eating Meat? good or bad

[DallasApple]

Do you plan to eat what you kill?

Yeah..I would have a HUGE physycological brain mound to leap over to eat a person.

That would be a TOTAL leap..

I think someone would have to lie to me and tell me it was chicken ..:sad4:

Love


Dallas

 

[MSizer]

...I personally know families in the rural part of South Central Kentucky, U.S.A., where I live who survive by hunting deer in the winter and catching catfish in the summer....

Catfish are much harder to catch than plants. Plants don't squiggle nearly as much, and a deer can outrun a plant on it's worst of days.

...Again, this is not intended to ridicule anyone's personal moral perspective or their religious teachings, but if you don't see how man, the animal, or at least some men, are still bound to this earth like their ancestors, are still reliant on game for life, then with all due respect, you should come down here where I live for awhile and see that not everyone can afford to buy packaged beef from Kroger.

I'm not saying they should buy packaged beef from Kroger, it's immoral to do that. Animal protein is far more difficult to obtain than plant protein, no matter how you do it (yourself or through a store).

 

[bobhikes]

It's way too much to do in a post. In a nutshell, Haidt et al research wich led to the 5 moral domains (2 universal of harm and fairness, and the remaining 3, ingroup loyalty, personal purity and respect for authority, which about 50% of humans agree are moral matters) set the stage for basic universal values. They're not some theory thought up by anyone, they're researched conclusions obtained from surveying over 32 thousand people across cultures. Martha Nussbaum's "capabilities approach to ethics" (based on Amartya Sen's sustainable egalitarian economic theory) does a very clear job of hashing moral matters out based on principles of harm and fairness (the two universal moral domains discovered by Haidt). Interestingly enough, Haidt's findings support Nussbaum's theory, but they came after the theory, so she's pretty much a genius.

So basically two people whose's names I can't pronounce that you believe are genius's discovered the morals for the whole world that everyone now uses. Only no one told me. Just for fun and to fully address morals in the future I will read up on this.

Let just say ahead of time. I don't agree.

 

[DallasApple]

I have found that I am not strong or moral enough to completely follow the path of Ahimsa or nonviolence. So I try to follow the path of no unnecessary violence. I would kill a rat that is in my home. Take a medicine that was developed by animal experimentation. Protect myself from a robber. I do not eat meat because I see it as completely unnecessary. At the same time who am I to judge other on this issue.

But they do drink cow urine right?

Love

Dallas

 

[MSizer]

So basically two people whose's names I can't pronounce that you believe are genius's discovered the morals for the whole world that everyone now uses.

No actually, not at all.

Only no one told me. Just for fun and to fully address morals in the future I will read up on this.

Let just say ahead of time. I don't agree.

What can I say to that? We can pull the curtain, but not everyone wants to leave oz.

 

[Orias]

Well, we aren't omnivores. Most of us like meat (with the exception of the vegetarians and vegans). It is one of our survival methods. We need food and meat is one of them. So I think it's safe to say that meat is good.

Well there lady, I think you meant we arn't herbavores, for we do eat both meat and veggies.

Meat is good though. Especially the bloody kind.:drool:

 

[Smoke]

Nope. Should I?

No, but that's really what we're talking about here. We're not talking about killing for sport or killing to achieve some kind of social goal.

 

[BelieveMe]

Well there lady, I think you meant we arn't herbavores, for we do eat both meat and veggies.

Meat is good though. Especially the bloody kind.:drool:

crap. that is what i meant. don't judge me!

 

[MSizer]

No, but that's really what we're talking about here. We're not talking about killing for sport or killing to achieve some kind of social goal.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that wasting meat based food is worse than eating meat based food?

My wife is an ecologist (also moral vegetarian) and we fight over this. She says that there are more moral reasons for refraining from eating meat than for the wellbeing of the individual animals. She argues that the environmental impact of fishing and raising cattle is disastrous, and that those are other valid reasons for refraining from meat.

I argue that while I agree those are prudent reasons for abstaining from eating meat, the ultimate matter is that of reducing the suffereing of sentient beings. If you don't put that value first, then all of the environmental stance falls apart. Who cares if we fish the oceans dry if the suffering of sentient beings doesn't matter? Who cares if every living being on the planet is wiped out if we don't put sentience first?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Catfish are much harder to catch than plants. Plants don't squiggle nearly as much, and a deer can outrun a plant on it's worst of days.

True, but farming is contingent upon seasons, weather and many other factors.

I certainly don't mean to sound condescending and I apologize if I do, but it has been my experience that people who make moral pronouncements against carnivorism have most likely never found themselves dirt poor and truly hungry.

Now, that being said, I will admit that I could personally forego meat myself for moral or health reasons. I choose to eat meat because I like it and because I don't find the same moral reservations with its consumption as some others.

Also, I am not situationally forced to live off the land. But I do know people who are forced to do so. Perhaps these people could grow large enough gardens to stockpile vegetables for the winter. Perhaps they could learn to grow grains and other consumables so that they could maintain a healthy and vigorous diet without relying on meat. Maybe.

But before I am willing to condemn them, I am going to require a better moral argument than something like: man has a connection to all other sentient creatures and therefore should not be a predator.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Also, I am not situationally forced to live off the land. But I do know people who are forced to do so. Perhaps these people could grow large enough gardens to stockpile vegetables for the winter. Perhaps they could learn to grow grains and other consumables so that they could maintain a healthy and vigorous diet without relying on meat. Maybe.

There are 3 billion very poor people on the planet. If all of them started hunting there would be no more animals in the wild. We must find another way to feed the poor. Bush meat is why Africa is now being cleared of much of it's wild life.

 

[Eliot Wild]

There are 3 billion very poor people on the planet. If all of them started hunting there would be no more animals in the wild. We must find another way to feed the poor. Bush meat is why Africa is now being cleared of much of it's wild life.

That's a good point. And believe me, I am sympathetic to the problem of over-population.

But while we are trying to find answers to this dilema, I hope you don't mind if I stand by my refusal to condemn the carnivorous poor people down the road from me who don't really have the time to wait for us to find a functional solution.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That's a good point. And believe me, I am sympathetic to the problem of over-population.

But while we are trying to find answers to this dilema, I hope you don't mind if I stand by my refusal to condemn the carnivorous poor people down the road from me who don't really have the time to wait for us to find a functional solution.

I don't want to condemn any body. I look at it like recycling It's a good thing to do. But your not evil if you throw something in the trash.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

My wife is an ecologist (also moral vegetarian) and we fight over this. She says that there are more moral reasons for refraining from eating meat than for the wellbeing of the individual animals. She argues that the environmental impact of fishing and raising cattle is disastrous, and that those are other valid reasons for refraining from meat.

I argue that while I agree those are prudent reasons for abstaining from eating meat, the ultimate matter is that of reducing the suffereing of sentient beings. If you don't put that value first, then all of the environmental stance falls apart. Who cares if we fish the oceans dry if the suffering of sentient beings doesn't matter? Who cares if every living being on the planet is wiped out if we don't put sentience first?

If I many get involved in your personal family struggle. I would tend to agree with your wife. I did become a veggie as not to hurt other beings.But...
There just no way to avoid it. When I walk I kill bugs. The other day I saw a bird killed by a car. I once ran over a cat. Unless I become a Jain and walk around with a broom sweeping the path of all bugs like Mahavir and give up driving. Taking life is a part of life. All we can do is minimize it as much as possible.

I am impressed with you compassion for all life forms. It's a good thing.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm a half-hearted psuedo-vegaterian:

I don't eat pork because I refuse to eat a creature who's more intellegent than most of the people I know.

I avoid beef because I refuse to eat a creature that has better manners than most of the people I know.

I wont eat veal because I refuse to eat a creature that's cuter than most of the people I know.

I wont eat lamb (except in a gyro. Like I said; half-hearted and "psuedo) because I refuse to eat a creature who's easier to reason with than most of the people I know.

Fish and foul is no problem for me. Most of the people I know score higher on all of the above than turkeys or halabet.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Meat is too good to be bad. Those that think of it as murder need to realize that a seriously larger number of plants are killed to replace one helping of meat, and even that helping can't compare when it comes to being satisfying.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Fish and foul is no problem for me. Most of the people I know score higher on all of the above than turkeys or halabet.

I wish I could say the same. Clearly you don't know my mother in-law.

 

[Breathe]

Fish and foul is no problem for me. Most of the people I know score higher on all of the above than turkeys or halabet.

When I took the kids to the farm recently, a turkey kept trying to talk to me and trying to get me to pet it.

I don't think I can eat one now.


...They are ugly, though. If I was a Creationist I'd like to know what kind of off day God was having when he threw that thing together.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Flat out we are animals. Like it or not we eat meat and its natural for humans to do so.

The problem with videos that portray cruelty to animals is that its often often used as a sounding board to support vegetarianism solely based on its shock value. To me that's misguided if the issue is focused on issues involving abstinence towards meat eating and thusly points out extreme reasons as to why one should not eat meat. That's bogus and as long there are humans there will never be complete abstinence. Never gonna happen.

To address the issues of suffering one needs to quit trying to achieve the "goal" of complete vegetarianism for everybody ad nauseum because its simply unattainable. Additionally, as to the scheme of things, note that humans overall tend to be among the more "merciful" predators in the animal kingdom, and is exemplified by many slaughter houses that are required by law to properly stun prior to slaughter. In that light, Its not the really an issue of vegetarianism here and to whether its good or bad for people to eat meat which needs to be addressed, but rather, is the reduction of undue suffering caused to which I can agree fully with anyone that it is an area that needs to be strictly enforced, and monitored.

Just so that you know, I support vegetarianism and those who practice such by way that it shows a sensitivity towards suffering and holds a hearty respect to those who do so, but in the reality of life vegetarianism is arguably just as cruel and harsh towards animals and other living beings as slaughter can be itself. As an example, I used to farm as a young-un and can first hand tell you what turns up underneath the plow, disc, and planter in the fields and in various machinery used for the processing of grains, corn, and such. There is much to be addressed on both sides of the issue, and neither position eliminates suffering nor will it. Best we can hope for is to be mindful on a personal level, and avoid (boycott) the places and operations that shows an intentional disregard to pain and undue suffering in other living beings. -NM-

 

[Noaidi]

I certainly don't mean to sound condescending and I apologize if I do, but it has been my experience that people who make moral pronouncements against carnivorism have most likely never found themselves dirt poor and truly hungry.

Probably true, but shouldn't those of us who have the financial ability to forego meat do it? A few of us here have said that eating meat isn't 'good or bad', it's down to circumstance. I have to travel a round trip (by bus - I don't drive) of 80 miles to stock up on veggie food, but I do it because I can afford to.