Is Vegetarianism integral to a moral life.

[Comicaze247]

Yeah you are right. It is something i do not wish to admit, but it is true, i suppose you need to know the person. But, i cannot always learn case to case. Sometimes generalisations are necessary. If i see a gang of youths and i might not take the detour because not all youths are bad... They might stab me, they might not, they probably won't. That was a generalisation by assuming they were dangerous.

I am not justifying generalisations at all, but i am just saying that they are not the worst thing

See, that's when you read actions and body language You're right, in that case it's necessary, and a "better safe than sorry" situation.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I did not understand the situation... I thought you were doing it as a sport. In this case i apolagise

Oh, there's most definately a sport aspect of it. It's a lot of fun as well.
(there's a reason I don't use a scope... I like to be able to hit a target the size of a rabbit from halfway across the paddock with open sights. Much more satisfaction than using a scope. And I prefer to not use a shotgun.. don't even need to aim those things )

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is not up to us to just end a life because it might be fun. It is not fair, they have a right to live a life just like us.

Why are we no different than, say a lion. Just the sight of the lion will terrorize it's prey, and it's prey will often suffer a slow painful death as it is being mauled to death. On the Animal Planet, it's nothing to see a breathing animal, still alive, still feeling, and yet it's stomach has been ripped wide open.
Now when you compare this to a human hunter, which may cause a fright when seen, but causes much less pain and suffering with a good aim.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

And I prefer to not use a shotgun.. don't even need to aim those things )

Not true! I use a 16 gauge loaded with dove shot. The way we hunt in the southern US, your not supposed to shoot a rabbit that isn't in motion. As you say, shooting a stationary target with a shotgun isn't very difficult. Instead we let the rabbit run a circuit and then get him on the second round. Our cottontails always seem to run in a circle. Some folks will shoot a rabbit on the jump but that was never allowed in our family. The rabbit was always allowed a circuit to lose the dogs and often they did.

For my grandfather, hunting was all about listening to the dogs run. He breed, raised and trained them. In his later years he quit carrying a gun at all, said it was too heavy anyway. For me, hunting was time spent with my grandfather. When he stopped hunting I pretty much did too. He came from a generation that didn't even notice the great depression. They were already poor and living off the land so it didn't make any difference that a bunch of city slickers were suddenly poor too. Point is, hunting and farming was a source of food, sometimes the only source of food. I grew up with fresh vegetables, rabbit jambalaya, and squirrel gravy with biscuits. Nothing can really compare.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Not true! I use a 16 gauge loaded with dove shot. The way we hunt in the southern US, your not supposed to shoot a rabbit that isn't in motion.

Now try that with a .22 with an open sight (ok.. I've only done it once while he was running in a straight line away from me.. but still.. )

As you say, shooting a stationary target with a shotgun isn't very difficult. Instead we let the rabbit run a circuit and then get him on the second round. Our cottontails always seem to run in a circle. Some folks will shoot a rabbit on the jump but that was never allowed in our family. The rabbit was always allowed a circuit to lose the dogs and often they did.

For my grandfather, hunting was all about listening to the dogs run. He breed, raised and trained them. In his later years he quit carrying a gun at all, said it was too heavy anyway. For me, hunting was time spent with my grandfather. When he stopped hunting I pretty much did too. He came from a generation that didn't even notice the great depression. They were already poor and living off the land so it didn't make any difference that a bunch of city slickers were suddenly poor too. Point is, hunting and farming was a source of food, sometimes the only source of food. I grew up with fresh vegetables, rabbit jambalaya, and squirrel gravy with biscuits. Nothing can really compare.

Also, it's much better than farmed stuff.

Like wild pork and venison.. my word, that's some very very tasty meat indeed. Duck too.

I did not understand the situation... I thought you were doing it as a sport. In this case i apolagise

Oh, and one more thing..

No apology necessary for ignorance (unless of course, it's a willful ignorance )
Yet here's the thing.

You, I can gather, are pretty much totally against killing animals, yeah?
Now, what if you lived in NZ, and you knew that many animals were vulnerable to these introduced species, having evolved with no natural predators about. Also, you know that these introduced species have no predators of themselves here. So, these introduced ones, the stoats, ferrets, possums, rats, deer, pigs... they're all able to run rampant through here with very little resistance, easily wiping out the native flora and fauna.

What if you knew all this, and while you are against killing animals, what would you do? Inaction would result in the total annihilation of many unique species of plants and animals. Action would mean you kill, or pay others and therefore are responsible for killing, the introduced species. If there were so many, that you couldn't get rid of all the dead ones? If your dogs couldn't eat enough, if you couldn't sell enough... would you eat them so as not to waste them (this is not the case for me, there aren't that many here any more, but I'm curious as to what you would do)?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Now try that with a .22 with an open sight (ok.. I've only done it once while he was running in a straight line away from me.. but still.. )

Did some squirrel hunting with a .22 and yeah, much harder than a 4-10.

Also, it's much better than farmed stuff.

Like wild pork and venison.. my word, that's some very very tasty meat indeed. Duck too.

Yep, nothing like it. Growing up country was the best, something kids today just don't appreciate. It's much different than the urban sprawl we have today although there's still some small pockets of country out there.

 

[Valjean]

Did some squirrel hunting with a .22 and yeah, much harder than a 4-10.

A 410 bore's pretty small for hunting, if you ask me.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

A 410 bore's pretty small for hunting, if you ask me.

Yes, its a small gun used for small game, rabbits, squirrels and birds. The goal is to kill the game with the least amount of damage to the meat. Nobody like picking buckshot out of their rabbit stew. When I did hunt I used a 16 guage with dove shot for rabbit, it had the range for longer shots and the smaller pellets did less damage. A 4-10 was something you took out if you were hunting alone with no dogs and just needed to bag something for dinner on a campout or something. Also, it's a starter gun for younger hunters, less recoil.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Why are we no different than, say a lion. Just the sight of the lion will terrorize it's prey, and it's prey will often suffer a slow painful death as it is being mauled to death. On the Animal Planet, it's nothing to see a breathing animal, still alive, still feeling, and yet it's stomach has been ripped wide open.
Now when you compare this to a human hunter, which may cause a fright when seen, but causes much less pain and suffering with a good aim.

Don't compare animals and humans... It does not work. We are different and mor rational and not limited in food choice, or entertainment. Animals are a lot more limited and stick to what they know.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Don't compare animals and humans... It does not work. We are different and mor rational and not limited in food choice, or entertainment. Animals are a lot more limited and stick to what they know.

But man is an animal so the comparison can be made. When a man eats meat he is acting as he has been programed as an omnivorous animal. When a man chooses to become a vegetarian he is choosing to remove that part of him that is pure animal and possibly achive a higher plane. That's why I'm always impressed with someone who can become a vegetarian, because it is a wholy human decision.

And, while I admire vegetarians, I don't necessarily think that deciding to become vegetarian equates to becoming more moral. It may be a step on the path of personal enlightenment but I believe there are multiple paths and the one that is best for one is not necessarily the best for another. I'm on a different path.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don't compare animals and humans... It does not work.

Humans are animals, so it works just fine. Some of the similarities are even so close, that some animals make suitable substitutes for medical or science experiments and testing. Pigs especially have a very similar design.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Humans are animals, so it works just fine. Some of the similarities are even so close, that some animals make suitable substitutes for medical or science experiments and testing. Pigs especially have a very similar design.

You just pointed out one point of my post. Go back and read the whole post...

 

[Caladan]

But man is an animal so the comparison can be made. When a man eats meat he is acting as he has been programed as an omnivorous animal. When a man chooses to become a vegetarian he is choosing to remove that part of him that is pure animal and possibly achive a higher plane. That's why I'm always impressed with someone who can become a vegetarian, because it is a wholy human decision.

And, while I admire vegetarians, I don't necessarily think that deciding to become vegetarian equates to becoming more moral. It may be a step on the path of personal enlightenment but I believe there are multiple paths and the one that is best for one is not necessarily the best for another. I'm on a different path.

I can't easily connect vegetarianism with enlightenment, to me there are cases in which vegetarianism may be opposed to enlightenment and the natural order of things, it might show some kind of faulty priority of social and world issues, while bettering our food industry is a good idea, vegetarianism is not the realistic answer to deal with it (honestly can anyone envision a mass conversion to the vegetarian standard?). the vegetarians I know may not eat animals, but I don't see them doing anything significant when it comes to social or ecological causes, so I conclude that it comes from some selfish pseudo-moral psychological need, (in the west, or from a deeply rooted religious tradition in the east) or maybe I just don't know enough of what they do behind the scenes.
to many people vegetarianism is another point on the list of human superstitions, although today the concept of vegetarianism has expended to include environmental and economic ideals.

 

[Comicaze247]

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with eating meat and I don't see how doing so would make you "less Enlightened." It's just a matter of perspective.

I respect the view that because all beings are equal, eating an animal would be viewing them as a lesser being, and therefore immoral. I understand that.

But my view is that, to be the best human being I can be, all I have to do is be respectful of all life and keep my body healthy. Now I know that I could get my protein from things other than meat, but I don't believe becoming a vegetarian is necessary to achieve Enlightenment. One thing I believe as being part of Enlightenment is understanding the order and balance of things. For example, humans have already upset the balance just by being who we are, using technology to manipulate the food chain, hence why we're currently on top. I don't believe we should be, as we wouldn't stand a chance against a bear or wolf naked and unarmed. But we are still omnivores, so I still recognize that we're pretty high up there on the food chain. I'm sure we could handle rabbits and such bare-handed. So I really don't believe vegetarianism is necessary.

 

[Darkwater]

Type O blood DEMANDS at least 3 portions of red meat per week in order to keep the blood sweet & immune system functioning properly.

Other *newer* blood types have more forgiving immune systems,type O relies upon meat,& wallnuts.(source:-eat right for your blood type by an Italian guy)

ps,just because it dosen't bleed & squeel when you kill it,dosen't make it no less a living thing you are killing,you Vegetable Murderers!

 

[Eddy Daze]

This is about needs I think and not killing to simply enjoy the flesh of animals or plants, but plants have a less developed nervous system so man can live by these , grains and milk products.

(Those who eat meat , would you rather pick an apple or cut a cows throat? at the moment it is highly likely that somebody else is carrying this killing out for you....also some foods are designed/have evolved to be eaten for their seed distribution)

 

[Azakel]

This is about needs I think and not killing to simply enjoy the flesh of animals or plants, but plants have a less developed nervous system so man can live by these , grains and milk products.

(Those who eat meat , would you rather pick an apple or cut a cows throat? at the moment it is highly likely that somebody else is carrying this killing out for you....also some foods are designed/have evolved to be eaten for their seed distribution)

The cow will give me more nutrition then the apple will and keep me strong with the protein. And have kill before to eat, it's live, it's nature and I am a part of both from now and for ever.

 

[Eddy Daze]

The cow will give me more nutrition then the apple will and keep me strong with the protein. And have kill before to eat, it's live, it's nature and I am a part of both from now and for ever.

Az...Would it be better sense to keep the cow and let it produce milk , If kept well it will produce enough so you can store products made from it such as cheese and butter, if it gives birth to bulls these can be used as transport or for working the land, you can make first class compost from the manure, you can also gather fuels from the gasses for and heat while this compost is forming, and then when the animal dies you can eat it and use its leather.

 

[Azakel]

Az...Would it be better sense to keep the cow and let it produce milk , If kept well it will produce enough so you can store products made from it such as cheese and butter, if it gives birth to bulls these can be used as transport or for working the land, you can make first class compost from the manure, you can also gather fuels from the gasses for and heat while this compost is forming, and then when the animal dies you can eat it and use its leather.

You don't want to what for the animal to die. If to old then the meat is all to good to eat for nutrition, plus if it dies of something other then old age you really don't want to eat it because it might have die from something that can harm anything that eats it. There many cow too, if you kept them all for milk you would have less room for them all, and the living conditions for them could be worse, it would be hard to keep food for them all. Over population even with cow farms is not a good thing. I will agree that way to many cow are killed for food and there meat go to wast, but to keep more alive, especially with the way most cattle farm are all ready crowded and all, it would be worse to keep more crowded in there.

 

[methylatedghosts]

A cow can live for a good decade at least, by that time the meat ends up all stringy and very very tough. If you're waiting for the cow to die of it's own accord, the meat's really no good by then anyway.

From a herd of 230 cows at my parent's farm, they kill about 1 cow per 10-12months. This cow is always just over a year old, so the meat is still good. The rest of the cows are milked.