[Discussion] are you vegétarian or meatatarian???..

[minamoto]

i------------>.

me is both...i love vegétablez and fruits....i also love meat..like chiken and fish...but my favorite is cow meat...i love cow meat..cow meat so so deliciouz..mooooo ..

 

[Zise]

i------------>.

me is both...i love vegétablez and fruits....i also love meat..like chiken and fish...but my favorite is cow meat...i love cow meat..cow meat so so deliciouz..mooooo ..

I also love beef steaks. Guess that's another thing we got in common.

 

[minamoto]

I also love beef steaks. Guess that's another thing we got in common.

You must be registered for see images

..

 

[The Big Boss]

i------------>.

me is both...i love vegétablez and fruits....i also love meat..like chiken and fish...but my favorite is cow meat...i love cow meat..cow meat so so deliciouz..mooooo ..

 

[Avonomemi]

why deny yourself the pleasures of the world when you have just one life to live.

 

[Hunty]

U r backstabr hinti

 

[minamoto]

U r backstabr hinti

plz my frend..tis thred wether u love meat or vegétblez..so stop teh spam proces pldz

 

[Troi]

I'm a pescitarian, unfortunately. Be smelling good doe.

 

[Horus]

I'm too obsessed with chicken and shrimp ;_;
Recently been getting back into beef too

 

[Waluigi]

I've listened very carefully to the vegan, vegetarian, freegan, and other arguments for moral eating and sustainable living and healthy eating.

A lot of their arguments particularly regarding the environmental impact of large scale meat production, the immoral and inhumane practices involves like with the mass production of chickens, the way they deal with sexing baby chicks because only the female chickens are largely ever wanted, so the males just get crushed in grinders and its awful.... a lot of their arguments are very persuasive.

When it comes to being healthy, that's another thing, especially with regard to the feces that get into the food, and the diseases that spread to all the animals in factory farm settings, to the chemicals, additives, and steroids, they have strong arguments.

Some people even need to eat healthier and skipping animal fats and excessive red meats is known to have real health benefits, as well as avoiding too much sugar and processed foods.

I particularly like the humane arguments they make, because even animals in the wild who eat meat largely don't make their prey food suffer. I don't like making an animal suffer even if I'm going to eat it. Similarly, people who hunt, and actually eat their food that they shoot, have my respect because they actually have to deal with cleaning and preparing the animal and you don't take their meat for granted after you put that much work into it.

I have done a lot of soul searching regarding the arguments on morality, too.

I would not like it if some intelligent alien species suddenly conquered earth, put humans into cages for breeding and factory reproduction of humans for food. I believe being treated like we treat our food animals absolutely would be immoral.

So raising animals to be enslaved to humans, for food purposes, does appear to be immoral to me.

However, there's a limit to how much that argument works for me, because of the following reasons-

1. All animals by definition consume other life forms. Animals, unlike plants, do not produce their own food. They have to consume the flesh of other living things, even if they're just plants or mushrooms or something.

2. Parasitic and carnivorous or predatory species, even species which basically destroy ecosystems, are also a part of nature. There is no morality in nature, not really. If you're alive, something is trying to kill you. Humans have escaped the food chain largely, but that is due to our technology and omnipresence. Strip us down to rags, give us no tools, put us in the jungle, rainforest, savannah, the woods, or the tundra, and many animals will destroy us, and rightly so, they're hungry and we are their natural predators.

3. Unfortunately due to human domination of the planet and lack of conservation of wild spaces for wild animals to exist, human caused mass extinction is ongoing, currently, the best bet for keeping land animals around, is domestication and being farm animals.

There's also a moral factor in suddenly shutting off this food chain. Because once the capitalistic profit motive is removed, no one is going to return all these domesticated food animals to the wild.

No, there will not only not be wild spaces, but the land that used to belong to the animals and those who owned them, will be bought and sold and soon those spaces will not exist for those animals.

So the absolute collapse of the existence of food animals like cows, pigs, chickens, et cetera, will occur the moment you make it policy that people don't eat these animals anymore, and however you feel about domestication of animals and food slavery, I think we can concur that mass extinction of all domesticated animals and absolute removal of any wild spaces for them to roam and exist, is worse for those animals than a flawed existence.

Ideally, there can be a future where people live in balance and harmony with nature and more and more living space can be reclaimed in the natural world for a wide variety of protected species, and more and more nature preserves can exist.

Ideally, we can wean ourselves off of the profit motive of capitalism as the singularly most important thing that drives us. If we can stop prioritizing the creation of a handful of billionaires at the expense of the other 9 billion people on the planet, and also, the mass destruction of millions of species that will never be replaced, then we can come up with policies where the protein and other benefits of eating meat can be replaced with factory grown meat. Where literal beef muscle tissue is just grown en masse, enough to replace all the stock of cattle in every country 10 times over.

So the food is cheap and abundant and requires no suffering by any animal.

And if the actual animals are ever to suffer mass extinction due to no longer being a required domesticated food animal, and something happens to our labs and factories that grow the food, it will be a very bad time for humanity, because food animals don't get replaced when they go extinct.

Destroying these animals by removing them from the food chain for humans and not giving them wild land to breed and roam on, means billions of years of evolution to generate these animals ends, and they can't replaced in just a few years. They will simply vanish from the planet and that's no good for humanity, and it's no good for the ecosystem, and it's no good for the animals.

I realize I'm essentially arguing that humanity would be better off in cages and being used as food animals than to be destroyed by their alien overlords, and yes, that is true, if the species of aliens were working on a method of freeing the humans and returning them to their natural habitats and restoring their wild freedoms again.

Yes, surviving would absolutely be superior to being rendered mass extinct by our captors.

Which is why I feel the sudden removal of food animals from the food chain and destroying the profit motive of creating spaces to raise these animals, would be BAD for the animals.

We can improve conditions for animals without causing them to go extinct-

1. free range, non factory produced animals. So they have a healthy, happy life of any kind before they're used for food. Because we don't need to cause needless suffering, and because it's healthier for the animals, and therefore, healthier for us as well.

2. Removing all the chemicals, bleach, and steroids from the process. Keeping things more sanitary.

3. Conservation efforts, so there are wild versions of these animals in natural habitats, so if something should affect our livestock, like a plague, it won't kill all the wild animals because nature handles stuff like that.

Gros michel bananas went out of favor due to a disease that affected most of them on earth, they got replaced with the far less tasty and desirable cavendish that you're familiar with. Something like that can happen to mass produced cows, chickens, etc, with less genetic diversity, therefore, conservation efforts, different genetic groups, even groups reproducing in the wild, would be better for the planetary ecosystem and prevent mass extinction by allowing species to branch off again naturally on their own.

4. Overhauling our economic system so in the long run, the reason we keep animals around isn't due to the profit motive, but doing this slowly, since that's the only thing keeping our animals alive right now.

5. Making sure humanity has a fallback position even if we advance to factory grown humane "vegan" meat that is grown in labs without causing animals to suffer. It already exists, and is in the early stages. But if something should happen to our artificially created, mass produced, lab-grown factory meat that causes no animal to suffer, there are billions of people who need to eat.

I have also heard a lot of these same persons argue we should be eating more insects, and species with less intelligence and emotional or social intelligence, because it feels less bad to kill things that are less conscious I suppose, or are less relatable to humans, and that's when you lose me.

I don't think these lives are unequal and I don't think its more moral to eat 100 bugs a day than a piece of a steer. Sorry, you lost me on that one, also, I don't want to yuck your yum, but that definitely isn't MY yum.

---------------



So as you can tell, I've definitely thought about it.

I just feel, we still exist as part of nature, and rapidly eliminating food animals from the food chain, will just collapse our food chain and also, cause those species of animals to be relegated to zoos because they're just domesticated now. They don't survive in the wild.

So I think too rapid a response to this, too thoughtless, too uncareful, too short-sighted, will take all the good moral and practical arguments made and just, toss them in the wood chipper.

Because identifying a problem is not the same as finding the solution. And vegans and vegetarians and animal rights groups and PETA and so forth, they really do often have their heart in the right place and make super valid arguments a lot.

And I would never tell a vegan or vegetarian or freegan that they're doing something immoral.

They're on the vanguard of what morality is and should be, and are discussing our moral relationship with animals in a way i think needs to be discussed.

I merely think their proposed solutions so far are not wise, not measured, too extreme, and too short sighted, and ultimately, hurt animals just as much.

Its like when PETA destroys the animals they rescue to end their suffering, most of the time.

That's..... just killing the patient. That's not helping, even if the desire to help and stop the suffering exists.

I wouldn't want an Alien version of PETA to come in and mass exterminate human beings in captivity because we are enslaved, or sick, or even abused.

This isn't helping. It's hurting while feeling you're helping.

Which is why I don't give to PETA and I only give to no-kill shelters. And I feel PETA is immoral as an organization and it gets good publicity.

And I sympathize with 99 percent of the vegan arguments.

And I think they're on strong moral ground and I admire them.

But I feel more morally sound eating the meat that I get at the grocery store than I do about the idea of ending all food slavery right now with no path to conserving these animals or actually saving them from suffering.

I think me eating that meat, is actually still more moral than letting the species go exitinct because we ended food slavery without a plan to conserve these animals, and allowed the billionaire class to sell all that farmland for a more profitable purpose, the only land these animals could even exist on.

Once that profit motive is gone, so are entire species.

And, yes, it is wrong. But we don't fix a wrong without a solution, by doing something even worse levels of wrong.

That is why I continue to eat meat.

I think it's currently the most humane solution, and yes, that would be true even if humans were in the situation the animals are, as I just demonstrated.

And I don't hate vegans, and I do admire them.

I do think that, like every group that fancies itself the moral guardians of earth, they can have fanatics that go too far, and see rational people like me as the enemy, because a religious fanatic gives themselves permission to be immoral, because they feel their cause is just.

And that excuses every crime, including the possible mass extinction of animals, because they felt like they were the good guys in freeing these animals from food slavery.

And then they had nowhere to go and were destroyed en masse while humans actually starve to death on this planet, which is even dumber and more immoral than the food slavery was.

So please, think about the impact of your decisions, no matter how moral you think you're being.

An immoral situation doesn't automatically mean ending it without a good solution is more moral.

Killing a sick patient is NOT morality. It is immorality.

And when good moral people work themselves into a frenzy and do immoral things, shortsightedly, believing they are good, they are no different from the folks who burned witches.

You think you're fighting evil, but you are the source of the harm. Worse harm, anyway.

That is why i admire, respect, and am nearly a vegetarian or a vegan. You almost have me on your side.

But I am still omnivorous and eat a balanced diet that includes meat, and I think I'm still moral for doing so, especially given my other advocacies, which include a path to sustainably ending food slavery forever without causing mass exinctions, or risking humanity's food sources, or allowing the billionaires to destroy habitats for profit.

I've thought about it more, i feel. That's all. I'm not inherently better, but I thought about why each side is causing harm for more than 2 seconds rationally and chose the side causing the least harm and advocating for the most good, most sustainably.

Which involves taking a slightly immoral position, because there is no flawlessly moral position that is realistic to take today.

Because the overton window doesn't allow for suddenly ending all food slavery right now, and also, keeping those species and habitats around.

If that were politically possible, Republicans would not exist as a political party, because humanity would be far too enlightened for anyone to fall for their horrendous bull, nor would they even come close to holding power, let alone all the power.

So we don't live in that dream world yet. This is the most sustainable solution we have. And that makes me both moral and a realist, since I actually have a path out of it.

No one else does. And until they do, they can't lecture me about the meat eating.

the cow is already dead. And if I personally don't buy the cow meat, it goes in the supermarket dumpster.

I've saved zero cows by not eating the cow. That will be true even if millions of us stop eating them.

The only thing that will happen is farmers will produce fewer cows. it won't end the suffering.