Show me how it isn't.Originally Posted by Anaisa
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".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.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.Nit-picky...So if people starting having children so they could raise them, an then eat them, that would be ok.
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...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.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.
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.If you read my earlier post, you would come to know I don't much care for meat.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?
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...It is frustrating, isn't it?Of course we do, but that's not by choice.
