Meatlore... or Beef, it's what for dinner

[Marv]

so are you saying that vegetarians are right but we just dont take it far enough?

regardless, i'm happy with the small part i have in providing a better quality of life for animals on this planet.i dont feel particularly conflicted about my savage killing and eating of half a cucumber. i cant say any more.

(half a cucumber!! maybe ONE STEAK WOULDNT BE THAT BAD!

[sgt.null]

God gave the care of animals to us. we need to be good stewards. i can't show my grandson a dodo or the carrier pigeon. and maybe someday the rhino or american eagle. maybe this doesn't matter to some...

[Avatar]

i'm happy with the small part i have in providing a better quality of life for animals on this planet.

Except of course, you're not providing a better quality of life for a single animal.

Although the total amount of meat you may have eaten might well total many animals, not one of them has been kept alive because you don't eat them. They were all pen-reared, hormone-filled, and slaughtered anyway, to be eaten by somebody else.

--A

[Empusae]

Frankly I think SRD doesn't mention many animals because Covenant can't tell them to not touch him.

[Marv]

i'm happy with the small part i have in providing a better quality of life for animals on this planet.

Except of course, you're not providing a better quality of life for a single animal.

Although the total amount of meat you may have eaten might well total many animals, not one of them has been kept alive because you don't eat them. They were all pen-reared, hormone-filled, and slaughtered anyway, to be eaten by somebody else.

--A

theres more free range farms and conditions for animals have improved in certain parts of the world because of the pressure put upon farmers and muti-national companies by the vegetarian 'movement'. simple business means they have to listen to the consumer and if people stop buying the product they have to look at the reasons why and do their best to correct the percieved problems.

[sgt.null]

what we accomplish is not taking part in the sensless slaughter.

[Avatar]

theres more free range farms and conditions for animals have improved in certain parts of the world because of the pressure put upon farmers and muti-national companies by the vegetarian 'movement'. simple business means they have to listen to the consumer and if people stop buying the product they have to look at the reasons why and do their best to correct the percieved problems.

True, but it isn't saving the life of a single animal.

As SgtNull points out, the best you can do is claim a moral high-ground for not participating yourself. More than fair enough, and assuming that you also wear no leather, and eat no animal products at all, you're welcome to it.

--A

[sgt.null]

well wool is fine, because the sheep don't die from shearing.

[Avatar]

True.

--A

[sgt.null]

Barbecue meats linked with prostate cancer
rueters

A compound formed when meat is charred at high temperatures -- as in barbecue -- encourages the growth of prostate cancer in rats, researchers reported on Sunday. Their study, presented at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, may help explain the link between eating meat and a higher risk of prostate cancer. It also fits in with other studies suggesting that cooking meat until it chars might cause cancer. The compound, called PhIP, is formed when meat is cooked at very high temperatures, Dr. Angelo De Marzo and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reported. It appears to both initiate and promote the growth of prostate cancer in rats, they said.
"We stumbled across a new potential interaction between ingestion of cooked meat in the diet and cancer in the rat," De Marzo said in a statement. "For humans, the biggest problem is that it's extremely difficult to tell how much PhIP you've ingested, since different amounts are formed depending on cooking conditions." For the study, Yatsutomo Nakai and other members of De Marzo's team mixed PhIP into food given to rats for up to eight weeks, then studied the animals' prostates, intestines and spleens. They found genetic mutations in all the organs after four weeks.

[Avatar]

Which is why you should eat your steak rare.

--A

[Zarathustra]

so are you saying that vegetarians are right but we just dont take it far enough?

No, I'm saying that by not applying their beliefs to ALL lifeforms--instead of just the ones that are more similiar to us--their beliefs are inconsistently applied, and hence, disingenuous emotionalism. I thought that was obvious.

Which is why you should eat your steak rare.

That's the only way to eat a steak. Why eat burnt meat? That encourages needless support of the steak sauce industry. [My rare steaks get salt, pepper, and a pinch of garlic powder--that's it. Yum.]

[sgt.null]

until my carrots get up and move about, having live births and being affectionate i shall continue to eat my vegetables.

[Marv]

EDIT

[sgt.null]

now i want to know what you said tazz.

[Zarathustra]

until my carrots get up and move about, having live births and being affectionate i shall continue to eat my vegetables.

So why not eat the lathargic, male, nonaffectionate animals? I mean, if that's your cut-off point for edible lifeforms.

Clearly, we can continue this to the point of absurdity (if we haven't reached it already). And that's the point. Since the moral side of vegatarianism can't be consistently applied to all life (since we have to eat something), it is an illogical position to take from the beginning. If you believe that it is a healthier way to live, then by all means go for it. But the moral part of vegatarianism is ALWAYS applied in a hypocritical manner, since your respect for "lower" lifeforms has a bottom end cut-off point--the very thing by which you claim the moral high ground against meat eaters who think animals are "beneath us" and have no rights.

This isn't rocket science. It's very simple logic. Excluding one group of lifeforms from your sympathy based on arbitrary criteria such as those listed above (moving, birthing, being affectionate, etc.) is still exclusionary. It is still discriminatory. It is still a claim of superiority over billions of lifeforms. And given this fact, vegetarians have little justification for their position of moral high ground. Which is why I say it is just disingenuous emotionalism. Feel good morality. An inauthentic fad.

[Avatar]

What if you only ate seeds and fruit and drank water?

--A

[Marv]

until my carrots get up and move about, having live births and being affectionate i shall continue to eat my vegetables.

So why not eat the lathargic, male, nonaffectionate animals? I mean, if that's your cut-off point for edible lifeforms.

Clearly, we can continue this to the point of absurdity (if we haven't reached it already). And that's the point. Since the moral side of vegatarianism can't be consistently applied to all life (since we have to eat something), it is an illogical position to take from the beginning. If you believe that it is a healthier way to live, then by all means go for it. But the moral part of vegatarianism is ALWAYS applied in a hypocritical manner, since your respect for "lower" lifeforms has a bottom end cut-off point--the very thing by which you claim the moral high ground against meat eaters who think animals are "beneath us" and have no rights.

This isn't rocket science. It's very simple logic. Excluding one group of lifeforms from your sympathy based on arbitrary criteria such as those listed above (moving, birthing, being affectionate, etc.) is still exclusionary. It is still discriminatory. It is still a claim of superiority over billions of lifeforms. And given this fact, vegetarians have little justification for their position of moral high ground. Which is why I say it is just disingenuous emotionalism. Feel good morality. An inauthentic fad.

my rationale is simple. there are certain nutrients, vitamins and protiens that my body needs to function. some of these things i can get from meat or i can get the same things from other sources. i have a CHOICE and while i have that choice i'll make sure as few things have to suffer and die for my personal survival as possible. i dont feel that i'm making some huge sacrifice or that my lifestyle in this is particularly extreme. i dont, nor ever have, lived to eat. this stand is not a hugely principled one and i dont preach or judge others. i'm happy with my choices. valueing life is different to believing all life to be equal. i wouldn't say this logic is hard to follow either.

bacteria? hell, if its me or the bacteria, i choose me! vegtables? until irrefutable evidence is provided that my tomatoes are even aware of 'being' i wont feel particularly conflicted.

dont prejudge me please. my choosing not to eat meat in no way implies that i think myself to hold the moral high ground.

just admit that you like the taste of meat and you dont have the discipline or the inclination to give it up even if a non-meat/dairy diet is healthier. (how can that be logical btw?)

fad! 2000 years seems a rather long fad if you ask me.

[sgt.null]

i liked meat. very much. loved the taste. i miss fish mostly, and catfish at that. i just could not participate any longer.

[Avatar]

Just a thought...if it's acceptable for meat-eaters to have a certain moral cut-off point, (which most do, for example, most would not accept cannibalism), then what difference does it make that vegetarians have a different one?

If any moral cut-off is acceptable, then all must be, depending on the individual's own views.

--A