I don't think I could for food, but I think I could if they were suffering.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who made that purpose for the pig, not the poor pig.
I recently saw an anime called "Silver Spoon"... in it a city boy learns to adapt to farm life after joining an agricultural school
He becomes close to this pig which he names "Pork Bowl"
We know that the pig is livestock, and the character knows it too... however, he decides to name and bond with his pig despite knowing ahead of time he'll have to send it to the slaughter. He eventually does send his beloved pig to the slaughter with all the other pigs, even after getting so close to it...
luckily, I'm super macho and cool... otherwise that would have made me feel emotional.
But not only that, even after it's over, he decides to name the new batch of piglets that the school obtains as well.... think about it. Despite going through the emotional hurt of getting close to an animal and naming it only for it to die, he decides to do the exact same thing again... knowing full well he'll have to send those pigs to the slaughter too.
Could you do that? Kill an animal you've formed a bond with? Or form a bond with an animal you know you're going to have to kill or send to be killed?
No,I couldn't. I don't think I could harm an animal that I'd bonded with even in dire circumstances, which would disadvantage me during the zombie apocalypse.
I remember that painful scene in "Old Yeller."
The old plant verses the meat game, big difference bud.And who made it that you have to ingest protein to live? Surely not you.
The old plant verses the meat game, big difference bud.
Well I am more than happy where I get my protein from, and its much more healthier.Point is you still have to eat something. You have no choice if you wish to remain above dirt. Some of us realize the pointlessness of not capitalizing on and harvesting a huge source of life-giving protein that runs around on four legs.
It's not as though they just naturally produce food, you have to feed them too. Animals are just an unnecessary middle-man between you and nutrition. If you live in a traditional foraging society on the Arctic Tundra, hunting is probably necessary to survive, because the animals are utilizing food sources you can't and turning them into meat that you can. But you can just drive to the store and pick up vegetables, so turning them into baby pigs first is just inefficient.Point is you still have to eat something. You have no choice if you wish to remain above dirt. Some of us realize the pointlessness of not capitalizing on and harvesting a huge source of life-giving protein that runs around on four legs.
It's not as though they just naturally produce food, you have to feed them too. Animals are just an unnecessary middle-man between you and nutrition. If you live in a traditional foraging society on the Arctic Tundra, hunting is probably necessary to survive, because the animals are utilizing food sources you can't and turning them into meat that you can. But you can just drive to the store and pick up vegetables, so turning them into baby pigs first is just inefficient.
Well I am more than happy where I get my protein from, and its much more healthier.
What's the animal got to do with it? Their lifestyle choices are their own. I am saying that basing the human food economy on animals is inefficient, unless you are in a position, such as foraging off of tundra or grasslands, where that is the only way to get at protein. It is also "okay" in the moral sense provided you treat the animals well (though we usually don't). It's probably not okay in the ecological sense, since it leads to monumental wastage in an already wasteful system.Soo...you're saying killing and eating wild animals is ok? Or if we let our food animals become feral foragers, then it's ok to kill and eat them?
What's the animal got to do with it? Their lifestyle choices are their own. I am saying that basing the human food economy on animals is inefficient, unless you are in a position, such as foraging off of tundra or grasslands, where that is the only way to get at protein. It is also "okay" in the moral sense provided you treat the animals well (though we usually don't). It's probably not okay in the ecological sense, since it leads to monumental wastage in an already wasteful system.
Ha, yes we all seem to have a grand parent that lived to a ripe old age smoking or whatever, but the fact is that the less meat you eat the better for your health.My Grandmother lived to the ripe old age of 95, ate something that had a face practically every day (smoked unfiltered Pall Malls for 40 years, but that's another story), and was never sick a day in her life until the weekend she passed. Go figure.
I like to insult my dinner. Like this:I talk to my beans and my tomatoes too...
Well I am more than happy where I get my protein from, and its much more healthier.
Yes it is a different story, but most don't have that problem, and I am one of them.For you, maybe. For someone like me who can't digest any starch or grains, it's a very different story.