Any Veggetarians???

[The Devil Man]

Clearly, the only solution is to find a way to manipulate DNA to breed completely brain-dead animals. They’re not missing anything, and we get to pump them full of chemicals and generally treat them like giant meat-bags without activists getting on our asses about it. It’s win/win.

The solution is to eat vegetarian burgers

Meat eaters can pretend they are full o' meat like normal burgers.

And vegetarians can be rest assured they ain't chomping down on any meat

[Anaisa]

WTF? Why are we talking about cannabilism? I thought this thread was about the consumption of animals, and strictly animals.

Apparently so did most people. But you're wrong. It is supposed to be about vegetarians, an their reasons for being vegetarians.

Going off on some tangent such as this seems like a long-winded and terribly faulted method of trying to validate a flawed point.

It is a flawed point to you. But it is not actually a flawed point at all.

And PETA makes me laugh - a kind of laugh that you force yourself to take so as not to cry from the sheer patheticness of it all. Animals are not people. Most livestock seem to have the brain capacity of a cucumber. You could argue that this is due to the breeding practives, and much of it is, but if something is seriosuly that unaware, I have to wonder why it isn't labeled nothing more than "FOOD".

So if something is unintelligent, it's ok to eat it. If that's the case, it's ok to eat unintelligent people then.

I've seen chickens with personalities and character. And I've seen cows with such things also. But they weren't being raised for food. When something is raised for food, I see no reason to call it anything else.

So if people starting having children so they could raise them, an then eat them, that would be ok.

It could be deemed as wrong to raise things specifically for food, but in this present day and age, we cannot possibly detach ourselves from these farms. There are too many mouths to feed. And look at what it would do to the economy...

It would improve the economy, do your research.

According to the WorldWatch Institute "Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off of rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry.

Is it morally superior? I don't think so. Furthermore, morals are something personal and can and are interpretted differently.

Obviously you don't think so, you're a meat eater. In what way morally, can murdering something an eating it, because you like the taste, be seen as a good thing?

My thoughts are eat what you want, but don't deem yourself more pure simply because you don't eat meat. More likely than not, you still subsidize the meat industries in some form or another anyways...

Of course we do, but that's not by choice.

[Nasarian Altimeros]

The solution is to eat vegetarian Burgers

Meat eaters can pretend they are full o' meat like normal burgers.

And vegetarians can be rest assured they ain't chomping down on any meat

It would probably take less effort to scramble some cows brain than it would to create a vegetarian burger that not only tasted like a real burger, but had the same consistency as one.

Right now vegetarian burgers are almost as bad a lie as Coke Zero.

[The Devil Man]

So if something is unintelligent, it's ok to eat it. If that's the case, it's ok to eat unintelligent people then.

My Good Friend Quin 'N' Tonic is doomed

[Nominus Experse]

It is a flawed point to you. But it is not actually a flawed point at all.

Show me how it isn't.

Meh, nevermind, let us move on - we needn't regurgitate the thing again...

And PETA makes me laugh - a kind of laugh that you force yourself to take so as not to cry from the sheer patheticness of it all. Animals are not people. Most livestock seem to have the brain capacity of a cucumber. You could argue that this is due to the breeding practives, and much of it is, but if something is seriosuly that unaware, I have to wonder why it isn't labeled nothing more than "FOOD".

So if something is unintelligent, it's ok to eat it. If that's the case, it's ok to eat unintelligent people then.

However, I think we agree there is a difference in what we deem "human" and what we deem "animal". Until I see sapience and sentience in an animal, I see no reason to place them with humans.

I've seen chickens with personalities and character. And I've seen cows with such things also. But they weren't being raised for food. When something is raised for food, I see no reason to call it anything else.

So if people starting having children so they could raise them, an then eat them, that would be ok.

Nit-picky...

If an ANIMAL is raised for food, I see no reason to call it anything different.

That a better sentence for you?

It could be deemed as wrong to raise things specifically for food, but in this present day and age, we cannot possibly detach ourselves from these farms. There are too many mouths to feed. And look at what it would do to the economy...

It would improve the economy, do your research.

According to the WorldWatch Institute "Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off of rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry.

I will admit that I ought to have placed an "I think" in my statement somewhere... I've only heard such things, so I thought it as fact.

Where might I read more of this article? It piques my curiousity.

Is it morally superior? I don't think so. Furthermore, morals are something personal and can and are interpretted differently.

Obviously you don't think so, you're a meat eater. In what way morally, can murdering something an eating it, because you like the taste, be seen as a good thing?

If you read my earlier post, you would come to know I don't much care for meat.

And when I am proclaiming myself morally superior? If you think it implied, I assure you, I meant no such thing.

Furthermore, I never said that killing and eating an animal for meat was a good thing. I just see it as natural and not something to make an event of.

My thoughts are eat what you want, but don't deem yourself more pure simply because you don't eat meat. More likely than not, you still subsidize the meat industries in some form or another anyways...

Of course we do, but that's not by choice.

It is frustrating, isn't it?

[ShunNakamura]

I proclaim Anaisa the queen of pulling arguments out of context!

Nominus feel free to correct me on this.


I have read Nominus's post and deciphered the context(in other words payed attention to what I was reading rather than just looking for an someone/something to argue with). You can't just go by the words in this case because unintelligent covers just about everything under the blue moon; thus, one must acertian the degrees through the context.


Anaisa wrote, "So if something is unintelligent, it's ok to eat it. If that's the case, it's ok to eat unintelligent people then" in reply to Nominus's, " Most livestock seem to have the brain capacity of a cucumber."

Lets do this a sentence at a time, shall we?

First Nominus and his cucumber capacity. The degree to which he is speaking of unintelligent is quite high. And he is right one quick thing that comes to mind is ALL animals except humans(and possibly dogs) lack the ability of fast mapping which is an ability that is almost symonous with intelligence. In addition there is much more than just that which as a species completely puts us in another sphere than all other animals.

Enough there, lets head on to Anaisa's sentence.

"So if something is unintelligent, it's ok to eat it."
This statement alone is quite vague(due to how broad unintelligent is); however, being in reply to Nominus as well as in how it also appears as an attempt to summarize his post I can assume that unintelligent is in the same context.

Her second sentence-

"If that's the case, it's ok to eat unintelligent people then"
Once again it can be vague(which was likely the intention in order to set up a form of really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.); however, lets look at it closely. Being in reply to Nominus(and considering she has no other context significant context) we can assume it is using the same degree of unintelligent. Which would mean just about the only humans who aren't intelligent would already be A) brain dead[which is the same as dead], B) dead or I guess there is a slight possibility of C) they had some sort of genetic malfunction that disabled the forms of intellengence that seperates humans from animals in general. Anyways in 2/3 of the cases I don't find it immoral, a bit distrubing maybe but not immoral. The last case meh, I have never heard of such a case but they would only be human in shape and not in reality if it did occur.

Of course another possibility is that Anaisa was using a different type of intelligence that what was implied in Nominus's post, in which case we can assume that the argument feel flat due to misinterpretation(whether intentional or accidental is moot to me).

[Zante]

Animals eat other animals, so I see no reason why we shouldn't as well.

[Yamaneko]

The discussion has reached its limit. I don't see any new details emerging that would allow us to further it so it's time to close this.