I'm now a vegetarian!!!

[darkpenguin]

Great. Lets kill two birds with one stone and start eating the homeless and the hungry. After all, suffering is irrelevant when it comes to what we choose to eat.

I can't see why this idea would be out of the question for some meat eaters, after all mammals are pretty much the same things but in different shapes and hey some might even suggest that the intelligence level of a homeless person might be the same as an animal!

 

[Hema]

It is not in our nature to eat each other. It creates a great deal of social insecurity when people have to worry about being the food of other people. So, no, I think that's a ridiculous idea. Also, your jump to extremes is highly illogical and unproductive to a debate that has remained rational for quite some time.

Cannibals will disagree. BTW, humans are animals too. We are speaking of the species with lower intelligence as animals but we forget that we are also animals.

 

[Mister_T]

It is not in our nature to eat each other.

Cannabalism is quite frequent in nature. What is the reason that why we don't eat each other? It's not social insecurity, I'll tell you that.

Also, your jump to extremes is highly illogical and unproductive to a debate that has remained rational for quite some time.

The goal was to use an extreme idea to offer a different perspective and to get people thinking. It's actually, very effective.

 

[Hema]

I can't see why this idea would be out of the question for some meat eaters, after all mammals are pretty much the same things but in different shapes and hey some might even suggest that the intelligence level of a homeless person might be the same as an animal!

I heard on TV that a pig operates on the mentality of a two-year old child. There is even an incident where a lady had a pot-bellied piggy as a pet and she had a heart-attack. She fell on the floor unconscious and the pig walked to the road and sat in the middle of it until someone stopped. He walked back and forth from the road to his unscious owner whom he lay next to for a while. On one ocassion when he went on the road, a driver stopped and the pig led the man to his owner. The pig saved the lady's life because no one else was home.

 

[Mister_T]

The goal was to use an extreme idea to offer a different perspective and to get people thinking. It's actually, very effective.

I can't see why this idea would be out of the question for some meat eaters, after all mammals are pretty much the same things but in different shapes and hey some might even suggest that the intelligence level of a homeless person might be the same as an animal!

Point in case.

 

[Hema]

Why is it that cannibalism is wrong in most people's eyes but eating animals with lower intelligence is okay?

 

[Mister_T]

Why is it that cannibalism is wrong in most people's eyes but eating animals with lower intelligence is okay?

It's a little something called human ego.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Why is it that cannibalism is wrong in most people's eyes but eating animals with lower intelligence is okay?

Because cannibalism would create serious social insecurities. If we began looking at each other as potential meals, what would that look like? Could I get a human hunting license? Could I kill people as long as I ate what I killed? How do we protect civil rights? Would the government allow all people to eat each other equally?

It's an absurdly preposterous idea, not to mention utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Such extremes aren't productive and if they do make people think, they make people think poorly.

I know we're all animals and that isn't an issue for me. I have as much a right to eat meat as any other animal. Everything is at the mercy of the food chain. I see no moral distinction between eating plants and eating animals, because I do not accept suffering as deterring factor. Just because plants don't suffer, doesn't give them less of a right to exist. Vegetarians aren't more moral for slaughtering plants in place of animals, in my view.

And the indignation and self-righteousness of vegetarians appears to be the reason why so many people have such negative reactions to it. The presumptuousness of those accusations of immorality toward those that eat meat is insulting and unnecessary. There is no reason why we can't all be entitled to our own dietary discretions.

 

[Mister_T]

Because cannibalism would create serious social insecurities. If we began looking at each other as potential meals, what would that look like? Could I get a human hunting license? Could I kill people as long as I ate what I killed? How do we protect civil rights? Would the government allow all people to eat each other equally?

What is boils down to is we don't eat "lesser" humans because we as a society place a value on them/us. The can feel and express emotions. That is the driving principal of why we don't allow murder in our society. It's because it's not "right."

It's an absurdly preposterous idea, not to mention utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No it's not. Homeless people are made of meat. Why don't we eat them?

Anyways, the point I wanted to get across, was made.

Such extremes aren't productive and if they do make people think, they make people think poorly.

Apparently they are productive if other people seem to be getting my point. And just because you don't agree with that line of thinking, doesn't make it "poor thinking."

But if you wish to further continue critiquing my debating methods (which ironically, is off-topic), then here's a hammer and some nails. I'll go grab my cross.

Gosh I'm full of 'em.

 

[Hema]

Because cannibalism would create serious social insecurities. If we began looking at each other as potential meals, what would that look like? Could I get a human hunting license? Could I kill people as long as I ate what I killed? How do we protect civil rights? Would the government allow all people to eat each other equally?

Just like the insecurities animals fear when they are held down forcibly and about to be slaughtered. Of course the government would not allow cannibalism because it isn't socially acceptable but it is socially acceptable to eat animals with lesser intelligence. They have little rights and cannot speak out. Heck, they can't even speak. Humans on the other hand, can stand up for their rights and speak out.

It's an absurdly preposterous idea, not to mention utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Such extremes aren't productive and if they do make people think, they make people think poorly.

I see it as productive because it makes people think. It is not irrelevant because we are animals too.

I know we're all animals and that isn't an issue for me. I have as much a right to eat meat as any other animal. Everything is at the mercy of the food chain. I see no moral distinction between eating plants and eating animals, because I do not accept suffering as deterring factor. Just because plants don't suffer, doesn't give them less of a right to exist. Vegetarians aren't more moral for slaughtering plants in place of animals, in my view.

I know that it isn't an issue for you. Many vegetarians will disagree with the morality but then again morality is subjective so that is your opinion and whilst I respect it, I don't agree with it. We are also at the mercy of the food chain. If a shark eats someone who is swimming in the ocean, that is also natural.

And the indignation and self-righteousness of vegetarians appears to be the reason why so many people have such negative reactions to it. The presumptuousness of those accusations of immorality toward those that eat meat is insulting and unnecessary. There is no reason why we can't all be entitled to our own dietary discretions.

You are entitled to your own opinions and dietary discretions. We are entitled to our opinions and dietary discretions. Because we have different morals doesn't mean that we are self-righteous. If you say that we are self-righteous about our diets then would it be accurate to say that you are self-righteous because you have different opinions? No, it wouldn't.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Would you think it humane for a human to be slaughtered in that way? I think not!

I just now have seen that directed at me and the answer is yes. If I were to be slaughtered I would want one swipe quickly across the throat minus any torture ans so forth.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Just like the insecurities animals fear when they are held down forcibly and about to be slaughtered. Of course the government would not allow cannibalism because it isn't socially acceptable but it is socially acceptable to eat animals with lesser intelligence. They have little rights and cannot speak out. Heck, they can't even speak. Humans on the other hand, can stand up for their rights and speak out.

It's not a matter of speaking out. We are talking about the social and political ramifications of an absurd idea, for which no one here has presented a single argument for how we could allow cannibalism without creating widespread social insecurity. You guys can keep dodging the issue, but it doesn't change the fact that the cannibalism argument has no place in this discussion. It remains irrelevant.

Animals eat other animals that can't speak out or secure rights with, and thus the statement that we are all at the mercy of the food chain. Again, this point can be dodged and evaded all day, but it doesn't change the fact. All this is, is a pretentious comparison between meat-eaters and cannibals. It's insulting, offensive, and beneath all of your intellects and class.

I see it as productive because it makes people think. It is not irrelevant because we are animals too.

It is not productive, because it doesn't make people think about the issue at hand. You guys like thinking about it, because you like degrading meat-eaters by comparing them to cannibals. Which is, again, insulting and beneath your intellect and class.

I know that it isn't an issue for you. Many vegetarians will disagree with the morality but then again morality is subjective so that is your opinion and whilst I respect it, I don't agree with it. We are also at the mercy of the food chain. If a shark eats someone who is swimming in the ocean, that is also natural.

It is natural and I'm not saying sharks are bereft of morality because they eat people in the oceans. I'm not saying that vegetarians are immoral. I'm not trying to degrade people with a differing opinion. It is the kind, compassionate, loving vegetarians in this thread who are insulting people that disagree with them, comparing them to cannibals, questioning the morality of meat-eaters, and expressing anger at those that disagree with them.

You are entitled to your own opinions and dietary discretions. We are entitled to our opinions and dietary discretions. Because we have different morals doesn't mean that we are self-righteous. If you say that we are self-righteous about our diets then would it be accurate to say that you are self-righteous because you have different opinions? No, it wouldn't.

No, its not the difference of opinion that makes anyone in this thread self-righteous. It's the self-praise of your own morality and the criticism of the morality of those who simply have a different dietary choice that gives the appearance of self-righteousness. I am not telling you that you are wrong for being a vegetarian. I'm not questioning your morality. I'm not comparing you to cannibals. And no one is trying to make vegetarians feel badly about being vegetarians. So there is nothing self-righteous about my position. I fully respect your lifestyle choices. It's the vegetarians in this thread who, on many occasions, have shown no respect for people that disagree with them. I know you don't want to be disrespectful, but it seems like this is just one of those topics that is leading otherwise respectful individuals to lose their composure.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I also don't like the ever so slightly "I'm better than you cuz I don't eat meat and you're an animal murderer" attitude. It's off-putting and offensive. The animals are there to be eaten by us. Why do people think that some species of animal are considerably more agreeable to human palette than others? A part of the food chain we are gonna eat animals. The little gazelle doesn't like to be caught by the lion, but that's what it's there for. I haven't done any study on it, but I'm fairly certain the gazelles know they are a food source, hence the running when they get chased because they know what's up.

If we kill it right it'll be okay. If I were raising animals on a farm, there's no way I would treat it badly. Allah has given them rights, and He has given me a right to eat them. What Allah didn't do was give me quarter to abuse that. I would give the animals proper nutrition, ability to roam, no drugs, no beatings, and I would make their living conditions good for them. It is amazing the amount of submission and cooperation you get from an animal at slaughter when thy have been treated well. No force is really needed at all when you haven't been a murderous tyrant over them during their time with you. I don't think they necessarily look forward to being killed, but I think they understand the process and submit to it.

 

[Flappycat]

"Carrot Juice is Murder." -- Arrogant Worms

 

[Radio Frequency X]

What is boils down to is we don't eat "lesser" humans because we as a society place a value on them/us. The can feel and express emotions. That is the driving principal of why we don't allow murder in our society. It's because it's not "right." No it's not. Homeless people are made of meat. Why don't we eat them?

That is not what it boils down to and I haven't advanced that argument once. If you can't deal with my objections, say so, and explain why you can't. We don't eat Homeless people because of the instability that would ensue.

Apparently they are productive if other people seem to be getting my point. And just because you don't agree with that line of thinking, doesn't make it "poor thinking."

It's poor thinking because its irrelevant and insulting. Outside of stroking your own belligerent dislike of meat-eaters, how do you feel that comparing us to cannibals is going to advance your position? What does cannibalism, which is illegal, have to do with vastly more common and legal act of eating meat? To call cannibalism common, compared to meat-eating, is absurd and you know it. Does cannibalism happen in nature? Yes. Rarely. I don't believe there would be anything morally wrong with eating people for food. But it would create serious social and political problems. It would also be unintelligent as we are on the top of the food chain. Why would we need to eat each other? Why would we want to?

And why do you feel that eating homeless people is ok, but not aristocrats? Why do you keep using homeless people? Do you feel that they somehow have less value than people with homes? Is this a Final Solution to the homeless problem?

But if you wish to further continue critiquing my debating methods (which ironically, is off-topic), then here's a hammer and some nails. I'll go grab my cross.

Gosh I'm full of 'em.

My arguments aren't off topic, they are on topic. I've shown why your arguments are irrelevant, and I've shown why they are unnecessary and insulting. If you feel justified in continuing that line of thought, than fine, but good luck convincing anyone. There is nothing wrong with you being a vegetarian. If you take care to acquire all the nutrition, by way of vitamins and minerals that you need, then good for you. That's your lifestyle and your choice. But it doesn't making you "Holier Than Thou".

 

[Mister_T]

You guys can keep dodging the issue, but it doesn't change the fact that the cannibalism argument has no place in this discussion. It remains irrelevant.

It appears that you are the one dodging the issue, which is eating animals (of ANY kind) is bad because they feel pain and suffer. You are attempting to bring politics into the issue to justify what you feel is morally acceptable.

It's insulting, offensive, and beneath all of your intellects and class.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

It is not productive, because it doesn't make people think about the issue at hand. You guys like thinking about it, because you like degrading meat-eaters by comparing them to cannibals. Which is, again, insulting and beneath your intellect and class.

On the contrary. It has. No one is degrading or insulting meat eaters (I already stated I was a meat eater) so stop putting words in mouths.

A simple question was asked: When it comes to pain and suffering of animals for food (which, again is the topic at hand.) what is the difference? A question you keep avoiding by bringing politics into the mix along with the various names and labels which your are calling people on this thread.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

A simple question was asked: When it comes to pain and suffering of animals for food (which, again is the topic at hand.) what is the difference? A question you keep avoiding by bringing politics into the mix along with the various names and labels which your are calling people on this thread.

What is the difference between the suffering of animals and humans when we are being eaten? There is no difference. We suffer just as much when we are eaten. Politics relates to WHY we don't eat each other. If defending the moral integrity of meat-eaters, and specifically those on this forum bothers you, what am I suppose to do about that? I am not questioning the morality of anyone. I am pointing out the disrespectful and inconsiderate comments of you and others on this thread. Meat Eaters are not immoral. They are not cruel, evil people who want to torture animals. No one is arguing that suffering is good or desirable. The argument I am advancing, for which you have no retort and have paid no consideration, is that meat eaters are not immoral for eating meat and that vegetarians are not more moral for not eating meat.

 

[Mister_T]

There is nothing wrong with you being a vegetarian. If you take care to acquire all the nutrition, by way of vitamins and minerals that you need, then good for you. That's your lifestyle and your choice. But it doesn't making you "Holier Than Thou".

Um,I eat meat as I stated earlier.

And why do you feel that eating homeless people is ok, but not aristocrats? Why do you keep using homeless people? Do you feel that they somehow have less value than people with homes? Is this a Final Solution to the homeless problem?

Why yes I do believe it to be the Final Solution to the homeless problem. Let me go dust off my Nazi hat.

It was an exaggeration to prove a point. My apologies if it is not to your liking. Paint whatever portrait of me you want. My point was proven and you have yet to rebuttal what the difference is in terms of pain and suffering.

 

[Mister_T]

What is the difference between the suffering of animals and humans when we are being eaten? There is no difference.

I stand corrected.

 

[Mister_T]

And for the record, I never said meat eaters were immoral. I just said killing animals for meat is not right.