situation murder. Seems rather cut and dry.

However, if they just ate the body, sure, that's cannibalism that I think most people can understand and accept. The variables aren't that overwhelming, in the most basic cases it boils down to asking, "Is my victim a still-living conscious being, and will it/he/she protest if I try to kill it/him/her?"

It strikes me that it's all a matter of clearly implied dissent, the only kind of dissent that an animal or young child or mentally disabled person might be able to offer. Knife on the throat? They panic and kick? Then put the bloody knife away. Why did you get it out in the first place? You knew enough to assume the animal/child didn't want to be killed in the first place.

I totally understand that many people won't care about slaughtering animals. The same can be said of caring about murders. Some people just don't care about murders if they don't know the victims. Not caring, sure, it happens all the time. It doesn't excuse attacks on others, though. The reason this isn't a personal choice is because there is a conscious protesting party - in effect a second "person" of sorts - with opinions in the equation.

It's no more a personal choice than raping a non-human animal is a "personal choice".

[Elyasis]

Person implies a human being. There is a reason for there not to be laws in place to prevent the killing of animals. So many societies today rely on animal products. They would literally die out without them. Also, I know you are only trying to stir up the same personal disgust you feel about killing animals in others by using terms so far out of the same bounds as to be a tenuous connection at best. So far we are the leading sentient power and I choose to accept the reality that a world without killing animals is literally impossible and also unwise for the overall health of the ecosystem. Gradual phasing of the reliance on meat and animal products on the other hand may be possible in a limited way. But only for countries that can make the change as stable as possible so as to not run out of resources that are needed for that country to sustain itself. We can change our own diets to something we are comfortable with. That is something every individual must decide for themselves. It's always about the individual. I think a better appeal for most people is their own health. If it becomes a better option for them personally and is not because of some misplaced guilt you can expect better results. Overall you have to be appealing, not discriminatory, if you want a world wide vegan/vegetarian culture.

When is murder not murder? So many situations spring up that I doubt anyone can say the issue is really as cut and dry as you'd like to think. Hence why we have varying degrees of punishment for essentially the same crime in the criminal justice system. Murder in the 1st and second degrees, manslaughter, criminal negligence, deferring punishment due to being criminally insane. All these when I'm certain not one of the people killed wanted it (maybe in the case of assisted suicide but the person cannot say so in court on account of being very much dead).

And... I think I've rambled on enough.

[Black_Barook!]

Pot...?

[Ledgo]

There is a difference between humanely killing a creature and inhumanely.

I for one believe that hunting for good use. I don't typically agree with trophy hunting, slopping off the head and letting the body rot. I agree and view it a good use should the meat and fur be donated and put to use. As someone with hunters in his family, we use all the meat possible in a deer and the fur.

Also, I feel hunting serves a purpose when we have an overpopulation of animals. However, I view the hunting or killing of low populated species as wrong.

As for slaughter houses, I typically hold them a bit negatively, especially those with poor care for the animals. No real way to treat them great, and we ALL know this is a market we can't have disappear in one day, but what happens in some of them pretty much sucks.

[Phoeberg]

Bewitched Prue, please be assured that I'm not trying to have a go at you in any way - was just your post that triggered this thought...

Is it any more unnatural to buy packaged meat than it is to buy tinned fruit and vegetables, or even fresh fruit/veg from a supermarket? Tinned food doesn't grow on trees. With fresh produce, you're not growing or harvesting the food yourself, often they are grown with pesticides, artificially ripened.

I see your point, but I am perfectly willing to grow my own fruit and vegetables and harvest them myself, and in fact I do. Naturally I do buy fruit and vegetables from supermarkets too, as it is obviously easier and quicker. I just feel that many meats eaters don't buy packaged meat simply because it's easier and quicker than hunting and preparing it themselves, they just aren't prepared to kill it themselves. I'm not saying this applies to all meat eaters, I'm sure there are plenty who would be happy to hunt their own meat but find it easier to buy it prepackaged, but there are many more who wouldn't. It just doesn't seem to fit with the most frequent argument I hear from meat eaters: 'It's natural for us to kill and eat animals, it's part of who we are.' It obviously doesn't come that naturally if you can't bring yourself to kill it yourself.

It's not "natural" to have breast cancer surgery either, Bewitched Prue.

I'm not saying that something has to be natural or unnatural, I was pointing out that I often hear meat eaters arguing about how eating meat is so "natural". Perhaps I should have used the word "innate" instead, it's just that meat eaters often seem to use the word natural when talking to me about it. If they are such big believers in things being natural, then by your argument (and theirs) they should be boycotting hospitals and modern medicine. Obviously I don't really believe that or believe that they believe that, but you've actually helpfully pointed out why their argument about going back to what our cavemen ancestors did (apparently this is why they consider eating meat to be natural, so they tell me) is so flawed.


Sorry, Longears and Kiwi_tea, I don't think I made myself entirely clear by using the word natural. I didn't mean natural as in coming from nature, I meant natural as in something coming naturally, or being innate.

[Drakesecaravdis]

I see your point, but I am perfectly willing to grow my own fruit and vegetables and harvest them myself, and in fact I do. Naturally I do buy fruit and vegetables from supermarkets too, as it is obviously easier and quicker. I just feel that many meats eaters don't buy packaged meat simply because it's easier and quicker than hunting and preparing it themselves, they just aren't prepared to kill it themselves. I'm not saying this applies to all meat eaters, I'm sure there are plenty who would be happy to hunt their own meat but find it easier to buy it prepackaged, but there are many more who wouldn't. It just doesn't seem to fit with the most frequent argument I hear from meat eaters: 'It's natural for us to kill and eat animals, it's part of who we are.' It obviously doesn't come that naturally if you can't bring yourself to kill it yourself.
.

I think maybe they have worded that wrong. they should probly just say it's natural for us to eat animals

[kiwi_tea]

*facepalm*

[Tempscire]

I just feel that many meats eaters don't buy packaged meat simply because it's easier and quicker than hunting and preparing it themselves, they just aren't prepared to kill it themselves. I'm not saying this applies to all meat eaters, I'm sure there are plenty who would be happy to hunt their own meat but find it easier to buy it prepackaged, but there are many more who wouldn't. ... It obviously doesn't come that naturally if you can't bring yourself to kill it yourself.
So you would argue that we have pre-butchered and packaged meat in stores because people were unwilling to slaughter for themselves, as opposed to people are unwilling to slaughter animals themselves because they've grown up wholly removed from that process?

People on whole used to be a lot less squeamish about many things, including death (byproduct of high mortality rates that have only in the last century or two plunged). Relegating tasks, specializing in non-essential careers (by which I mean jobs that do not directly relate to the creation or management of life essentials like food) that allow money to be traded for necessary goods one does not produce oneself... all part of civilization, in the same way I don't normally bake my own bread or weave my own cloth.

[RoseCity]

Also it isn't even possible I don't think for the vast majority of people to raise, kill and butcher animals even if they wanted to. Unless you live in a rural area, zoning usually doesn't permit it, so it's kind of a moot point. (Although the few people I've known who raised animals for food, all either sent them away to be butchered or had someone come and do it for them.)

[ericagrey10]

I bet most non-vegetarians would never like to butcher the animal themselves. One animal eating other is a natural thing, but we as humans have developed a morality that killing is bad. But what did our ancestors do to fill their stomachs? I would say killing animals for other uses such as for making cosmetics or for decorative purposes is wrong. Because of these things some species have vanished and some are on the verge of extinction. It is this thoughtless killing that needs to be addressed and not the method of killing.