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.
That's hardly the only means of existence for such species. It's simply the only means you seem capable of conceiving.
Farm animals shouldn't have to suffer, and in responsible farms don't.
Originally posted by kalamatas
Originally posted by The_Zomar
My friends appreciate me being vegetarian.
Okay, I admit, too far.
That's just gross, AND is definitely NOT vegetarian.
Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by rexusdiablos
Plants bleed fluids and even scream when cut.
Why aren't you championing their right to less suffering?
Is it because they aren't filled with red bits?
Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by rexusdiablos
That's hardly the only means of existence for such species. It's simply the only means you seem capable of conceiving.
It's pretty indisputable that the vast majority of pigs and cattle alive on this planet can thank being a future dinner for the reason of their existence. Sure, pigs could exist in the wild if we didn't eat them, but that would mean most who are alive today would have never been given a chance to experience existence. Therefore the suffering is necessary for most individual pigs and cattle to experience life at all.
reply to post by kalamatas
Farm animals shouldn't have to suffer, and in responsible farms don't.
Exactly. Humans are doing these animals a huge favor by giving them the gift of life.
edit on 22-1-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by PoorFool
Originally posted by kalamatas
Originally posted by The_Zomar
My friends appreciate me being vegetarian.
Okay, I admit, too far.
That's just gross, AND is definitely NOT vegetarian.
And it's not even true, I can say from experience.
Originally posted by kalamatas
No you implied that all killing is murder regardless of intent and method. So swift slaughter and euthanasia are different because one contains empathetic emotion and the other is for survival? If there's a difference, then killing for survival is not the same as killing out of malicious intent.
Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by PoorFool
Do you have children? Did you give them a choice of diet?
Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Originally posted by kalamatas
No you implied that all killing is murder regardless of intent and method. So swift slaughter and euthanasia are different because one contains empathetic emotion and the other is for survival? If there's a difference, then killing for survival is not the same as killing out of malicious intent.
In the context of euthanasia, seeing as how it might appease the suffering of the animal, I see no wrong with it bar the explicit consent of the animal which isn't something we can as of yet extrapolate so it's a grey area for me.
Using this to justify killing an animal for survival is a bit of desperate argument especially considering you've already admitted that you wouldn't consider eating a parent, sibling or friend in the same predicament. It screams subjectivity and a failure to look beyond the self and the species.
Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by rexusdiablos
Plants bleed fluids and even scream when cut.
Why aren't you championing their right to less suffering?
Is it because they aren't filled with red bits?
Originally posted by gate13
I speak from personal experience.
I play football at a semi professional level.
1 Year at Easter i decided to fast the 40 days for Lent. So that meant being a vegan but in that time i still continuously trained and played football. What i found was by the time the 40 days were up i dont think i had the energy needed to type on my keyboard. Cutting out meats and dairy was a very big risk.
So from personnel experience i think humans need to east meats bc of the rich source of proteins/irons/ fats etc....
the key to being healthy is a balance in your diet and really only eating what the body needs to eat.
Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by Sly1one
The strong overtake the weak. The strongest protect the weak.
Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Shouldn't the answer be obvious? In a dietary context, I can survive without slaughtering animals and rendering them as food. I can't approach vegetative consumption in the same manner. That's essentially why I advocate transhumanism and nanotechnology so that feeding and resting, to name but a few functions, become outmoded ergo yes, I am championing my vegatative friends.
Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Sure, if I wanted to reach the pinnacle of righteousnesses I'd opt for starvation - I haven't, but as self-serving and disgusting as you might find that, I'm still making a hell of a more of an effort than you, right?
Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by rexusdiablos
I'm wondering what you think you know that all these spiritual personalities and groups did not.
Answer: Unnecessary suffering is wrong.
Why should I limit myself to failures of Christ, Moses, Muhammad and the Buddhists?
Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Your argument is tantamount to not walking on your left leg because your right leg is broken. Pick yourself back up and realize than it's better to walk towards a solution than fall victim to absolutism.
Originally posted by Sly1one
Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by Sly1one
The strong overtake the weak. The strongest protect the weak.
This isn't and cannot be true otherwise we would be # slapping every tiger that ever went after its prey...and we don't...because we understand the nature of their relationship, predator and prey...to protect one you harm the other. The only truly natural thing to do is leave it be...
The strong overtake the weak...period.edit on 22-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)edit on 22-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)