Eating Meat is Unethical

originally posted by: UniFinity
In other words, even if you eat meat all the time, there are just as many chances you get b12 deficiency as vegetarians who eat eggs or dairy products or mushrooms if you are not watching your general health or incorrect preparation of food.

I would think the vegan would have the higher overall instances of B12 deficiency. I am not advocating eating meat 'all the time', just having a balanced diet as we are intended to as omnivores.

originally posted by: Son of Will

www.iquestioneverything.net...

Do you think their move is good or bad? Why do they see it the way they do? There is GMO Golden rice were Vitamin A is added by putting the genes of a carrot in it, what if they added B12 to rice too?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Son of Will
And eating meat is EASY to stop.

Killing and eating vegetables is much easier to stop!

It's one of the easiest, obviously-beneficial choices we can all make. If we stop spending money on it, the cycle will slow down, and that's less violence/cruelty on the hands of humans.

Very true, just look at the angry vegetarians, trying to control what other people do, and getting upset when they are ignored!

There's nothing crazy about this at all - it's actually SO rational, and SO simple, that most people expect it to be more complicated, or nuanced.

True, stopping eating vegetables is easy, rational and simple to do!

Of course Animals don't love their babies so it is all the same.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UniFinity

As has been shown you can get them from eggs and other sources but meat by far is the largest provider.

People need very little Adults 2.4 mcg and has been mentioned over and over in this thread meat eaters get a shortage as often as non meat eaters as the cause is rarely anything to do with a lack but of the inability to absorb.

After this, vitamin B12 combines with a protein made by the stomach called intrinsic factor and is absorbed by the body. Some people have pernicious anemia, a condition where they cannot make intrinsic factor. As a result, they have trouble absorbing vitamin B12 from all foods and dietary

ods.od.nih.gov...
books.google.com... YroZDJ0pyug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo2b-An4nKAhVU12MKHfPNBm44ChDoAQgnMAI#v=onepage&q=the%20recycling%20of%20vitb12%20in%20the%20body&f=false

Farmers commonly have to inject livestock with B12 anyway due to defficiency anyway so it's not even as though getting it from meat is always 'natural'. I'm quite happy to take a supplement/ eat fortified foods.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
People need very little Adults 2.4 mcg...

Irrelevant. Other than supplements the only source is from meat.

...and has been mentioned over and over in this thread meat eaters get a shortage as often as non meat eaters as the cause is rarely anything to do with a lack but of the inability to absorb.

That is only people with pernicious anemia and is a fraction of the population.

Finally back home, and on a real computer.

So I'll be going over the last several pages of comments, but in the mean time, I think the majority of this thread could be summed up in a video.

To those buying/bought into the vegan craze.
If it didn't have a title and a sense of community alongside, would you still follow this fashion?
Where are the smart vegetarian/vegans?
Everyone who has defended their side has used lies, propaganda and insults to try and get their point across.
Do what you want, stop preaching. Just know you have been suckered in.
Another point for the left (new right) liberal agenda: using peoples' emotions to control them.

If a cow was hungry enough, it would eat you and not shed a tear.

I've never understood why a plant's life is less valuable than an animal's.

If you REALLY wanted to eat ethically, you'd eat only minerals and sunlight.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I've never understood why a plant's life is less valuable than an animal's.

I am sure you do not really mean that

Question for you ... You have the choice to kill a plant or kill an animal ... ?

a reply to: artistpoet

What he is saying I think is as follows , I agree with some posters that we are the first species on the planet to actually have a choice on whether to kill or not, but the fact remains who gets to decide what level of 'is alive' is acceptable and what is not.....?

Life feeds on life, stars explode and are born as the universe consumes and recycles itself ( with ever diminishing returns) in the hunt for energy in a process that repeats over and over at almost every level of the universe.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

What he is saying is that I agree with some posters that we are the first species on the planet to actually have a choice on whether to kill or not, but the fact remains who gets to decide what level of 'is alive' is acceptable and what is not.....?

My point was in reference to valuing the life of a plant or that of an animal
Even if one eats meat ... surely you would value an animal over a plant ... being animals ourselves

I think it is a very poor argument to consider a plant has the same conscious facilities as an animal

Of course everything has value and a place/purpose
As such all of life should be respected ... it all has value

originally posted by: artistpoet
surely you would value an animal over a plant ... being animals ourselves

I think it is a very poor argument to consider a plant has the same conscious facilities as an animal

Of course everything has value and a place/purpose
As such all of life should be respected ... it all has value

No one said plants were conscious, but what about being conscious makes one form of life more valuable than another? As the other poster said, life feeds on life. Unless you intend to ingest pure minerals for sustenance, you have to end the life of a living being. I personally don't see why we have decided that one form of life is intrinsically more sacred than another, consciousness nonwithstanding. At best, that gives us a sliding scale. A vegan still has to make the decision that the suffering of a plant is more acceptable than the suffering of an animal.

originally posted by: Son of Will
Finally back home, and on a real computer.

So I'll be going over the last several pages of comments, but in the mean time, I think the majority of this thread could be summed up in a video.

What's weak is your attempt to impose your version of ethics on those who don't hold to your opinion.... good luck with that.

Physiologically, humans need meat... It's a fact.

This might explain your cognitive impairment:

People who don’t eat meat are especially vulnerable to neurotransmitter imbalances because of the absence of meat protein, which provides all of the essential amino acids human bodies need. Neurotransmitters are chemical messengers that regulate many of our functions, including physical, cognitive, and mental performance, as well as our sleep cycle, weight, and emotional states.

Source

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

A vegan still has to make the decision that the suffering of a plant is more acceptable than the suffering of an animal.

Exactly and common sense would say the suffering of an animal should be placed above that a plant

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I've never understood why a plant's life is less valuable than an animal's.

I am sure you do not really mean that

Question for you ... You have the choice to kill a plant or kill an animal ... ?

What if you're a vegetarian and the animal is eating your only food source?

a reply to: aorAki

That has occurred ... Mice were eating our crops ... However the amount they ate was negligible and also a wild cat was a daily visitor

When you grow food there are many other creatures who also like to eat that food ...
When in Canada ... Deer were kept away from valuable crops by building high fences

Raccoons however had to be chased away from the grape vines

You always lose some of your crop to other creatures and also weather conditions
By growing variety and lots of it, most would fare well

a reply to: artistpoet

the point is who gives anyone the right to put a certain value on any life? if you are arguing from an 'ethical' standpoint , what gives anyone the right to decide which life is more important than the other?

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

the point is who gives anyone the right to put a certain value on any life?

My point was the life of an animal is more valuable than that of a plant
Plants are food and medicines and as such are beneficial to animals
Yet each are valuable
All life has a purpose ... like the cogs of a machine ... each plays a valuable role

if you are arguing from an 'ethical' standpoint , what gives anyone the right to decide which life is more important than the other?

No I am not talking about ethics

We give ourselves the right to choose what is more valuable

originally posted by: Son of Will
This may sound outrageous, but in reality it is deceptively simple. All I need is one paragraph to make a 100% iron-tight argument. (Two caveats: first, by 'eat animals' I refer to the industry of keeping livestock or attacking animals for the purpose of consuming them or a byproduct of them. Roadkill is fair game. Second, those not living in a modern, Western society, without access to  the foods we take for granted, cannot be included. This is for the modern world. Anyone living in poverty must think of themselves and their loved ones first before other animals. I'm not advocating martyrdom.)

If god didn't want us to eat his animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.