Not trying to be a troll, but PETA scares me...

[Emerald Aeris]

"We really are more like the animal kingdom more than you seem to realize"

I'll be the first to say that, but that has little to do with the morality of eating animals. Natural does not mean right. Rape happens all the time in the wild, and I think we'll all agree that that's wrong.

"Take it from someone who knows how to score for debating, you've lost the technicals. The best I've heard from you comes down to nothing more than "Just because". Whereas your opposition at least gives empirical reasons why they think the way they do."

Let me get this straight. your counter argument here is, basically "I know more about debating than you, and I'm telling you you're wrong". Nice. Where have I said anything close to "just because"? And where are your empirical reasons? I've argued that vegetarianism, if widely implemented, is much more economical (all the feed used to feed animals could be used to feed people, to reiterate). You argh me. Argue definite points that've been made here, stop making huge claims without backing them up, and stop being arrogant. We'll get along much better.

"Anyways, human beings are PREDATORS. We were built, by god or nature, to be predators. We hunt and we kill because, by accident or by design, that's what we do. It's a part of our nature, and even those intellectuals amongst us that so enjoy a good debate are catering that instinct . The desire for success and even the need for competition are part of our predatory nature."

How does that make it morally right? Besides that, we're built more towards being vegetarians. We have more similarities to herbivores than carnivores.

"You have every right to say we're in the wrong, you may even be right, but I'd love to see you give any actual evidence of it."

How can I give evidence of something being immoral? It's completely relative. If you mean backing up my beliefs, I think I've made several posts of a good argument.

"Put your hippy efforts to saving HUMAN lives first, we'll get to the animals when all the more important stuff has been taken care of. People should become vets only if they're not good enough to practice real medicine."

Or maybe if we would put more attention into the environment, we would be getting so much cancer and such in the first place.

I find it really hard to imagine how you could POSSIBLY be a nature worshipper, since you think everything non-human is second place, and we should be able to treat the world like crap if we want.

[fire_of_avalon]

Firstly, human beings aren't designed to be strict predators. We're designed to be omnivores. Secondly, I really feel that no one has provided much in the way of emprical evidence, because there's really none to be had. Finally, I don't feel it's very nice to attack someone's argument and basically claim it's invalid when they speak from the same place you speak, their morals. Neither is it very nice to belittle someone, eg "putting your hippy efforts into something useful" (paraphrased).

EDIT: I was beaten to the punch. :/

[DocFrance]

We have more similarities to herbivores than carnivores.

I'm not going to argue much more on this, but I don't think this is entirely true. We have eyes in front of our heads, while herbivores have eyes on the sides so that they can see predators at any angle. We have canine teeth for ripping and shredding meat. Our fingernails are de-evolved claws. We've been at the top of the food chain for thousands, if not millions of years. Our species probably wouldn't get very far if we were prey to something.

On the other hand, we do share some herbivorous qualities. Our incisors and molars are more prominent than our canines. Our de-evolved appendix was at one time used for digesting cellulose (found in raw plants, like grass and leaves). Apes, our closest relative species, are mostly herbivorous.

We're omnivores, but I'd say we swing more towards meat-eaters.

[Emerald Aeris]

I'm not going to argue much more on this, but I don't think this is entirely true. We have eyes in front of our heads, while herbivores have eyes on the sides so that they can see predators at any angle. We have canine teeth for ripping and shredding meat. Our fingernails are de-evolved claws. We've been at the top of the food chain for thousands, if not millions of years. Our species probably wouldn't get very far if we were prey to something.

On the other hand, we do share some herbivorous qualities. Our incisors and molars are more prominent than our canines. Our de-evolved appendix was at one time used for digesting cellulose (found in raw plants, like grass and leaves). Apes, our closest relative species, are mostly herbivorous.

We're omnivores, but I'd say we swing more towards meat-eaters.

What I meant is that we are omnivorous, but we lean more towards herbivores. Large amounts of meat are very harmful, while we can live very healthily on just plants. Stuff like that is what I was refering too.

[DocFrance]

A large amount of anything is harmful.

[Emerald Aeris]

A diet consisting of all meat as opposed to all veggies.

Can we stop the splitting of hairs now? I'm gonna chip a tooth here.

[udsuna]

Hey, I never said screw the environment OR treat it like crap. Go back to my last set of posts, I clearly stated that I was pro environmentalism. I shall thank you to pay closer attention. And my hippy comment was no less rude that the comment she made to me before, so I consider myself MORE than in the right on that one.

And yes, we are metabolically closer to herbivore than carnivore, but we are structurally closer to carnivores. That happens because we set ourselves up to be such efficient killers that we didn't need the herbivorous physical traits, but we never lost the usefulness of consuming plants. But, in our hunter-gatherer pasts, a diet purely of plantlife would kill us as surely as a diet of meat alone.

We didn't become predators to hunt, we became predators because it's the best way to fend off other predators. We're not great hunters, but we are the best killers this world has ever known. Does anyone need me to prove THAT statement?

And, Aeris, please don't mock my religious beliefs. I worship a Goddess, I worship the world and the life she gave rise to. But it states pretty clearly that we, humans, are the greatest of her works- built with the flesh of an animal, so as to understand the creatures we were granted dominion over. With minds capable of learning and choice, not to mention the knowlege that we exist. And spirits that were granted the power to create beauty. We, of all life on this world, are the ONLY ones with those gifts.

And that, my dear, makes us the superior beings. We have the power, and the privilege, of shaping the world to our whims. It comes with the clear responsibility not to ruin creation in the process- something that, admittedly, our species seems to be having trouble grasping. If we can find a way to provide all the things that allow us to continue our reign and our comfort in that station, without harming any living being- I'd be the FIRST to back it. But we can't do that, and despite the cost to individual animals that we exploit, the benefits to the species (ours AND theirs) far outweigh the harm we cause.

[Leeza]

If we can find a way to provide all the things that allow us to continue our reign and our comfort in that station, without harming any living being- I'd be the FIRST to back it. But we can't do that, and despite the cost to individual animals that we exploit, the benefits to the species (ours AND theirs) far outweigh the harm we cause. - udsuna

I think you mean that you won't or that you don't want to be inconvenienced, not that you can't.

But, in our hunter-gatherer pasts, a diet purely of plantlife would kill us as surely as a diet of meat alone. - udsuna

Tell this to my grandmother or to any vegan/vegetarian. I think that they're all living quite well and in a much healthier state than people who eat more meat than they need. Well, my grandmother isn't alive anymore. She died at 83 and her mother at 86 before her...all vegetarians.

You might not have specifically said screw the environment, but your attitude and the way your refer to anything other than humans and their superiority seems to point in that direction.

[Tokki Wartooth]

This whole "we're omnivorous so it's okay to eat animals" argument is ridiculous. When we were neanderthals we ate animals because it was the easiest way for a primitive species to get protein, but most of us have evolved a bit since then, and there are other ways to get protein just as easily.

There is nobody in this world who can live a healthy life on just meat. As long as you have some other way of replenishing the nutrients you would have gotten from meat, being a vegan/vegeterian is much, much more healthy than eating any meat at all.

[Emerald Aeris]

"Hey, I never said screw the environment OR treat it like crap. Go back to my last set of posts, I clearly stated that I was pro environmentalism. I shall thank you to pay closer attention."

Yes, well, you basically said we can take/do whatever we want. I equate the two. I didn't know about your goddess and you thinking we should do it responsibly. You didn't say it, so how was I supposed to know?

"And yes, we are metabolically closer to herbivore than carnivore, but we are structurally closer to carnivores."

Not really. No claws, we barely have canine teeth, we have molars, and a long intestinal tract, we can break down a lot of plant fiber. Without weapons, we would NOT be killing anything, we certainly have no defense other than our intelligence. No teeth, no claws, no speed or stealth like most predators.

"That happens because we set ourselves up to be such efficient killers that we didn't need the herbivorous physical traits, but we never lost the usefulness of consuming plants."

Like has already been said, that was because we were ignorant. A diet high in meat is VERY unhealthy, while you can get all you need by eating plants.

"But, in our hunter-gatherer pasts, a diet purely of plantlife would kill us as surely as a diet of meat alone."

Yeah, in the past, where we were ignorant. Again, natural does not mean it's ok. I already said that. Do you care to address that point, among others now?

"And, Aeris, please don't mock my religious beliefs."

O_o when the heck did I mock your religious beliefs?

"I worship a Goddess, I worship the world and the life she gave rise to. But it states pretty clearly that we, humans, are the greatest of her works- built with the flesh of an animal, so as to understand the creatures we were granted dominion over. With minds capable of learning and choice, not to mention the knowlege that we exist. And spirits that were granted the power to create beauty. We, of all life on this world, are the ONLY ones with those gifts."

That's all well and good, but if I believed in a religion that said I'm right, and concluded it there, would that be a valid point? No, and neither is the above. Religion should NOT be brought into this.

Besides that, we are NOT the only ones on earth who create beauty. Whale and bird song? Bower bird nests? I could make a huge list.

"But we can't do that, and despite the cost to individual animals that we exploit, the benefits to the species (ours AND theirs) far outweigh the harm we cause."

Can you be specific here? 'cause I'm REALLY not seeing it.

We've already said that eating animals is unnecessary (arguments against that like "well they taste good" or "our ancestors ate meat" or "we're built to eat meat" are not valid), and that eating animals is not economical at all. Animals bred to kill drive out natural wildlife, and habitats are constantly destroyed to make pastures. The amount of meat most people eat is very unhealthy (albeit that's their own fault, I'm not arguing that you can't have a healty diet consisting of meat, you can, that's just not the norm).

Where are these benefits that far outweigh the bad?

[DocFrance]

Besides that, we are NOT the only ones on earth who create beauty. Whale and bird song? Bower bird nests? I could make a huge list.

We're the only ones on Earth that can appreciate the beauty we create, as well as natural beauty. A bird doesn't know that its song is beautiful; to the bird, it's only communication.

[Tokki Wartooth]

For one thing, beauty is subjective. For another, anything "beautiful" humans have ever created (which I'd argue is nothing) gets negated by all the enironment and life we destroy. But now we're just moving off-topic since no one can argue anymore that eating animals is not wrong on every possible level.

[udsuna]

That benefit, as I said before, is time and energy. We kill and eat animals, it more quickly provides for us certain nutritional values that we need. We COULD get it from plantlife, but that requires considerations that, quite frankly, are annoying.
Which, like I keep saying (please read more closely), makes it both convenient and useful (not to mention very, very tasty) to farm and consume animals. And also, like I said, it benefits MOST of the species we farm. The only ones I can't argue that it helps are geese- that appear to do beautifully in the wild.
Oh, and Aeris, I've heard whale song- personally, I prefer the Aurora Borealis- does that mean that a combination of electromagnetic forces generating a stunning light show is "creating"? No, it doesn't. It's incidental, maybe even accidental, but it lacks intent or design, so it doesn't get credit. No more than a tape and player is given credit for the music it plays. You give credit to the original creator.
By the way, bird songs mostly translate to "hey, baby, wanna go back to my place and...." or "get the **** out of my lawn!!!"
And you say "ignorant" like an insult. By definition, though, "unaware" does apply well. There are many things we're STILL ignorant on, but animals are just animals. As much a part of the mechanics of the world as a gear is part of the mechanics of a clock. Mechanisms that WE, singularly, have the power to understand and appreciate. I think that gives us power to skim a little off the top for ourselves. We've earned it... and then we like to over-reach and take more than we should (something I'm NOT happy about).
Oh, and while we're at it, what makes animals so much better than plants that we're allowed to harm the latter even if it's wrong to harm the former? They're all organisms that only function on whatever instinct is reacting to whichever environmental stimulus. Pieces of a brilliantly complex machine, but taken individually, unimportant and easily replaced.

For one thing, beauty is subjective. For another, anything "beautiful" humans have ever created (which I'd argue is nothing) gets negated by all the enironment and life we destroy. But now we're just moving off-topic since no one can argue anymore that eating animals is not wrong on every possible level.

I wasn't aware it was established that the argument was lost. No one has yet actually explained to me how harm caused to something that's really no better than a machine deserves to be treated any better.

Animals are cuter than plants.

True... so now it comes down to physical appearance why animals win. An instinct to be kinder to more attractive things... that's really progressive...

[MecaKane]

Animals are cuter than plants.

[Tokki Wartooth]

There are many things we're STILL ignorant on, but animals are just animals.

I must have missed the memo about you being an android, but most of us here at EoFF are members of the animal kingdom.

Oh, and while we're at it, what makes animals so much better than plants that we're allowed to harm the latter even if it's wrong to harm the former? They're all organisms that only function on whatever instinct is reacting to whichever environmental stimulus. Pieces of a brilliantly complex machine, but taken individually, unimportant and easily replaced.

The most obvious thing is that animals can register pain. While they may not equal an adult human in intellect, a lot of mammals are more intelligent than adult children. So I guess it's okay to torture a child and kill it for food! Yay Jonny Swift!