It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Immorality Of Eating Meat When There Are Vegi Alternatives Do People Care?

page: 35
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: hellobruce



Humans need to eat meat? Not from where I'm sitting. Did you know that the Brahmin class of India don't eat meat? That many of your favorite actors and singers don't eat meat? Mohandas Gandhi and James Bevel changed their countries and the entire world while not eating meat. Eating meat is so 19th Century. Time to move forward and help to save the forests, prairies and oceans from the destruction that it's caused.



Well people will have to develop morality where animals are concerned and see that killing them isnt very good from the animals point of view. Perhaps more empathy will aid our civilization in moving ahead in countless moral arenas.

It would be nice if we had some method to not have to eat plants too, like living off of sunlight or different frequencies of energy.




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
lol, photosynthesis would be nice, but I'm not so sure I'd look good in it :-P

will we then need to force our choices and "morality" on our pets, companion "animals" etc, to make them "vegans" as well ? I don't consider myself better or more important than any of them, maybe a little more advanced than some, but not so far evolved to place my worth above them, Dolphins actually use more of their brains at once than we do.

The thing is, we as a species have evolved to eat what we need to to survive long enough to reproduce, for some, meat, Real meat, may be a necessity, do many people know what happens to a house cat on a vegan / vegetarian diet ?

It Dies.
It Must have meat, or it will die.

There's nothing wrong with eating meat, there's everything wrong when it comes to cruelty, waste and greed.
edit on 722015 by AkaDeDrow because: the carrots told me to



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AkaDeDrow
lol, photosynthesis would be nice, but I'm not so sure I'd look good in it :-P



will we then need to force our choices and "morality" on our pets, companion "animals" etc, to make them "vegans" as well ? I don't consider myself better or more important than any of them, maybe a little more advanced than some, but not so far evolved to place my worth above them, Dolphins actually use more of their brains at once than we do.



The thing is, we as a species have evolved to eat what we need to to survive long enough to reproduce, for some, meat, Real meat, may be a necessity, do many people know what happens to a house cat on a vegan / vegetarian diet ?



It Dies.

It Must have meat, or it will die.



There's nothing wrong with eating meat, there's everything wrong when it comes to cruelty, waste and greed.


Please keep in mind this thread is about morality or lack of it for killing animals when we dont need to do it to survive at all.

Its also about if people care about an animals right to life.

Many are saying its not immoral to kill something when we dont need to kill it, we simply want to kill it so that makes it a moral action.

I would say that if we cant see that what our society is doing wrong then we can never make changes to improve it.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Many are saying its not immoral to kill something when we dont need to kill it, we simply want to kill it so that makes it a moral action.

I would say that if we cant see that what our society is doing wrong then we can never make changes to improve it.


...and I would say "Who made you the moral compass of mankind?" The majority of humanity eats meat.
news.therawfoodworld.com...
5% of America identifies as vegetarian or vegan... Majority defines social morality, not minority.

Also, animals don't have 'rights' as they are incapable of being self aware of those rights. This argument, for what it's worth, has been used extensively to support the legality of abortion... identifying the right to life as being intrinsically connected to the ability to plan and manipulate one's own future. Aside from (possibly) great apes and dolphins, not many animal have that skill and no food animals possess it.

If you're uncomfortable with eating animals, I'd suggest you continue to eat your fake meat, wear your pleather shoes, and do what you personally must do to follow your personal moral code and leave everyone else to their own destiny.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Many are saying its not immoral to kill something when we dont need to kill it, we simply want to kill it so that makes it a moral action.



I would say that if we cant see that what our society is doing wrong then we can never make changes to improve it.




...and I would say "Who made you the moral compass of mankind?" The majority of humanity eats meat.

news.therawfoodworld.com...

5% of America identifies as vegetarian or vegan... Majority defines social morality, not minority.



Also, animals don't have 'rights' as they are incapable of being self aware of those rights. This argument, for what it's worth, has been used extensively to support the legality of abortion... identifying the right to life as being intrinsically connected to the ability to plan and manipulate one's own future. Aside from (possibly) great apes and dolphins, not many animal have that skill and no food animals possess it.



If you're uncomfortable with eating animals, I'd suggest you continue to eat your fake meat, wear your pleather shoes, and do what you personally must do to follow your personal moral code and leave everyone else to their own destiny.


Slow down dude

Who made me the moral compass of mankind?
Discuss the topic and not me, I aint the moral compass of mankind. This is a conversation about the morality of killing animals for food when we dont need to. This isnt a conversation about me, just as it isnt a conversation about you. I would expect you to be able to have a discussion without the you think your the moral compass of mankind accusation, it has no place in a civil discussion. Same as if I said the same to you, its uncalled for and way off topic. Discuss the topic of the thread and not me please.

Animals dont have rights?
Sure they do, we are all animals and in a discussion based on morality we should be aware what is considered good a good thing and what is considered a bad thing. Doing bad things to animals like killing them is considered wrong by many, for example you dont just go around murdering animals because it would be immoral to do so, why because they have a right to life just like everyone else. If you killed someones pet you may face jail time because its wrong to kill that animal, if you were nice to someones pet you would be praised by thier owners as having done a good deed. Killing anything is considered an evil, but it is an evil that must be done out of need, thats where the morality comes in, if we dont need to do it.

Leave everyone to thier own destiny?
I am not saying you need to do anything, this is a discussion about morality of killing animals when there is no need to do it. I have said multiple times do what feels best for you follow your bliss whatever that may be.

Human babies dont have a right to life?
Yes they do period.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Ah, but any discussion regarding morality immediately does become about the participants in the discussion once thresholds are crossed and an opening statement which portrays any action as being amoral, or setting the table for as much, is made. You are making a contention that the morality of eating meat is connected to the presence of "reasonable" (to you) alternatives. THAT made you a topical point of discussion here.

I'm saying the theory of the OP is woefully flawed from the get-go.
1. Consuming meat is not immoral per the voices of the majority. Anyone who goes against the majority in regards to morals is waving a dangerous banner. Consider this: what if someone made an OP which stated marrying your own sister was moral? How do you debate that when it is a subjective declaration of fringe morality concepts?
2. These alternatives may taste very good and be perfectly acceptable to you... that does not mean someone else is going to enjoy them or find them acceptable. And yes, many people will absolutely be able to tell the difference. Using myself as an example, I grew up in a ranching and hunting family... I go through long stretches where I won't eat it unless I killed it, butchered it, and processed it myself. Think somebody who has spent their entire life elbow deep in blood, steaks, fillets, and home ground meats isn't going to immediately know when a burger is made from black beans and tofu? I'm not even going to wander down the "that stuff tastes like ass" road... because it honestly doesn't. It's tasty, sure, but it is not meat! I buy the habanero black bean burgers at CostCo every now and again and I will throw one of the patties onto a bun with a slab of grilled halibut or a grilled caribou patty because the two go well together.
3. This:

Doing bad things to animals like killing them is considered wrong by many, for example you dont just go around murdering animals because it would be immoral to do so, why because they have a right to life just like everyone else. If you killed someones pet you may face jail time because its wrong to kill that animal, if you were nice to someones pet you would be praised by thier owners as having done a good deed. Killing anything is considered an evil, but it is an evil that must be done out of need, thats where the morality comes in, if we dont need to do it.

leaves a lot to be desired...
a. "Murder" involves the death of a HUMAN BEING. It is patently disingenuous to use it when discussing killing, slaughtering, or otherwise physically incapacitating an animal.
b. I don't go around randomly killing animals unless I am also processing them for meat and/or hides because it is wastefull and UNETHICAL. Morals have no play here aside from it being morally wrong to waste food.
c. It is illegal to kill someone's pets because it is destruction of their property, not because it is an animal involved... at least that is the historical context of the law in regards to killing animals which do not belong to you.
d. Killing isn't evil in and of itself, and that includes killing another human being. It is all about the why, not about the what. If a woman kills a man attempting to rape her, she has certainly not committed an evil act. If a man kills a deer to feed his family, he has committed no evil.
e. Again, YOU are making this about YOU with statements such as "if we don't need it." YOU don't need to kill animals, WONDERFUL! Walk the Earth with your personal morality code fulfilled and happy, but don't lump others in with you. While YOU may very well not need to eat the flesh of an animal, there are scores of people across even America who look to meat for dietary requirements, religious requirements/practices, cultural norms, economic opportunities, and just plain old personal tastes.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

So what you are telling me is that the more meat I eat and the more often I eat it the sicker I will get and the sooner I will die?

Are you serious?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Ah, but any discussion regarding morality immediately does become about the participants in the discussion once thresholds are crossed and an opening statement which portrays any action as being amoral, or setting the table for as much, is made. You are making a contention that the morality of eating meat is connected to the presence of "reasonable" (to you) alternatives. THAT made you a topical point of discussion here.



I'm saying the theory of the OP is woefully flawed from the get-go.

1. Consuming meat is not immoral per the voices of the majority. Anyone who goes against the majority in regards to morals is waving a dangerous banner. Consider this: what if someone made an OP which stated marrying your own sister was moral? How do you debate that when it is a subjective declaration of fringe morality concepts?

2. These alternatives may taste very good and be perfectly acceptable to you... that does not mean someone else is going to enjoy them or find them acceptable. And yes, many people will absolutely be able to tell the difference. Using myself as an example, I grew up in a ranching and hunting family... I go through long stretches where I won't eat it unless I killed it, butchered it, and processed it myself. Think somebody who has spent their entire life elbow deep in blood, steaks, fillets, and home ground meats isn't going to immediately know when a burger is made from black beans and tofu? I'm not even going to wander down the "that stuff tastes like ass" road... because it honestly doesn't. It's tasty, sure, but it is not meat! I buy the habanero black bean burgers at CostCo every now and again and I will throw one of the patties onto a bun with a slab of grilled halibut or a grilled caribou patty because the two go well together.

3. This:


Doing bad things to animals like killing them is considered wrong by many, for example you dont just go around murdering animals because it would be immoral to do so, why because they have a right to life just like everyone else. If you killed someones pet you may face jail time because its wrong to kill that animal, if you were nice to someones pet you would be praised by thier owners as having done a good deed. Killing anything is considered an evil, but it is an evil that must be done out of need, thats where the morality comes in, if we dont need to do it.


leaves a lot to be desired...

a. "Murder" involves the death of a HUMAN BEING. It is patently disingenuous to use it when discussing killing, slaughtering, or otherwise physically incapacitating an animal.

b. I don't go around randomly killing animals unless I am also processing them for meat and/or hides because it is wastefull and UNETHICAL. Morals have no play here aside from it being morally wrong to waste food.

c. It is illegal to kill someone's pets because it is destruction of their property, not because it is an animal involved... at least that is the historical context of the law in regards to killing animals which do not belong to you.

d. Killing isn't evil in and of itself, and that includes killing another human being. It is all about the why, not about the what. If a woman kills a man attempting to rape her, she has certainly not committed an evil act. If a man kills a deer to feed his family, he has committed no evil.

e. Again, YOU are making this about YOU with statements such as "if we don't need it." YOU don't need to kill animals, WONDERFUL! Walk the Earth with your personal morality code fulfilled and happy, but don't lump others in with you. While YOU may very well not need to eat the flesh of an animal, there are scores of people across even America who look to meat for dietary requirements, religious requirements/practices, cultural norms, economic opportunities, and just plain old personal tastes.


Everything you have said is wrong:
First discussing the topic and not the poster is what the T&C of ATS are about, as a mod I would think you knew that.

2nd marring ones own sister and killing animals when there is no need to do so has nothing to do with each other. Just because everyone does something that doesnt make it a moral and just action.

3rd We are not just talking about the alternatives out there, but the possibility of new and different alternatives as well like 3d printed meat. There are some which taste better than others, for example Boca Burgers suck, but morning star original grillers are pretty good.

4th If you ever went and started randomly killing any animal at all and were seen by anyone you would most likely be put in prison for animal cruelty. You cant kill animals anywhere other than sanctioned zones for hunting and fishing, you also need a special lisence to do so. Try it out and see, go shoot some pigeons downtown and the cops will be there in no time, you would most likely get the book thrown at you in court and lots of jail time. Why because its wrong to kill animals period. Its an evil we allow to our corporations and hunters to continue on the pastime of eating meat and hunting animals for sport.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
its wrong to kill animals period.


No it is not, what is wrong is killing poor innocent plants....



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

its wrong to kill animals period.




No it is not, what is wrong is killing poor innocent plants....


Killing plants isnt a good thing nor have I ever said it was. What I have said is we should create new alternatives so there is no suffering involved in our consumption of foods.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Its an evil we allow to our corporations and hunters to continue on the pastime of eating meat and hunting animals for sport.


I'm tired of playing "I'm not touching you!" "Mom, she's touching me!" with you, so I'm not going to both with re-rebutting your first three scratched vynyl comments. Been there, done that...

To the sentence I quoted above, however... We are guided by largely secular laws and cultural norms, 'evil' is a religious concept, totally misplaced in any discussion related to anyone not directly referring to them self. Apply it to others and it is prostyletizing nonsense. If we lose this secular structure we become freaking ISIS... And nobody wants that.

Oh, and hunters evil? OK, Hail Satan!



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Its an evil we allow to our corporations and hunters to continue on the pastime of eating meat and hunting animals for sport.




I'm tired of playing "I'm not touching you!" "Mom, she's touching me!" with you, so I'm not going to both with re-rebutting your first three scratched vynyl comments. Been there, done that...



To the sentence I quoted above, however... We are guided by largely secular laws and cultural norms, 'evil' is a religious concept, totally misplaced in any discussion related to anyone not directly referring to them self. Apply it to others and it is prostyletizing nonsense. If we lose this secular structure we become freaking ISIS... And nobody wants that.



Oh, and hunters evil? OK, Hail Satan!


Killing innocent beings could be seen as evil or immoral, reguardless of the innocent beings being killed, plant, animal, or otherwise. To inflict suffering on others is considered bad, and to do the opposite which is help others is considered good.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   
OP says he gains weight like everyone else. Mate ur wrong. U will never be fat ill like those animal eaters.

If lion can survive only on grass he would never eat meat. That why you don't see cows eating meat.

And it is proven humans can survive on plants only based food.

If you don't care about ethics. Care about your health. Meat in my country is 100 times healthier than in USA, yet I stop eating it and it changed my life. But that just me, I m on the higher road.

One guy in topic see satisfaction in eating bacon, I see satisfaction at not eating anything for 24h . it is obvious we are not the same person. He would never be me anh he will never know me, but I was him and I know that person.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
OP says he gains weight like everyone else. Mate ur wrong. U will never be fat ill like those animal eaters.



If lion can survive only on grass he would never eat meat. That why you don't see cows eating meat.



And it is proven humans can survive on plants only based food.



If you don't care about ethics. Care about your health. Meat in my country is 100 times healthier than in USA, yet I stop eating it and it changed my life. But that just me, I m on the higher road.



One guy in topic see satisfaction in eating bacon, I see satisfaction at not eating anything for 24h . it is obvious we are not the same person. He would never be me anh he will never know me, but I was him and I know that person.


Good points however I think on some level or another we are all one, or quantum entangled to some extent. So no matter how different we think we are we are just the same BIG BANG made into something which appears different but is the same as everything else. I think oils and fats are important for diet, and alot of sugars and such can make you fat reguardless of what you eat, I think the key is moderation.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I wish the op would comment on what I havevasked him twice now.
Of we all stopped eating meat would this be good for cows pigs etc? They are doing well as a species at the moment. Do you not understand if we stopped we would not keep the millions of them around would we.
You would only see them in zoos eventually.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I wish the op would comment on what I havevasked him twice now.

Of we all stopped eating meat would this be good for cows pigs etc? They are doing well as a species at the moment. Do you not understand if we stopped we would not keep the millions of them around would we.

You would only see them in zoos eventually.


What does that have to do with the OP? Of the morality of killing animals for food when we dont need to, its only out of want and the desire to do so.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Dodge the question then.
I think it is moral to help the species continue to thrive.
If we all stopped eating meat tmr there would not be many of them in a year or two.
Why would we continue wasting valuable resources on the millions of animals we just wouldn't need?.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Dodge the question then.

I think it is moral to help the species continue to thrive.

If we all stopped eating meat tmr there would not be many of them in a year or two.

Why would we continue wasting valuable resources on the millions of animals we just wouldn't need?.


So you think killing them is helping them? Ok that doesnt sound logical at all. We dont need them even now, we kill them out of want, and simply out of the desire to do so because they are said to taste good.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Your whole basis for this argument is that killing animals for food(and other products) is immoral.

I believe humans can and should use animal products to survive and thrive. There is no moral issue here. None at all.

You seem to forget that all the awesome veggie food you provided examples of is a product of this industrial age we live in. You would not have these options if the infrastructure was not in place to support it. Your veggie food is nothing more than a product designed to rid consumers of their(your) money.

Meat has been a staple food in the diet of man, throughout history, for a reason. Please don't ask what reason; the answer is obvious if you consider the subject logically instead of morally.
edit on 13-2-2015 by My_Reality because: ERROR!



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Would we still have the millions of cows and pogs if we stopped eating them yes or no



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join