Should we eat Meat?

[framheim]

Sure' date=' for some, some greater effort would indeed be needed. I guess what it all comes down to is commitment - on how seriously you take these issues.

What would be the point in becoming vegetarian? Would such a change not benefit those animals raised for food? Liberation begins in your stomach.[/quote']

hmm, it wouldn't really benefit the animals raised for food as unfortunately even if every human in the world went vegetarian tomorrow they won't be released free willy style into the wild. they'll be shot and buried in mass graves. or if they were released into the wild i'd imagine they'd quickly be hunted for sport. and if they've been raised for food they'll be used for food even if i don't eat them. so probably wouldn't benefit the animals much at all. but i'm just being arsey now, i see your point but it seems to be based once again entirely on your beliefs which forgive me for saying are on the more extreme side(though obviously i'm not calling you an extremeist, just that you are more extreme than most on here) and not necessarily relevant to the majority of peoples lives on this board.

is it not possible to take animal welfare issues seriously yet still eat meat? surely there is a difference between the ruthless destruction of endangered animals habitats which benefit not only animals but the ecology of the world as a whole and whether or not it's okay to eat an animal bred for that purpose, isn't there? and if there isn't(and i know this is maybe starting to sound silly) then where do you draw the line, do you forever watch your step in case you step on an ant? we are all drawn from the same basic blueprint after all, and some religions belief all living creatures to be sacred but some of us have mighty big feet.

personally, i do my best based on my current enjoyment of certain activites. i pay an amount each month to wwf and like watching documentaries on tv about beasties. i try and consider where my food and products have come from but don't always avoid things i know are morally wrong. where possible i remove spiders and beasties safely and place them outside unless their massive and scary or if my girlfriend insists i kill them because it just ran out from under her on the bed and she's terrified. i'm a busy guy who likes his food and his leisure time, i don't think i have anything to apologise for or to strive for but i do what i can to better myself where possible and that's enough for me. there's so many things in this world that are shit that if you really sat and thought about them too much you'd end up in a terrified state.

[Mr.Tim]

should we eat meat ?

if you want to.

i fucking love meat !

MEAT MEAT MEAT !

[psydoll]

to be honest you can't really compare the heating habits of humans to animals. animals have completely different digesting systems to us.

And also different methods of keeping warm.

[Birdman]

yeah but do animals have feelings and emotions?

I think your taking the piss but nevertheless

A/ When I leave the house in the mornign my dogs know i'm going and sulk. Whenever I return they are overcome with joy and sometimes even pee on me from extremem excitement

B/ When you try and saw any animals leg off except maybe a fish' date=' they are not going to sit back stupidly taking it in. They will defend themselves. But you wont see an animal complain about the pain like you probably would if you stubbed your toe.

[b'](not birdman)

[lepeep]

should we eat meat ?

if you want to.

i fucking love meat !

MEAT MEAT MEAT !

been listenting to consolodated recently ?

"christ, I'd eat snake, weasle, chiwawa! mix me up a spam margharita..."

[Mr. Tristen]

The use of the word liberation involves no anthropomorphism. Animals are sentient beings and so deserve our respect.

So' date=' we agree regarding the use of animals in experiments.

The farming (and trapping) of animals so that we may enjoy the pleasure of fur is abhorrent, and cannot be defended. We need not fur to survive, to protect us from the cold. These poor creatures are killed for vanity.

Regarding the particular incident to which you're referring - that is the digging up of human remains, you cannot damn an entire movement on the basis of the actions of just a few individuals.[/quote']

Sentient?

Since when... or have we both been taught very different definitions of sentient?

[Doc]

The use of the word liberation involves no anthropomorphism. Animals are sentient beings and so deserve our respect.

So' date=' we agree regarding the use of animals in experiments.

The farming (and trapping) of animals so that we may enjoy the pleasure of fur is abhorrent, and cannot be defended. We need not fur to survive, to protect us from the cold. These poor creatures are killed for vanity.

Regarding the particular incident to which you're referring - that is the digging up of human remains, you cannot damn an entire movement on the basis of the actions of just a few individuals.[/quote']

Sentient means "aware of self" as in "I". most animals and certainly food animals are not sentient. They do not know what death is, or cruelty, or morality, they have no sense of individuality. Your own words prove you anthropomorphise them. They have no concept of respect so therefore cannot apreciate it. You are grafting your own moral sense onto animals who have no need of it.

Try telling an amazon indian he can't trap and use animals. I have no truck with those who wear snow leopard, but farmed fur is a different story. Class warfare again??

I don't damn a whole movement. There are plenty of good hearted people who work for animal welfare without hurting people or peoples' livliehoods-I know and have engaged with many of them. The people who dug up that grave and who are intimidating people are thugs and terrorists and should be dealt with...deny it. The people who are preventing research are thugs and terrorists. They are harming the people in need of this research.

Incidentally. Are you a true vegan? No animal products or supplements whatsoever? I don't condemn your lifestyle, just interested. I've treated people who have been in dire straits by following such a diet. If you have suffered no ill effects, all I can say is-so far, so good. I hope you don't have cause to remember this conversation 15 years down the line.

[Guest allsystemsfail]

allsystemsfail one thing i would like to know. Do you feel there is a humane way to kill cattle for consumption? If they way they are doing it now is so wrong how could they do it so that people like yourself (and thats not ment as a go i just mean people who believe the same as you) will be happy? Or is it just a case of you feel we shouldnt eat meat at all?

Also what about fishing? Do you also feel it is cruel the way fish are caught? I mean i think its by far crueler to make a fish bite on a hook and impale themselves on a sharp piece of metal mainly for the benefits of a sport.

Im just curious.

I myself do not believe the life of an animal should be taken for whatever purpose. As I've said, humans have no special place. The fact that we are human does not determine our place in nature, that we may use and exploit other living creatures as we please.

Fishing? Well, studies have shown that fish do indeed feel pain. The Medway Report proves so.

[lepeep]

but if that's your basis, eating meat is natural, if you are saying that man sits within the natural world (as I think we do / should), then eating meat is the natural choice. Vegatarianism is a lifestyle choice.

but, we're never going to convince you of that.

[Guest allsystemsfail]

Sentient means "aware of self" as in "I". most animals and certainly food animals are not sentient. They do not know what death is' date=' or cruelty, or morality, they have no sense of individuality. Your own words prove you anthropomorphise them. They have no concept of respect so therefore cannot apreciate it. You are grafting your own moral sense onto animals who have no need of it.

Try telling an amazon indian he can't trap and use animals. I have no truck with those who wear snow leopard, but farmed fur is a different story. Class warfare again??

I don't damn a whole movement. There are plenty of good hearted people who work for animal welfare without hurting people or peoples' livliehoods-I know and have engaged with many of them. The people who dug up that grave and who are intimidating people are thugs and terrorists and should be dealt with...deny it. The people who are preventing research are thugs and terrorists. They are harming the people in need of this research.

Incidentally. Are you a true vegan? No animal products or supplements whatsoever? I don't condemn your lifestyle, just interested. I've treated people who have been in dire straits by following such a diet. If you have suffered no ill effects, all I can say is-so far, so good. I hope you don't have cause to remember this conversation 15 years down the line.[/quote']

Yes, I am indeed a true vegan, and so do not use any animal products. And no, I do not, and have never used supplements. Their use is unnecessary. Really, your understanding and knowledge of veganism, as is your understanding of anarchist thought, is extremely wanting. So far so good? If you'd actually taken the trouble to read my posts - which clearly you haven't, you will have seen that I have been vegan for over 18 years. Have not eaten meat for 22 years, and have suffered no ill effects as a result. If followed properly veganism is beneficial to health. Suggest you check out the following link: http://www.vegansociety.com

Sentience? Can an animal not experience pain, feel joy? Of course non human animals cannot understand as we can - they have no concept of death etc. However, this should not mean that we can do with them as we wish. Check out philosopher Peter Singer's seminal work Animal Liberation.

I gotta say that I find your defence of the fur trade kinda strange. You do deplore the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics do you not? You see no contradiction? These animals, whether for use in cosmetics tests or in the rearing of animals for their coats, are used for reasons of frivolity.

Regarding tribal peoples - their use use of animals in somewhat different from ours. They see them not as things as we do, but as living feeling creatures.

Yes, those involved in animal liberation oppose the use of animals in tests. But do you not also? You have talked of failed results, of alternatives to animal testing - the use of tiisue culture etc.

[Guest allsystemsfail]

but if that's your basis' date=' eating meat is natural, if you are saying that man sits within the natural world (as I think we do / should), then eating meat is the natural choice. Vegatarianism is a lifestyle choice.

but, we're never going to convince you of that.[/quote']

If we are indeed through with this discussion - that we're really just going over old ground, then why do you persist in putting further questions to me?

You're never gonna convince me that you are correct? Could it be that perhaps you are wrong? Think about it.

[lepeep]

you are right.

I do think you avoid the obvious case that eating meat is natural, and nothing to do with man thinking he is "above" animals, I can't say I've seen you argue the point (that heaps of people have raised) about indiginous peoples still hunting and gathering...

your problem (and mine) lies with the factory scale farming and mass slaughter of animals, but where we differ is, I think it's natural and right to eat meat, and you don't.

no worries, I'll say no more.

peep

[Guest allsystemsfail]

hmm' date=' it wouldn't really benefit the animals raised for food as unfortunately even if every human in the world went vegetarian tomorrow they won't be released free willy style into the wild. they'll be shot and buried in mass graves. or if they were released into the wild i'd imagine they'd quickly be hunted for sport. and if they've been raised for food they'll be used for food even if i don't eat them. so probably wouldn't benefit the animals much at all. but i'm just being arsey now, i see your point but it seems to be based once again entirely on your beliefs which forgive me for saying are on the more extreme side(though obviously i'm not calling you an extremeist, just that you are more extreme than most on here) and not necessarily relevant to the majority of peoples lives on this board.

is it not possible to take animal welfare issues seriously yet still eat meat? surely there is a difference between the ruthless destruction of endangered animals habitats which benefit not only animals but the ecology of the world as a whole and whether or not it's okay to eat an animal bred for that purpose, isn't there? and if there isn't(and i know this is maybe starting to sound silly) then where do you draw the line, do you forever watch your step in case you step on an ant? we are all drawn from the same basic blueprint after all, and some religions belief all living creatures to be sacred but some of us have mighty big feet.

personally, i do my best based on my current enjoyment of certain activites. i pay an amount each month to wwf and like watching documentaries on tv about beasties. i try and consider where my food and products have come from but don't always avoid things i know are morally wrong. where possible i remove spiders and beasties safely and place them outside unless their massive and scary or if my girlfriend insists i kill them because it just ran out from under her on the bed and she's terrified. i'm a busy guy who likes his food and his leisure time, i don't think i have anything to apologise for or to strive for but i do what i can to better myself where possible and that's enough for me. there's so many things in this world that are shit that if you really sat and thought about them too much you'd end up in a terrified state.[/quote']

Becoming vegetarian/vegan does in itself make a difference. By doing so you are protesting the cruel treatment and murder of many billions of animals. I gotta say that I find your attitude rather defeatist. Hey, what difference can I make?

My view extreme? That is only because you believe it so. It is not a thing of fact.

The things I have spoken of not relevant to those who post here? The eating of meat impacts on the environment. The destruction of huge areas of tropical rainforest - cleared so as to graze cattle, is but one example.

And what of the misuse of arable land, - areas set aside for animal feed, and so many poor people go hungry?

What of more local pollution? Wastes from factory farms?

Of course the destruction of animal habitats is of extreme importance, however membership of the WWF or catching shows on television ain't gonna do a whole lot. You gotta take action. We all lead busy lives - people working jobs etc, but folks stiil get out there and do shit. I'm talkin protest.

Sure, human activity is extremely destructive. However, there is still a great deal we can do as individuals to ensure that that is minimized. Live simply so that others may simply live.

[Mr. Tristen]

But eating animals is NATURAL. This is the banging head off table type argument we can't seem to get through, and I don't see how you can argue with that. It would be like saying the earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist or a compass will never point to magnetic north - its just impossible.

I can understand your argument mass-scale farming etc though.

[Guest allsystemsfail]

But eating animals is NATURAL. This is the banging head off table type argument we can't seem to get through' date=' and I don't see how you can argue with that. It would be like saying the earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist or a compass will never point to magnetic north - its just impossible.

I can understand your argument mass-scale farming etc though.[/quote']

You cannot seem to get through to me? Ever considered that you're wrong? Some it is said have cast doubt on whether early man ate meat. Me? I dunno. As I've said, I will have no part in the killing of another living creature.

[Doc]

Yes' date=' I am indeed a true vegan, and so do not use any animal products. And no, I do not, and have never used supplements. Their use is unnecessary. Really, your understanding and knowledge of veganism, as is your understanding of anarchist thought, is extremely wanting. So far so good? If you'd actually taken the trouble to read my posts - which clearly you haven't, you will have seen that I have been vegan for over 18 years. Have not eaten meat for 22 years, and have suffered no ill effects as a result. If followed properly veganism is beneficial to health. Suggest you check out the following link: [url']http://www.vegansociety.com

Sentience? Can an animal not experience pain, feel joy? Of course non human animals cannot understand as we can - they have no concept of death etc. However, this should not mean that we can do with them as we wish. Check out philosopher Peter Singer's seminal work Animal Liberation.

I gotta say that I find your defence of the fur trade kinda strange. You do deplore the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics do you not? You see no contradiction? These animals, whether for use in cosmetics tests or in the rearing of animals for their coats, are used for reasons of frivolity.

Regarding tribal peoples - their use use of animals in somewhat different from ours. They see them not as things as we do, but as living feeling creatures.

Yes, those involved in animal liberation oppose the use of animals in tests. But do you not also? You have talked of failed results, of alternatives to animal testing - the use of tiisue culture etc.

Only 18 years? Time will tell on that one. If you follow a strict vegan diet, then you are causing yourself long term harm. Sorry. Again it's your choice. I've had to deal with the consequences of vegan diets. Atkins is just as bad of course.

Joy is a human emotion and not felt by animals. Animals are not sentient.

I don't defend the fur trade, I merely refuse to attack it on the basis of skewed morality. I see nothing wrong with properly farmed fur products.

Animals are not used for cosmetic testing in this country. I oppose the unnecesary use of animals in medicine. As I said before it is a legal requirement to test drugs on animals before they go on to human testing. Where animal testing has to be used it should not be on a concsious animal.

Protestors often quote so called animal testing failures and mostly they spout lies and half truths. A common one is thalidamide which was tested initially on mice. Some mice did show deformities in this study but not statistically significant ones, but the human trials showed no problems at all. So it was the human trial which was flawed and not the animal. Not every woman who took thalidamide had deformed babies, a proprtion with a certain genetic make up did with tragic results.

You have to get the testing regime right in the first place. Even if you use humans. What would be the use of using caucasians in a drug trial for sickle cell aneamia when only afro-caribbeans contract it? It would skew the results totally.

Protestors should get it together and stick to the truth. It's the government who demand animal testing, not the majority of scientists. They should target the government.

[Guest allsystemsfail]

Only 18 years? Time will tell on that one. If you follow a strict vegan diet' date=' then you are causing yourself long term harm. Sorry. Again it's your choice. I've had to deal with the consequences of vegan diets. Atkins is just as bad of course.

Joy is a human emotion and not felt by animals. Animals are not sentient.

I don't defend the fur trade, I merely refuse to attack it on the basis of skewed morality. I see nothing wrong with properly farmed fur products.

Animals are not used for cosmetic testing in this country. I oppose the unnecesary use of animals in medicine. As I said before it is a legal requirement to test drugs on animals before they go on to human testing. Where animal testing has to be used it should not be on a concsious animal.

Protestors often quote so called animal testing failures and mostly they spout lies and half truths. A common one is thalidamide which was tested initially on mice. Some mice did show deformities in this study but not statistically significant ones, but the human trials showed no problems at all. So it was the human trial which was flawed and not the animal. Not every woman who took thalidamide had deformed babies, a proprtion with a certain genetic make up did with tragic results.

You have to get the testing regime right in the first place. Even if you use humans. What would be the use of using caucasians in a drug trial for sickle cell aneamia when only afro-caribbeans contract it? It would skew the results totally.

Protestors should get it together and stick to the truth. It's the government who demand animal testing, not the majority of scientists. They should target the government.[/quote']

Do you actually listen? I said that if followed properly, a vegan diet will cause no harm. And did you check the link? No, I thought not. You also ignored my recommendation of Singer.

I'm sorry, but joy is indeed an animal experience. Evidence proves you wrong. And time will tell? Can you be more arrogant? But then you've demonstrated such arrogance from the outset, throwing insults at folks such as Zombie Munch - calling folks here stupid or idiots just coz they don't hold with your view.

I also suggested a contradiction in your defence of the fur trade (and yes, you have indeed sought to defend it) which you've failed to address. I suggest that it is your arguement that is skewed. You believe it correct that animals should be farmed (and killed) for reasons of vanity?

Yes, the testing of cosmetics on animals is indeed not permitted in Britain. I did not say otherwise.

And yes, it is a legal requirement that if a drug is to be accepted as safe, then it's testing must first involve the use of animal trials. That however does not prove a drugs safety as the facts often clearly show the opposite to be true. And no, these are not lies and half truths.

And activists do indeed target government policy. Do you know anything at all about the AR movement? Clearly not.

And I'm sorry, but many scientists do support the use of animals as test subjects. There is however a growing number who do not.

[allstardawn]

And also different methods of keeping warm.

Yahr. this guy (girl?) has got it right (y)

[GraemeC]

You cannot seem to get through to me? Ever considered that you're wrong? Some it is said have cast doubt on whether early man ate meat. Me? I dunno. As I've said' date=' I will have no part in the killing of another living creature.[/quote']

Ok heres a deal....the day mankind stop killing each other is the day i'll stop eating meat.

I have no problem with veggies but some would put animals before humans...thats nearly as bad as an Aberdonian supporting Rangers...!!

[framheim]

Becoming vegetarian/vegan does in itself make a difference. By doing so you are protesting the cruel treatment and murder of many billions of animals. I gotta say that I find your attitude rather defeatist. Hey' date=' what difference can I make?

My view extreme? That is only because you believe it so. It is not a thing of fact.

The things I have spoken of not relevant to those who post here? The eating of meat impacts on the environment. The destruction of huge areas of tropical rainforest - cleared so as to graze cattle, is but one example.

And what of the misuse of arable land, - areas set aside for animal feed, and so many poor people go hungry?

What of more local pollution? Wastes from factory farms?

Of course the destruction of animal habitats is of extreme importance, however membership of the WWF or catching shows on television ain't gonna do a whole lot. You gotta take action. We all lead busy lives - people working jobs etc, but folks stiil get out there and do shit. I'm talkin protest.

Sure, human activity is extremely destructive. However, there is still a great deal we can do as individuals to ensure that that is minimized. Live simply so that others may simply live.[/quote']

i gotta say i find your attitude rather sanctimonious and self righteous. i wasn't looking for your approval and i don't consider myself defeatist in the slightest, don't try and judge me from one paragraph in a message board on the internet. i think wildlife documentaries on the tv play a MASSIVE part in conservation efforts these days(whereas they were detrimental in their infancy), particularly a series like life of mammals. but i know i could perhaps do more and one day i will but i have other priorities just now and i'd imagine you didn't spawn as an activist but you grew to become one so why don't you grant the rest of us mere mortals that privelage as well and lay off the preaching and perhaps concentrate on education. for the most part i have been agreeing with you but i've been trying to post some valid points to further the discussion not get embroiled in your politics.

sorry if this post sounds harsh, i'm just annoyed that this thread has descended to this. it's always the ones that i'm quite enjoying that seem to turn to shit or maybe they're the only ones i notice. who knows.

[Doc]

Do you actually listen? I said that if followed properly' date=' a vegan diet will cause no harm. And did you check the link? No, I thought not. You also ignored my recommendation of Singer.

I'm sorry, but joy is indeed an animal experience. Evidence proves you wrong. And time will tell? Can you be more arrogant? But then you've demonstrated such arrogance from the outset, throwing insults at folks such as Zombie Munch - calling folks here stupid or idiots just coz they don't hold with your view.

I also suggested a contradiction in your defence of the fur trade (and yes, you have indeed sought to defend it) which you've failed to address. I suggest that it is your arguement that is skewed. You believe it correct that animals should be farmed (and killed) for reasons of vanity?

Yes, the testing of cosmetics on animals is indeed not permitted in Britain. I did not say otherwise.

And yes, it is a legal requirement that if a drug is to be accepted as safe, then it's testing must first involve the use of animal trials. That however does not prove a drugs safety as the facts often clearly show the opposite to be true. And no, these are not lies and half truths.

And activists do indeed target government policy. Do you know anything at all about the AR movement? Clearly not.

And I'm sorry, but many scientists do support the use of animals as test subjects. There is however a growing number who do not.[/quote']

It's not like you to talk nonsense or hurl insults which means the truth hurts. Do you listen?Obviously not as you've sought to twist everything I've said to suit your own stance. No change there then.

Joy is not an animal emotion. Prove to me it is. The thalidamide arguement is a half truth. The botox arguement is a downright lie.

i fear you must be zombie pricks alter ego.

and the vegan site is blatant propaganda.

[Invisible Lead Soup]

Ever considered that you're wrong? Some it is said have cast doubt on whether early man ate meat.

To start' date=' I don't care who's a vegan/vegetarian. That's entirely up to yourself. But it's wrong that Humans are omnivores?

[i']"Radiocarbon dating has confirmed that three wooden spears found in a coal mine in Schningen, near Hannover, Germany, are the oldest complete hunting weapons ever found. Some 380,000 to 400,000 years old, the six- to 7.5-foot javelins were found in soil whose acids had been neutralized by a high concentration of chalk near the coal pit. They suggest that early man was able to hunt, and was not just a scavenger. The development of such weapons may have been crucial to the settling of Stone Age northern Europe, whose cold climate and short daylight hours limited hunting."

There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of examples of early mankind hunting.

Hell, even ivu.org agrees; http://www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html (A vegetarian website).

Even higher primates are known as "opportunist carnivores", i.e., they eat mainly fruits and vegetables but will take eggs, insects, lizards and other small creatures if easily available or when very hungry. Oh no, monkeys are evil! Anarchy!

Like Tristen said, denying the fact that Humans are omnivores is as stupid as denying the existence of gravity. It's almost as stupid as doubting mankind's superiority over other animals.

I also like how the vegan website consistantly notes things like "Independant studies", "Research has shown", and "confirmed by scientific studies". Very vague and amusing.

[The Milner]

I myself do not believe the life of an animal should be taken for whatever purpose. As I've said' date=' humans have no special place. The fact that we are human does not determine our place in nature, that we may use and exploit other living creatures as we please.

Fishing? Well, studies have shown that fish do indeed feel pain. The Medway Report proves so.[/quote']

Ok then so its not ok for us to eat meat yet its ok for animals to?? If as you say you believe that all animals, humans, whatever are equal then surely you should be having a go at the lions that hunt gazel, what gives them the right?? You may take that as me being cheeky but from all that i have read surely you are contradicting yourself.

Anyway has man not hunted for food since we were cave men?? Do you believe they were wrong thousnads of years to hunt then for food? would you rather that they hadnt and died and then you wouldnt be hear to see all these poor cows getting slaughtered.

[Guest Bob]

Liberation begins in your stomach.

And ends in the toilet.

[Guest Bob]

Ok then so its not ok for us to eat meat yet its ok for animals to?? If as you say you believe that all animals' date=' humans, whatever are equal then surely you should be having a go at the lions that hunt gazel, what gives them the right?? You may take that as me being cheeky but from all that i have read surely you are contradicting yourself.

Anyway has man not hunted for food since we were cave men?? Do you believe they were wrong thousnads of years to hunt then for food? would you rather that they hadnt and died and then you wouldnt be hear to see all these poor cows getting slaughtered.[/quote']

No Milner, because those Lions don't understand the pain and suffering they are causing. A Lion cannot think about the inherant cruelty of their actions, consider the altenatives, then climb a tree to peel a bannana. We can.

Men hunted animals when they lived in caves because they didn't have a society built upon thousands of years of animal bloodshed to support any alternative. It is through this thankless task of eating meat that our ancestors participated in, that we can now afford the luxury of saying no to it. To condem the caveman is a little unfair.

I have dated a few vegetarian women in my time and they were all lovely and slim. That has nothing to do with the debate, but I just thought I'd tell you anyway.