Little Boy Discovers Meat Is Murder; Makes His Mom Cry..

edit

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Absolutely not! I don't know where that logic comes from.

it comes from "i love eating steak, therefore i will kill to eat steak for pleasure, not necessity".

eating food is a necessity.

the necessity is derived from the biological nutrients which only food is able to supply.

animal flesh, as a food, is able to supply a large number of biological nutrients.

animal flesh is eaten out of necessity.


....plug that into a logic calculator and i am fairly certain that it will yield "true". adding the argument that "the necessary biological nutrients in animal flesh are available in other sources" is a form of begging the question, a obvious logical fallacy, and a clear sign of an agenda.


enjoy your veggies!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by purplemer

 

Children should have the ability to offer input and learn by guidance on decisions. They have absolutely no right to anything of the sort for making them, though. Parents are there to insure decisions are ultimately made in the right direction and for the right reasons. If they fail, I feel for a child...because they have neither the maturity nor intellectual horsepower to make those decisions themselves with more than a random crap shoot for luck in making the right one.

Of course, parenting is hard work. 7 days a week of it. No days off in this job. I can understand why it's much easier for many to suddenly endow children with abilities they physically do not possess for problem solving and rational thought. If they have these things, parents don't need to work nearly as hard...if much at all. The scary thing is how many parents believe this these days. Poor kids. Some never even have a fair chance.

Damn.. you hit the nail on the head. I tried to endow my son with superpowers but the first time he tried to stop a crime using them he got his ass stomped.. I am so disappointed... I thought that maybe if I gave my 3 year old a choice of what he wanted to do he would pick something responsible like cleaning up his toys or being nice to his older sister, boy was I wrong. Thank the powers that be that I picked up my helicopter parenting abilities from the people who let their kids make their own well thought out decisions at the age of 3.. now those people know how to raise our future leaders.... no...really they are just lazy pieces of crap that didn't want kids in the first place... suck it vegans!!! you are all sickly looking and need to eat something other than weeds.. yeah meat may be murder but at least you can hear it scream before it dies... but plants are silent and unable to scream when you kill them....that doesnt mean that they dont scream or feel pain its just that you cant hear it...

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Christian Voice

 

Why is food unnecessary? Food is needed to survive and thankfully it is pleasurable to eat most things.

eating animals is unnecessary. humans do not need to eat meat or animal products to live. it actually shortens your life and makes you ib

so i ask you, why do you kill when it isn't necessary?

I would ask the same of you... why do you kill when it isnt necessary? Do you honestly think that a plant doesnt have feelings or a sense of sentience? Is it just because they are stationary and not "wandering the plains"that it is better to kill and eat something that is silent and immobile instead of something that is actually mobile. For god sakes there are even plants that eat meat...a plant that eats meat and bugs is laughing at you right now. every true vegan i have ever known or seen looks grayish and sickly... there is mobile meat on this planet for a reason and that is to eat,,,, Veggies and herbs are just sides and garnish for the real food. So I ask again why do you kill plants and eat them yet ask the same question of those who kill game animals and eat them as well? Plants grow and through their seeds have offspring,,,, hell they even have sexual organs do you really think it is more noble to eat a plant than an animal?

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

sorry, got "apes" mixed up with "gorillas".

my point still stands though, you committed the appeal to nature fallacy.

wrong again.

didn't you see the chart, humans, chimps , gorillas, orangutans and gibbions are all apes.

and my reply was to member HelenConway and the comments on our teeth being like apes and made more for plants and not meat eating. showing that other apes eat meat, because they like it.

so your point doesn't stand as i was correcting her in showing that other apes eat meat.

edit on 1-6-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

apes are vegetarian and chimps occasionally eat meat by and large are vegetarian.
The only apes who murder sentient creatures on a regular basis because of their addiction to the flesh of others are human apes.

reply to post by kdyam


You have a good point about it being easier to kill a stationary plant than a moving cute animal. However, I have read about how a meat eater has a completely different inner working that a plant eater. A tiger (meat eater) has hydrochloric acid in it's stomach that gets to work on the meat straight away and then it has a short intestine so the meat goes in and is out quite quick. Where as a plant eater has no hydrochloric acid and has a very long intestine - the food stays inside for much longer, so all the nutrients can be absorbed.
Humans have no hydrochloric acid in their stomachs and have a very long intestine. When we eat meat it stays inside to long and gives off toxins. Also a cow will only feed a few people but the field of grass it took to feed the cow would have fed more people - producing meat for the rich makes less space to produce edible vegetation.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

it. I am also of the mindset that we as humans are built to be omnivorous. We do not have these wonderful canines for ripping the meaty flesh of a tomato.

our canines are negligible - tiny little things, more suited to biting apples then ripping flesh.. Our mouths have far more molars for grinding grains and vegetables, just like our cousins the other apes.
Please refer to pictures earlier in thread

edit on 1-6-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

i've read the whole thread and your posts just don't make any sense. i'm talking about your church and christian statements.

i had about ten verses from the bible where God and Jesus said and gave, man the right to eat meat, Jesus even cooked some fish for peter for breakfast.

but then i saw the mod post and decided not to post them.

then reading the posts about apes, i'm not quite sure i understand you. are you saying apes don't eat meat.
if so, you so you are so very wrong.

my posts make perfect sense.
If you call yourself a christian yet believe animals are for your own abuse and nothing - then you are NOT following christianity, you are following lucifer - what ever you tell yourself.

"Meat is murder?" No, meat is food. You see, humans are omnivores, not herbivores. Eating nothing but vegetation ISN'T a human diet...

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

wrong again. didn't you see the chart, humans, chimps , gorillas, orangutans and gibbions are all apes. and my reply was to member HelenConway and the comments on our teeth being like apes and made more for plants and not meat eating. showing that other apes eat meat, because they like it. so your point doesn't stand as i was correcting her in showing that other apes eat meat.

*sigh* you misunderstand my concession. for some reason when i saw the word "ape" i saw a gorilla
(some wires are crossed in my brain making words trigger pictures), then when you said apes and chimps are the same thing, i was seeing a gorilla juxtaposed with a chimp.

my WHOLE point is that it is a logical fallacy to say "x occurs in nature, therefore it is good".

reply to post by 200Plus

You said that humans shouldn't eat meat as it is cruel to the animal. I too hate the thought of unnecessary suffering. But then you go on to say you are eating a spinach pizza. Is there cheese on the pizza? Have you ever seen a functioning dairy farm?

yes, i have seen the suffering on a dairy farm. it is non-dairy cheese of the brand daiya that is on my pizza.

what i find interesting is that you know of the suffering that animals go through, but still choose to consume their products, so while it is fine and dandy for you to say "i am against animal suffering" your actions do quite a lot to support it. and what of all the humans who have to die daily because we feed the food they could be eating to cows just because grain "makes steak taste better"?

ETA: your comment was far from rude, no worries i would ask that you don't take my above post as rude or insulting either, i just don't understand how one could acknowledge the suffering and yet perpetuate it. i believe i've gone through every logical response that one could give, and they always lead back to a faulty reason for not switching.

I'm loving the discussions going on in this thread. Absolutely fantastic.
I agree with many of the others here that the kid should be able to make such a decision, despite his age.
It shows great awareness and/or understanding of the world. And you'd struggle to find an argument claiming that greater awareness and understanding is bad for a child.

On a personal level, however, I too am a vegetarian. I made that decision when I was 9 years old, completely out of the blue. For me it was for ethical reasons.. I mean, it seems a bit strange sometimes, even now, but I wouldn't go back. Trying to argue that if you're a vegetarian/vegan you'll need supplements is completely futile. Because, it isn't a case of what you DON'T eat that affects your nutritional intake, it's a case of what you DO eat. My mother brought me up eating a huge variety of different fruits and vegetables. Never once have I needed supplements of any description. Any nutrition your body needs can be obtained from a plant, or other means that don't require killing another creature. While starting off as a vegetarian can be difficult, once you know what fruits or veges give you what vitamins/minerals, it becomes quite easy. And on top of that, your body will begin telling you (through cravings) that you're getting low on something so you can bring its levels back up. There's also often the argument that vegetarians/vegans are 'weak' and unfit. This is mostly nonsense. If anything, the opposite is true. How you use the nutrients you consume affects your strength/fitness a whole lot more than what it is you consume. You don't get strong/fit simply by consuming protein. You have to tell your body, through training, what to use it for. Exercising properly is what makes people fit and strong. In fact it's easier to build up both muscle strength AND definition as a vegetarian/vegan, because your body doesn't need to process anywhere near as many complex fat molecules as a meat eater's body would. That means your body has more energy to process and build protein. While it's difficult to prove my point over the internet, I myself am an example of this. I am heavily active, go hiking, climbing and all other sorts. As an added note, I am slightly allergic to milk, and so mostly avoid that too. Which sort of helps concrete my argument a bit more.
Another argument I've seen is that certain animals are purely designed to eat one kind of food, be it meat or otherwise. While this does apply in some cases, the majority of species are quite adaptable. For example, in the land I live (New Zealand) we have a bird called the Kea. It looks the most part like a predatory bird, but it's diet consists of the root of a particular plant. There was an incident, however, where a particular flock/group of them lost their main food source due to buildings being put in place. What did they resort to? The began ripping open the backs of sheep (who were introduced. Take note, the only native mammal we have is a tiny bat so sheep were fairly alien), and digging through the living sheep to get to their fat. Their foraging sites have since been replaced, and they have gone back to eating the roots. That's only one example, though. Basically, animals are like humans in that they eat what they can to survive, even if that means changing from eating meat to not, or vice versa.
We humans are lucky though. We are smart enough to live either way, or both, quite fine. While in terms of overall health benefits, low/non meat diets have been shown to have the greatest affect, people have been eating meat for thousands of years and been living (mostly) fine. The choice is yours, and in this case, the kid's.

It's not a case of right or wrong, it's a case of living the way you want to live.

I choose not to, because I don't like the idea of killing another animal to make my life easier. If anything, eating meat almost seems lazy to me (in our modern society, anyway)
The kid wanting to not eat meat, is not unhealthy or wrong. It IS however, very brave. And I give his mother credit for supporting him.

reply to post by TheLonelyNoble


Excellent reply!
I wish more people who post here were like you.

I think you would like this video - it's quite long but well worth the watch...

reply to post by tgidkp

eating food is a necessity. the necessity is derived from the biological nutrients which only food is able to supply. animal flesh, as a food, is able to supply a large number of biological nutrients. animal flesh is eaten out of necessity.

yes, eating food is a necessity.

animal flesh requires hurting and killing the animals, whereas eating plants has no such cost. plants are able to increase one's health, where animal products are linked to diseases and cancers.

therefore animal flesh is eaten for pleasure.

therefore pleasure is an apt justification to cause pain and kill.

this is the logical conclusion to the inputs you gave.

Eating food IS a necessity. Since we have a wide dietary capability, what 'food" is can be widely varying.

Acting natural is neither right nor wrong. It is doing what you do. A snake biting you is not wrong, it is what snakes do. Eating meat is a completely natural act.

Now, if an individual wants to make a choice to not eat meat, then that is fine. That is their choice. "Morals" are a choice, not a natural act.

Having said all that, I assert that plants are as alive as animals, and killing them is equally morally repugnant to killing an animal. So a plant doesn't walk around and do cute things like a sneezing panda does. Why should that matter?

There is no "moral highground" here. To eat is to destroy life.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Eating food IS a necessity. Since we have a wide dietary capability, what 'food" is can be widely varying.

Acting natural is neither right nor wrong. It is doing what you do. A snake biting you is not wrong, it is what snakes do. Eating meat is a completely natural act.

Now, if an individual wants to make a choice to not eat meat, then that is fine. That is their choice. "Morals" are a choice, not a natural act.

Having said all that, I assert that plants are as alive as animals, and killing them is equally morally repugnant to killing an animal. So a plant doesn't walk around and do cute things like a sneezing panda does. Why should that matter?

There is no "moral highground" here. To eat is to destroy life.

appeal to nature fallacy.

rape happens all the time in the "natural" world, so why do we consider it wrong? it's only natural after all. if an individual wants to make a choice to not rape, then that is fine. that is their choice. (see how that doesn't work?)

many plants don't have to be killed to be eaten, and although plants are alive, they are not sentient.

Wait for him to get his first taste of Cow Tail or Squirrel, or Pig Feet.. That will get him hooked on the meat.

Oh, Great Spirit, let your winds be gentle and your skies be heavy.
Let there be a blanket of fresh snow to track the Antlered One....as did my forefathers.
And grant that I find him with antlers like tree branches - wide and mighty.
And grant that my hand be steady....my aim be true....and my drag, short.
But most of all, O Great Spirit, grant that my children and their children's children have the wisdom to preserve your work in the forests,
fields and streams.......
So that they too can one day hunt the Antlered One.....in the footsteps of their forefathers.

Children are all that is innocent and pure until adults fudge them up…!

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

appeal to nature fallacy.

rape happens all the time in the "natural" world, so why do we consider it wrong? it's only natural after all. if an individual wants to make a choice to not rape, then that is fine. that is their choice. (see how that doesn't work?)

many plants don't have to be killed to be eaten, and although plants are alive, they are not sentient.

"Appeal to nature fallacy"....i do not think it means what you think it means. Rape is not life sustaining. If a species were to ever rape again, they would not go extinct. Rape and food are not even in the same ballpark, and I am unsure why you chose to use that. What happens in the "natural world" matters nothing. It is what is a behavioral trait for a species that defines what is "normal". I have seen murder in the natural world, too, by watching black widows and praying mantis. That has nothing to do with humans.

Fact of the matter is, humans are omnivores.

Why do you presume that plants are not sentient? Because you don't talk to them? And why is sentiency being used as a hurdlepoint for whether or not we can rip parts of it off for food? Would you think it ok to have, say, your arm torn off to eat it, like plucking a basil leaf or mint leaf?

This is why I say there is no moral high ground. Because it is all based on the presumption that plants are somehow different, that taking a plants life and less impacting than taking an animals life. Not that I would argue that plants are sentient. Only that I do not know, and would be a fool to presume based on no real evidence other than, "well, they don't talk to us".

reply to post by Propulsion


right!