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

reply to post by purplemer


We are as domesticated animals, at the mercy of nature, capable of being feral and going wild and we make rules to keep ourselves tame. We pick what we think are the best parts of nature, condemning the rest. We eat animals and others species for the same reason that animals eat animals and other species, we are animals. And, those who do not eat animals or a particular species are still animals consuming life to live, whether the life they partake of is a plant, microorganism in a glass of drinking water or some other species. Even supplements may be made from fish, animals, plants, or other species.

It is not that we are self-centered anarchists at the core, masquerading as civilized folk, and selectively applying concepts of morality in situations that benefit ourselves. There can be seen a balance to nature and, as nature, we do as the balance requires and so our morals may be subject to change from situation to situation as nature demands.

With possible exception to some, nature puts it in us that we certainly don't want to be eaten (by aliens or otherwise) and, sometimes, it puts it in us that we may not want to be the ones doing the eating. In order for something to live, something must die and we may choose that it must be us, starving rather than taking a life. Even if our morals lead us to not eat and starve to death that is as much an instinct as it is a conscience decision. Nature puts it in us to die so that nature may make use of our remains and the lives which we have spared.

We may not be able to claim to be moral without being hypocrites, but, as hypocrites we may be moral. It is hypocritical to preserve some life while consuming others, whether it is acceptable or beyond our control, but, death is necessary to the cycle of life and regeneration, satisfying a need. We might justify eating other species to prolong our own lives by claiming survival. Or, we may go beyond our own survival to the survival of nature by looking at the big picture and understanding it is about self-cannibalism, the practice of nature eating itself to live (also called auto-cannibalism, or autosarcophagy) and realizing that it is out of our hands.

It is sad to think animals may have had feelings about being killed, but, what more of a plants feelings or even the feelings of a microorganism in a glass of drinking water or some other species? Yes, it is argued these things had no feelings about it, but, what if? It is a solemn thing if you are conscious of it. You feel what you feel and no one can make you feel any different. I can only offer this: I don't know whether the animal would feel sad for you, but, I would think you do not need to feel sad for the animal. When an animal must die you should be grateful if you do not have to be the one to take it's life and you should derive no pleasure from it if you do. The horror stories of animal slaughter are as old as man. People, unlike the other creatures on Earth, have the ability to comfort the animals while they are alive and to make their deaths as respectful and painless as possible and it is a shame when they don't.

Besides, if not man eating it, then, it may be some other predator and nature can be pretty gruesome and unforgiving, e.g. the lion who may eat the gazelle while it is alive. However, once dead, it is done and and the animal has no more feeling about it and your feelings won't change it; whether you eat it or someone else does or you waste it and throw it away. There is a saying that goes, "funerals are for the living". It is those left alive who hurt, not the deceased. It is unfortunate that we have to kill in order to survive, but, the animal on your plate is beyond suffering. Do not be troubled, eat it with respect. That is, be aware that it's life is over so that yours may go on. You may even like the way it smells and tastes and that is okay. If you are moved to do anything, maybe, say a little prayer for it (you do not need to be religious, just a few words of understanding for what is taking place), then, live a good and moral life so the animal does not die in vain.

The above is taken from my answers to similar discussions on Quora:
www.quora.com...
www.quora.com...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

"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".

the appeal to nature fallacy occurs when one holds that an event that happens in nature is either good or bad based on it being "natural". i used rape as a logical proof that the fallacy does indeed exist and that your argument falls within this fallacy.

your whole argument is boiling down to "why is eating plants better than meat in a moral sense, because to eat plants is to also end life"

you could be right, that plants are sentient, can feel pain, etc. i've seen no evidence for it, but i don't deny the possibility. however, i KNOW that animals are sentient, feel pain, and would rather be alive than dead.

over 20,000 people have died today or will die today from starvation. humans. this is completely preventable, all it requires is feeding the grain we feed to cows (that only serves to make steak taste better) to humans. 800 million humans could eat and live. cows have a protein conversion rate of 54:1. this means that for every 54 lbs of plant protein cows consume, they produce 1 lb of edible food.

there is the argument from animal suffering/death, the argument from ending world hunger, and the lesser argument to be more healthy. these are all reasons to switch to a plant based diet. the first two are moral issues, as suffering and death is caused to animals AND humans through the consumption of meat. the third is a perk.

why would you not switch? for perceived pleasure. which brings us back to one of the first posts i made in this thread, using pleasure as a justification for causing suffering and death of humans and animals.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


It has nothing to do with pleasure. It has everything to do with me being human. You should ask the wolves the same question, as they would likely enjoy some steak, too. Humans are omnivores. Our diet is widely ranging. To compare it to rape is insane, and shows nothing.

Ending world hunger is not a human attribute. While I think it would be nice, I don't think your approach has any merit. You are suggesting that because it provides nutrition that it is healthy. We are omnivores. In fact, the higher carbohydrate diet you recommend would be anathema to health for a large part of the world

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


In that case we should kill all the cows and grow grain after all they are eating all our food. In fact let’s get rid of all the animals that eat the plants we can eat they are taking our food.

If you can except that then let’s talk otherwise you are just on your high horse which by the way we need to kill and eat it as well that way it will not be competing for our food.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

It has nothing to do with pleasure. It has everything to do with me being human. You should ask the wolves the same question, as they would likely enjoy some steak, too. Humans are omnivores. Our diet is widely ranging. To compare it to rape is insane, and shows nothing. Ending world hunger is not a human attribute. While I think it would be nice, I don't think your approach has any merit. You are suggesting that because it provides nutrition that it is healthy. We are omnivores. In fact, the higher carbohydrate diet you recommend would be anathema to health for a large part of the world

you're now arguing that you have no more intelligence than a wolf? (i know that is not true)

i wish to end world hunger, and i am not an omnivore, so i fail to see how either of those things aren't human attributes. after all i'm human.

While I think it would be nice, I don't think your approach has any merit.

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

news.cornell.edu...
you don't think it would work?

i'd like to see some evidence as to why a higher carb diet (slightly lower calories) would be a problem for world health. it would save about 25,000 lives a day.

reply to post by Grimpachi

In that case we should kill all the cows and grow grain after all they are eating all our food. In fact let’s get rid of all the animals that eat the plants we can eat they are taking our food. If you can except that then let’s talk otherwise you are just on your high horse which by the way we need to kill and eat it as well that way it will not be competing for our food.

cows naturally eat grass, not grain. it is fed to them to make steak taste better. the cows could go on living quite well.

reply to post by purplemer


Some people would give their life to save a clump of human cells with no life no brain, and yet have no feeling at all for the millions of abused lives that they eat.

we traveled to a trail yesterday and saw they have added about an acre of the small plastic boxes they hole babies to produce veal. The Mothers that gave birth are now producing milk right across from these boxes where they can smell their babies pain. They are all suffering untold misery and pain.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


They are taking up space which we could grow grain or other edible plants. The answer is no they have to go. Sorry you can’t keep your critters and feed the world that is a pipe dream. Cows are for sustenance in today’s society and have been for ages no one is going to take care of them in your utopia if it isn’t mutually beneficial.

reply to post by Grimpachi

They are taking up space which we could grow grain or other edible plants. The answer is no they have to go. Sorry you can’t keep your critters and feed the world that is a pipe dream. Cows are for sustenance in today’s society and have been for ages no one is going to take care of them in your utopia if it isn’t mutually beneficial.

i've already explained that you can....if you simply let the cows eat grass and use the land grain is grown on to feed humans.

the 800 million humans fed from grain statistic represents JUST america giving up meat. of course it is advantageous for you to deny this so you can feel like there is no choice but to eat meat. there is. no animals must suffer and die, no humans must suffer and die. it is easily possible.

oh, and did i mention that is without using innovative growing techniques such as vertical farming? there is plenty of land for all.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Your ignorance abounds on this subject. Cows still have to be taken care of and herded then there is population control like deer they will need to be culled on top of that the lands they are on are owned by farmers who do not raise livestock out of the kindness of their heart but as a means of supporting themselves if no one eats cow there is no purpose for them aside from leather to top it off they would be an invasive species in the US or did you forget that. If no one is eating them there is no reason farmers should have to contend with them.

I assume you live in the US where Wal-Mart’s abound every city I hate to break it to you but the rest of the world isn’t like this. Crop rotation and livestock is how many cultures survive they do not have access to GNC for protein supplements like yourself. You have made a lifestyle choice and while it works for you it cannot work for the world your limited scope of the world is not indicative to how most see it and you shouldn’t expect them to. While I applaud your effort I think you should get out of your comfort zone at some point and explore the world it will be an eye opening experience for you.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


My intelligence vs. that of a wolf is irrelevant. Intelligence implies morality ,and morality is subjective. You cannot debate morality, only viewpoints of morality. It is not an absolute. We are talking behaviors, those things that are part and parcel to the biological lifeform you are discussing.

The evidence of the dangers of a high carb diet are well known. Diabetes, obesity, etc, etc. We are omnivores. We require a varied diet. Of course you can survive on just rice and a daily vitamin supplement. But survival does not indicate health, only that a pulse is present.

I have eaten low carb for a few years now. The improvements in health that I have had is immeasurable. Obviously, what works for me doesn't work for all. And that is a part of the problem with your argument: that all humans have similar dietary needs. We all process food differently. Even the microbes that help us digest in our gut....there are significant differences between 2 distinct groups. My wife and I...we digest differently. I do well with low carb, she doesn't. I can drink milk if i choose, but she can't.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

My intelligence vs. that of a wolf is irrelevant. Intelligence implies morality ,and morality is subjective. You cannot debate morality, only viewpoints of morality. It is not an absolute. We are talking behaviors, those things that are part and parcel to the biological lifeform you are discussing. The evidence of the dangers of a high carb diet are well known. Diabetes, obesity, etc, etc. We are omnivores. We require a varied diet. Of course you can survive on just rice and a daily vitamin supplement. But survival does not indicate health, only that a pulse is present. I have eaten low carb for a few years now. The improvements in health that I have had is immeasurable. Obviously, what works for me doesn't work for all. And that is a part of the problem with your argument: that all humans have similar dietary needs. We all process food differently. Even the microbes that help us digest in our gut....there are significant differences between 2 distinct groups. My wife and I...we digest differently. I do well with low carb, she doesn't. I can drink milk if i choose, but she can't.

a wolf eats out of instinct, where humans have the ability to think more rationally.

a person's views on what is right and wrong may not be absolute, but morality itself is. moral relativism is a contradiction.

vegan diets lower the risks of diabetes, vegans are the one group of the three (omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans) that are most likely to not be obese. i've posted all the studies previously in this thread.

a vegan diet does not require man made supplements.

consuming meat inflames the cardiovascular system. i've posted this all before with research in this thread.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm sorry... a kid that young decides not to eat his food, essentially grills his mother about it being an animal, and the mother just gives in and decides to never eat meat again.

Riiiiiiiiight.

I call staged, and there is nothing more disgusting than using a little kid to advance an agenda. Shame on whoever produced this propaganda.

TheRedneck

That was more or less my reaction as well. I mean, yeah, kids are smart and all.... But it just seems staged to me. I readily admit that I cannot prove that or even provide evidence, it's just a gut feeling on my part. But something about it just comes off as rehearsed.....

And if that is the case, well, I don't like the idea of using kids for propaganda either.

reply to post by Grimpachi

it is obvious to me you are trolling. i have said many times that i do not require, nor take, supplements. instead of answering the statistics i provide with equivalent data, you simply fill your posts with lots of nothingness. good day.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm sorry... a kid that young decides not to eat his food, essentially grills his mother about it being an animal, and the mother just gives in and decides to never eat meat again.

Riiiiiiiiight.

I call staged, and there is nothing more disgusting than using a little kid to advance an agenda. Shame on whoever produced this propaganda.

TheRedneck

Without a doubt staged' I would not have been so sure if he said cat or dog or donkey, but Fish Cows Pigs Chicken (not Hens) tells me this was set up

I am completely for the eating of animals, as I see it as a necessary evil for the survival of the ecological systems and also simply part of nature that every carnivorous species participates in for survival. To be truthful, the hedonistic side of my personality agrees with it purely because it's enjoyable and provides pleasurable sensual experiences as no other food (at least IMO) tastes better than meat

However, I certainly do feel empathy and sadness for the animals, and I believe that is enough, hat you are able to enjoy eating meat without feeling any emotion whatsoever about it as sophisticated people capable of emotion.

I am completely for the eating of animals, as I see it as a necessary evil for the survival of the ecological systems and also simply part of nature that every carnivorous species participates in for survival. To be truthful, the hedonistic side of my personality agrees with it purely because it's enjoyable and provides pleasurable sensual experiences as no other food (at least IMO) tastes better than meat

However, I certainly do feel empathy and sadness for the animals, and I believe that is enough, that you are able to enjoy eating meat whilst feeling bad about it, if you think deeplywithout feeling any emotion whatsoever about it as sophisticated people capable of emotion.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Your statistics have been challenged and as far as I am concerned they were adequate counters.

As I stated your dream utopia is not realistic and could not be sustained by society. My points are honest and far from trolling but it seems you are not interested in the reality of the situation.

Yours is a pipe dream and nothing more.

Meat isn't murder, it's how the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years. We had meat eating long before anyone learned how to farm.

Humans are meant to eat meat, we're omnivores. It's a natural process to eat meat AND vegetables.

Kudos to the mother for allowing the kid to make his own choice, but his reasoning that meat is murder is flawed.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Morality is not absolute. It is wholly subjective. The majority of your claim is substantiated on your own personal morality. With your preconceptions of morality, you have built a case to support it. It is a classic example of predetermined results.

I have nothing wrong with vegetarianism. You cite studies, however, that do not support my own personal observations. Of course, if i were to care to delve deeper in this subject I would have to review your studies and the funding behind them. But as it stands, my own personal observations are not supported by much of what you are citing. Further, much of what you are citing contradicts other studies I have seen (such as a vegan diet yielding a healthier body).

The intake of carbohydrates is what drives diabetes. Not fat. Not protein. I see no correlation between meat and diabetes I see total correlation between carb intake and diabetes. As well, the same is pretty much said for blood cholesterol, as cholesterol is primarily produced in the liver by converting carbs to fat