Why do non vegetarians think they are not eating a product of murder?

[Anonymous]

I have searched the net well and not found a single research that found that plants feel pain. Yes they react to stimuli and also produce electrochemicals and all but it still doesn't prove they feel pain. Plants also have a different kind of life : without emotion, without brain. Its the same as if a person was living, eating, drinking ( doing everything to survive) but sitting/standing at a stationary position. No psychological reactions or feelings at all. The kind of life that we lead when we say we have become "lifeless", immune and indifferent to anything in the environment. This in itself proves that life involves psychological and emotional feelings and reactions, the ability to think, etc. Plants do not have these abilities, animals do. As senseless as it may seem, plants are living in a "lifeless" way.

Moreover, animals eat huge amounts of plants or animals to survive so by eating them, the non vegeterian people who say plants also feel pain are commiting double murder. You are consuming them and the plants or animals they consumed. Also, if you eat both plants AND animals, then also you are commiting double murder, better murder times four.

A plant gets 1,000 Joule energy from the sun. 990 J are lost to the environment and 10 J are passed on to the animal who eats it, again 9 Joule is lost to the environent so the remainder is 1 Joule which is passed on to the animal who eats this herbivores animal ( lion or man), 0.9 Joule is lost to the environment so only 0.1 Joule is left for doing energy that we spend on doing stuff. Now imagine if someone eats a carnivores animal, what energy are you really getting? Even if you eat th

[Maik567]

Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

So no, it is not murder, you are fucking ridiculous. And if you think that killing an animal for food is comparable to murdering a human, or that animal lives are just as important as human lives, you might want to do everyone a favor and go feed yourself to some endangered species.

Anyway I am completely aware about the ecological effects of eating meat, and that the animals need to die for me to eat them. And if it had to come to it, I would be fully capable of killing the animals myself for their meat. And honestly you are completely naive to how things work in nature, humans have eaten meat a hundred thousand years and now suddenly you want us to stop why? To fit your personal morals? Humans are indeed omnivores, and we can survive with a wide variety of diets, but just like all omnivores we usually choose the most nutritious choice of food available, and even though meat isn't as energy efficient to produce, its still higher quality food than plants. And its SO much better tasting, the difference is like night and day.

[adquidorator]

"To fit your personal morals" It's not a matter of our "personal morals" when there's a victim.
"Humans are indeed omnivores" If that's the case you'd have no trouble eating a chicken the way a real omnivore would (eating the entire animal in one sitting when it hasn't been decapitated, plucked, gutted, drained of blood or cooked and where you rip off chunks of flesh and swallow them whole).
"its still higher quality food than plants" Uh huh, sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqQLpXQqMGo
" And its SO much better tasting" So what, you're just so full of yourself that you think that satisfying your taste buds could justify taking a life of another animal.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator Only a person can be a victim, not animals. Dont try to change the definitions of words to fit your own agenda. And yes it is a matter of our personal morals you idiot, when you kill a plant to eat it, the plant could be considered a "victim" just as well, it all depends where you draw the line and thats a matter of personal morals like I said. Animals kill other animals just for fun all the time, get a grip on reality.

I wouldn't have a problem with eating a chicken like that, but why would I eat a chicken like that when its tastes better cooked and has less bacteria. Do you eat all your vegetables straight off the ground with all the dirt and mud on them? Do you go outside and eat the grass off your lawn? That example is retarded.

And higher quality has nothing to do with the amount of antioxidants you idiot, it has to do with the nutritional values.

And yes that justifies it completely, all other animals do that as well.

[adquidorator]

"Only a person can be a victim, not animals. Dont try to change the definitions of words to fit your own agenda." There are multiple definitions of the word "victim" but one includes "sufferer" and as we now KNOW at least some animals have the capacity to suffer. "And yes it is a matter of our personal morals you idiot, when you kill a plant to eat it, the plant could be considered a "victim" just as well," Plants lack a centralized nervous system and cannot suffer, and either way, if I don't eat plants, i'll die.
"it all depends where you draw the line and thats a matter of personal morals like I said." A rapist or murderer could use that very same argument. "Animals kill other animals just for fun all the time, get a grip on reality." Yeah and they also do things like rape and cannibalism all the time (appeal to nature fallacy). The only one who needs to "get a grip on reality" is you.

[adquidorator]

"I wouldn't have a problem with eating a chicken like that, but why would I eat a chicken like that when its tastes better cooked and has less bacteria." You would have a serious problem eating a chicken like that; if you swallowed the raw meat whole you'd choke to death, but carnivores and omnivores have throats that prevent that from happening. Also, the pH of an omnivores' stomach with food in it is usually <1 which kills all of the bacteria while in humans it's 3-5 with food in it. "Do you eat all your vegetables straight off the ground with all the dirt and mud on them?" Sometimes when I eat tubers I can discern the taste of dirt on them (that's how I know I'm getting all the minerals :) "Do you go outside and eat the grass off your lawn? That example is retarded." No I don't because I'm not a foliovore. Foliovores usually have intestines that are 16-20X the length of their body while granivores/frugivores are 8-12X ours are 9X and omnivores' are 3-6X

[Maik567]

@adquidorator Killing an animal doesn't mean that it suffers. And you are ending the plants life, like I said its all about where you draw the line. If you think its ok to eat plants but not animals, thats your opinion and you're free to have it, someone more noble than you might refuse to eat anything at all.

Funny how you just cherry pick from my arguments and chose to ignore the stuff you didn't have an answer to. And Im not trying to justify our actions on humans based on how other animals treat each other, so you really dont have a point. My point is that animals die by the millions everyday naturally, and you try to make it seem like its the worst thing in the world that I eat meat like humans have done for a hundred thousand years.

[adquidorator]

"And higher quality has nothing to do with the amount of antioxidants you idiot, it has to do with the nutritional values." Uh yeah it does. By what standard do you measure "nutritious" might I ask

"And yes that justifies it completely, all other animals do that as well." Uh 1st: appeal to nature fallacy, 2nd, no they do it because if they don't they'll die. by the way as a side note, as long as they can sustain themselves off plants, omnivores won't hunt. In the summer months bears get >95% of their calories from plant sources and what meat they do eat is mostly scavenged.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator Many omnivores chew their food, what the fuck are you talking about? Its a pretty widely known fact that humans are omnivores, humans fit the definition of an omnivore are you really trying to dispute that?

And that is interesting, but its completely irrelevant to this topic. And I eat raw meat sometimes too, but Id rather eat it cooked.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator You judge the quality of a food purely based on antioxidants? That would make many non-foods "quality food" in your eyes. Google nutritional values and there is your answer.

1st its not a fallacy in this context. 2nd, they dont do it because hunting is more dangerous and takes a lot more effort. If you throw a piece of raw meat in front of a bear, the bear will choose the meat over berries. If there wasn't an easy way to get meat I would probably eat mostly plants, but since there is Ill choose the better source of nutrition which is meat.

[adquidorator]

"Many omnivores chew their food, what the fuck are you talking about?" Yeah, they chew rough plant material but they swallow meat whole. Plus, they can easily down 10% of their own weight in one sitting and they can eat meat that's been out for days without getting sick from eating it. " Its a pretty widely known fact that humans are omnivores, humans fit the definition of an omnivore are you really trying to dispute that?" Well, lets see, carnivores and omnivores have pronounced canines, herbivores have canines that are either absent, blunted or pronounced and humans are blunted. Carnivores and omnivores have conical incisors while humans have spade-shaped incisors. Carnivores can't move their jaw laterally, omnivores have a minimal capacity to do so and herbbivores and humans have a wide capacity to do so. Carnivores and omnivores have jaw muscles that are anchored to their sagital crest while a herbivores' and humans are anchored to their zygomatic arch.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator "Yeah, they chew rough plant material but they swallow meat whole."

Who are "they"? All omnivores dont swallow meat whole are you fucking stupid?

And humans are literally omnivores, by the fucking definition, your analysis of jaws has nothing to do with this.

You are making useless arguments here, the point is that eating meat is a moral choice. And thats all it comes down to, if you dont agree with my choice thats fine, but dont expect me to give a single shit about your opinion.

[adquidorator]

Carnivores and omnivores have good night vision while herbivores and humans have poor night vision. Carnivores and omnivores have a stomach pH that's <1 when full and herbivores and humans have a stomach pH of 3-5 when full. Carnivores and omnivores have stomachs that make up the majority of the volume of their gastrovascular system while in herbivores and humans the intestines do. Carnivores have intestines that are 1.5-3 times the length of their body, omnivores' are 3-6, herbivores are 8-20 and ours are 9 times the length of our digestive tract. Carnivores and omnivores don't need fiber to pass food through their gut while humans and herbivores do. Carnivores and omnivores have livers that can detoxify vitamin a to prevent it from reaching poisonous levels while herbivores and humans' cannot. Dietary cholesterol won't induce atherosclerosis in carnivores or omnivores but in humans and herviores it will. The list goes on.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator You are absolutely ridiculous, not all omnivores or carnivores have good night vision. You aren't proving anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human Teach yourself.

[adquidorator]

And no I'm not being biased by listing the traits carnivores and omnivores have in common because contrary to popular belief omnivores' don't have an even mix of carnivore and herbivore traits; they actually have a lot more in common with carnivores. "1st its not a fallacy in this context." The appeal to nature fallacy is a fallacy in any context. "2nd, they dont do it because hunting is more dangerous and takes a lot more effort. If you throw a piece of raw meat in front of a bear, the bear will choose the meat over berries." Yeah, but if this analogy is going to be proper, you have to remember that you need to feed a farm animal 10 calories to get 1 calorie in the form of meat so if this is going to be a proper analogy (for the moment ignoring the fact that bears are omnivores' and we're not) you'd have to offer the bear 10 lbs of berries or a steak.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator Appealing to nature is not always a fallacy, do you have a fucking brain?

And I know omnivores have preferences/biases, but that doesn't mean they are not omnivores.

"bears are omnivores and we are not" Except we are omnivores. That is a widely accepted fact.

And if you offered the bear 10 lbs of berries or a steak, it would go for the steak first and then eat the berries.

[adquidorator]

"If there wasn't an easy way to get meat I would probably eat mostly plants, but since there is Ill choose the better source of nutrition which is meat." and tell me, but what criteria do you consider meat a "better source of nutrition"?
"Killing an animal doesn't mean that it suffers." and if you shoot a person in the back of the head it doesn't mean that they suffered. "And you are ending the plants life, like I said its all about where you draw the line." As I already stated, plants have no CNS, they have no capacity to suffer or feel anything while every bird, mammal and cephalopod has it in the same sense that we do. "If you think its ok to eat plants but not animals, thats your opinion and you're free to have it, someone more noble than you might refuse to eat anything at all." If someone did that they would be dead.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator Comparing the life of an animal to the life of a human, that proves how legitimate your opinions are.

And I didn't say anything about them feeling it, I said that you are ending their lives, even if you're not hurting them you are still ending their lives.

And I know they would be dead, but thats a noble sacrifice to make if it fits your morals.

[adquidorator]

"Funny how you just cherry pick from my arguments and chose to ignore the stuff you didn't have an answer to." Actually, I addressed every point that you made. "And Im not trying to justify our actions on humans based on how other animals treat each other, so you really dont have a point." But if you can use the way animals treat each other to justify the way you treat them then a rapist or cannibal could use the way some animals treat members of their own species to justify their actions so I indeed have a point. My point is that animals die by the millions everyday naturally, and you try to make it seem like its the worst thing in the world that I eat meat like humans have done for a hundred thousand years." OK so now you're using both the appeal to nature AND the appeal to history fallacy. FYI, usually using just one debate fallacy in a debate really hurts your case.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator How the fuck are you still in my first message?

And now, justifying how you treat animals based on their nature is in no way comparable in trying to bring to human-to-human interaction, thats the slippery slope fallacy.

You are fucking full of fallacies you goddamn idiot, yet I dont try to call all of them out because you are 20 messages behind me.

[adquidorator]

""You are absolutely ridiculous, not all omnivores or carnivores have good night vision. You aren't proving anything."
No, but again we have no traits in common with omnivores that they don't already share in common with herbivores.
"Appealing to nature is not always a fallacy, do you have a fucking brain?"
Saying that something is OK just because it happens in nature is always a fallacy.
""bears are omnivores and we are not" Except we are omnivores. That is a widely accepted fact."
Except that we (again) don't have any traits in common with omnivores that omnivores don't already share with herbivores
"And if you offered the bear 10 lbs of berries or a steak, it would go for the steak first and then eat the berries."
But if it had to choose between either or it would go for the berries. Also, bears like other omnivores have adaptations
to prevent them from suffering from the ill effects of meat that we do not.

[adquidorator]

"Comparing the life of an animal to the life of a human, that proves how legitimate your opinions are."
I don't care about animal or human "life" per se. Grow cow, chicken, pig or human meat in vitro and eat it for all
I care. What matters is consciousness.
"And I didn't say anything about them feeling it, I said that you are ending their lives, even if you're not hurting them you are still ending their lives.
" Again, it isn't about life it's about the ability to suffer.
"And I know they would be dead, but thats a noble sacrifice to make if it fits your morals."
Again, no you're just trying to make a strawman

[adquidorator]

""And now, justifying how you treat animals based on their nature is in no way comparable in trying to bring to human-to-human interaction, thats the slippery slope fallacy."
No it isn't a slippery slope fallacy because first of all humans are animals and claiming that because another animal does something it makes it morally OK for us to do to any
animal (human or not) has the same merit in any situation: none whatsoever, so there's no "slope" at all."

[Maik567]

@adquidorator We do have plenty of traits in common with some omnivores, you are ridiculous.

I wasn't saying something is ok just because it happens in nature

We are omnivores and we once again have traits common with other omnivores

Bears aren't capable of making choices like that.

There are plenty of meat we are able to eat raw.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator "Again, it isn't about life it's about the ability to suffer."

Thats your opinion, I dont agree with it. And no I wasn't making you a strawman, you just have different morals.

Human on human interaction isn't comparable to human on animal interaction, so yes it is a slippery slope fallacy.

[adquidorator]

"We do have plenty of traits in common with some omnivores, you are ridiculous." You insist that but it's all you do, you don't provide solid examples of traits shared between humans and omnivores but not herbivores. "I wasn't saying something is OK just because it happens in nature" well there isn't any other justification for eating meat because it doesn't increase our lifespan, give us better health and it doesn't make more food, it just wastes it. "We are omnivores and we once again have traits common with other omnivores" we have traits in common with omnivores that omnivores already share with herbivores. "Bears aren't capable of making choices like that." All conscious animals can make choices especially if you made them aware that they would have to choose one or another. "There are plenty of meat we are able to eat raw." only if it's fresh (which herbivores can) but if it was sitting out for days it would give us food poisoning.

[adquidorator]

""Again, it isn't about life it's about the ability to suffer."

Thats your opinion, I dont agree with it. And no I wasn't making you a strawman, you just have different morals." It's as much my opinion that it's wrong that it's other people's opinion that rape and murder is wrong.
"Human on human interaction isn't comparable to human on animal interaction, so yes it is a slippery slope fallacy." Human on human interractions are human on animal interractions because humans are animals (you might want to check your phylogeny) so no it isn't.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator You dont either

I eat meat because I love meat, and its a part of a balanced diet. Thats a perfect justification, if you think its not thats just your opinion, which I dont care about.

We also have traits common with some carnivores.

Bears aren't able to make choices like that, they would choose meat everytime.

There are carnivores who also need fresh meat.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator "It's as much my opinion that it's wrong that it's other people's opinion that rape and murder is wrong."

No it isn't, you can't compare human on human interaction with human on animal interaction, that is the slippery slope logic once again.

Humans are not equivalent to other animals, if you think they are that is your opinion, but an overwhelming majority of all humans dont agree with you, and thats why laws dont consider humans and animals equal.

[adquidorator]

"I eat meat because I love meat, and its a part of a balanced diet. Thats a perfect justification, if you think its not thats just your opinion, which I dont care about." And a cannibal could use the same justification to kill and eat other humans.
"We also have traits common with some carnivores." Again, like what?
"Bears aren't able to make choices like that, they would choose meat everytime." You can't know what a bear would choose because Individual bears have their own preferences. In fact I know a dog that likes peanut butter more than chicken meat (and dogs are carnivores). So this discussion is pointless.
"No it isn't, you can't compare human on human interaction with human on animal interaction, that is the slippery slope logic once again." As I stated before human on human interactions are human on animal interactions because humans are animals so again, there's no slope.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator No he couldnt because human on human interaction isn't comparable to human on animal interaction. slippery slope once again, humans are animals are distinct by law.

a lot of things

bears would choose meat every time

and you are just proving that vegetarians can't tell the difference between humans and animals, humans are treated different to other animals by law, and so is human on human interaction compared to human on animal interaction. So most people disagree with you here.

[adquidorator]

"Humans are not equivalent to other animals, if you think they are that is your opinion, but an overwhelming majority of all humans dont agree with you, and thats why laws dont consider humans and animals equal." 1st, now you're using the argumentum ad numerum fallacy and because something's legal doesn't mean it's right (I don't think I have to talk about what was legal in the past to show how fallacious this argument is. But we do nonetheless have some animal welfare laws in this country so while a dog, pig or chicken's life isn't as valuable as a humans it isn't infinitely greater either.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator We also have some laws to protect plants, yet you eat them. And I never said that its right because its in the law, but there is a difference between humans and other animals and most people agree with me. And you are free to believe that human on human interaction is comparable to human on animal interaction, but anyone with a brain will disagree.

[adquidorator]

"No he couldnt because human on human interaction isn't comparable to human on animal interaction. slippery slope once again," I feel like a parrot and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repet this: human on human interractions are human on animal interractions because humans are animals. and I could just as easily say (by your logic) that animal on animal interractions aren't comparible to human on animal interractions thus rendering your argument moot. "slippery slope once again, humans are animals are distinct by law." Again, just because something's legal doesn't make it right and again humans are animals.

[adquidorator]

"and you are just proving that vegetarians can't tell the difference between humans and animals, humans are treated different to other animals by law, and so is human on human interaction compared to human on animal interaction. So most people disagree with you here."
Uh -_- Again, humans are animals, that's like saying that I can't tell the difference between iguanas and reptils, just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right and you're now using another debate fallacy (argumentum ad numerum) and you've used multiple points that I already debunked twice in the same comment. This is going nowhere, you obviously won't listen to reason so I'm done wasting my time. You see I've already accepted that I can't change the minds of people like you, I can only show everyone else how baseless your claims are and with you just repeating debunked point I've already debunked I've done that and I've got more important things to do so don't bother replying. You are dismissed.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator When I say human on animal interaction, I obviously mean human interaction towards other animal species. If you dont understand that, you are fucking stupid.

And you could say that absolutely, Im not saying that all animal on animal interaction justifies what humans can do to animals.

And I already said that I agree that just because something is in law doesn't make it right, and I never said anything that would suggest that. Im saying that humans eating animals is legal, but humans eating humans is not. so when you make that argument you compare a crime to something that is widely accepted.

Humans eating cows is not comparable to humans eating other humans, if you think it is you are mentally challenged.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator You haven't debunked anything I've said, youve used emotional arguments as if they were facts, fuck off moron.

Eating meat is completely justifiable. You just dont agree with it.

[adquidorator]

1. Every organism interacts with members of its own species differently than members of others. But that doesn't make what other animals do to each other more applicable to our interactions with other animals vs. Our interactions with each other.
2. Eating a cow is comparable to eating a person in that both causes undo suffering. We judge things like rape and murder as immoral because they cause undo suffering and if you can't see that, then you're mentally challenged.
3. I never stated how I feel so I used no emotional arguments but as long as any act causes undo suffering, it isn't at all justifiable whether you agree with that or not

[adquidorator]

Now goodnight
by the way when you use ad hominem attacks you only weaken your position ;)

[Maik567]

@adquidorator It absolutely does, are you fucking stupid? There are some behaviours we adopt from animals when dealing with the specific kind of animal, but we dont use those when we deal with other humans. You are seriously trying to say that it is just as bad to eat a cow than it is to eat a human. You are an absolute joke and mentally ill.

Animal suffering is in no way comparable to human suffering. If you think it is thats fine, you can dwell in your twisted delusions.

And your arguments have been based on how you feel that it is wrong, and on this absolutely retarded idea that eating a cow is comparable to eating a human, try telling that in court, or to any human after youve eaten a person, and see how many people agree with you, you fucking sicko.

[adquidorator]

1. The sole basis to the appeal to nature fallacy is this: because another animal does something, it's OK for us to do it. Even though intraspecies interactions in humans are different from our interspecies interraction, the logic: if it's OK for other animals to do it's OK for us to do is just as applicable in both cases. I mean what should be common sense is that arguing that humans are somehow unique or "different" from other animals while at the same time arguing that because other animals do something it's OK for us to do is completely contradictory. It's just like evangelicals who say that we have to follow the word of the bible yet leave out certain portions that they don't like such as stoning disobedient children. It's the same thing as you saying that it's OK to treat other animals X way because other animals do it to members of a different species yet it's not OK for us to do Y to members of our own species because another animal does Y to its own species.

[adquidorator]

Both you and the evangelical are cherry picking. Either you follow the bible as the inherit word and all its teachings or not and either you say that because something happens in nature it's OK for us to do or not.
And yeah, there are things animals do that we view as being right just like the bible says things like "thou shalt not kill" that most people agree are right. But just like that doesn't make everything that the bible says right, what some animals do like altruism doesn't make everything that happens in nature right. To give you one last analogy on the subject: Person A says that gay marriage is wrong because historically marriage has been between and a woman. Person B says Well historically slavery was considered OK. Person A then says "you can't compare not wanting gays to get married to slavery. Slavery was so much worse so your argument is inapplicable.

[adquidorator]

It is indeed true that slavery was far worse than preventing gays from getting married, but that doesn't mean that the logic is any less applicable to either cases. Just like even though human on human interractions are far more dynamic than human on non human animal interractions, the logic's just as faulty. But even if you were to follow the laws of nature, yeah, animals kill other animals for food but they don't lock them up by the billions and cram them in factory farms for their entire lives. There simply is no precedent for this kind of behavior in the natural world, but not only is it unprecedented, but it would be utterly contradictory to the most fundamental law of survival: survival of the fittest. And contrary to popular belief, survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strongest, or the meanest, or the smartest. It simply means survival of the most resourceful.

[adquidorator]

And I could hardly think of anything less resourceful than squandering three fifths of the food grown as animal feed for no other purpose than palate pleasure while 900 million people go hungry and 8.5 million starve to death every year. Not to mention all of the ecological devastation that comes with it. And this brings me to ask why are humans so special? Right now we are in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction. Species are dying out at a rate virtually unprecedented over the course of prehistory. Never has a single species been so detrimental to biodiversity as we have. If any other organism did this a conservation biologist would call for its immediate eradication. I don't know about you but I want to lessen the impacts as opposed to contributing. by the way saying that something's comparable isn't saying that it's the same, don't try to put words in my mouth.

[adquidorator]

"Animal suffering is in no way comparable to human suffering. If you think it is thats fine, you can dwell in your twisted delusions. " The neurological processes that are responsible for suffering in humans are also responsible for suffering in non-human animals and that's what I or anyone else "thinks", "feels" or anyone's "twisted delusions" that's just an empirical fact.

[adquidorator]

"And your arguments have been based on how you feel that it is wrong, and on this absolutely retarded idea that eating a cow is comparable to eating a human, try telling that in court, or to any human after youve eaten a person, and see how many people agree with you, you fucking sicko." Uh huh, I'm not the one who think's it's OK to pent up a cow in a factory fame all her life, forcing her to suffer all forms of abuse from docking her tail without anesthetics, forcefully impregnating her and tearing its infant from her and making her suffer a violent and terrifying death at a slaughterhouse for no other reason than I happened to like the way that it tastes and somehow, i'm the sicko, Flawless logic. I think it's obvious to anyone reading this which of our moral permissabilities are closer to cannibalism ;)

[adquidorator]

*not OK

[adquidorator]

You see here's the ultimate Irony: you claim that me saying that animal suffering is somehow comparable to human suffering is "just an opinion" or how I "feel" or what I "think" But it was agreed by the world's leading neuroscientists at the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness in Non Human Animals that at the very least every bird, mammal and cephalopod is conscious in the same sense that we are; i. e. the way have conscious experiences in the same way that we do and that would apply to suffering as well. So it's not my belief or opinion that animal suffering is comparable to human suffering it's your (unfounded and objectively wrong) belief that there is some kind of fundamental difference between animal and human suffering. You can conjecture against it without justifications and use arguemntum ad numerum all you want, but the case is as closed as the one between evolution and creationism so it makes no difference. With that, nothing more need be said so this discussion is closed.

[Asker]

@adquidorator Just let him go. The lack of a brain of these people never ceases to amaze me. They are just savages who will give any amount of shitty arguments to justify their brutality just like ISIS do. An animal has all the emotions that we have, that is why dogs get so attached to us and are more loyal than any human probably. Pain isn't confined to just humans, every animal on this earth experiences pain because they have a central nervous system.
I hope you never get a pet with thiskind of brute mentality that its OK to kill animals for your selfish pleasure. Man has only contributed to themselves and destroyed the environment for everyone else while animals have done nothing but to exist. is being more evolved mean inflinct pain and torture on other lesser evolved animals just because you want a fucking leather skirt? THAT is what is ridiculous.

[Mesonfielde]

@adquidorator we need to eat meat because we don't have 4 stomachs designed to decompose grass. Cows do. Suffering is terrible and all, but for one being to survive, we are designed to consume the other.

Also, humans cook chicken to eliminate possible bacterial infections. Animals get tapeworms too if they eat infected food; we just know means to prevent that.

[adquidorator]

@Mesonfielde
1. Depends on what kind of herbivore you're talking about. Ruminants have those kinds of stomachs to digest grass but frugivroes and granivores don't. We are not designed to consume other animals we evolved to eat plants.

[Asker]

@Mesonfielde Nobody is eating grass here. Vegetarian food is not grass. Humans are omnivores and they have a choice.

But according to all of you we are designed to eat raw meat ( reason we have wisdom teeth) that is not cooked, so that is the way you should eat it then if you want to be au naturale. Either live like a complete animal like them or live like a veg human- no in between. Don't change sides when it suites you , we are animals so we have to kill but we are humans so we also have to cook it. Nomads ate meat and they ate it raw. Deal with the concequences of meat.

[Maik567]

@adquidorator I'm cherrypicking? You have got to be fucking kidding me thats all you have fucking done this whole argument, "we have some things in common with herbivored but not with carbivores so that makes us herbivores" even though we have plenty in common with carbivores.

All your arguments are emotional ones, and the way you argue is purely based on calling out fallacies even if they are nowhere to be found. You hear exactly what you want to hear and make retarded assumptions that are not even close to what Im saying. 90% of what you say are just your opinions presented as facts, and then putting some pseudotruth behind it as if it proved anything.

Eating animals is completely justified, if you think its not THATS YOUR FUCKING OPINION AND NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT IT. And humans are different from all other animals, and human on human interaction is different from human on animal interaction, and the vast fucking majority of the world agrees with me, your opinion is not a fact

[Maik567]

@Asker You are comparing meat eaters to a terrorist organization, and you say that I dont have a brain?

And no animals dont have all the emotions humans have, are you literally fucking retarded? Animal brains are nowhere near as complex as human brains, they are not physically capable of having as deep thoughts/abstract thinking/feelings. You call other people dumb when you have no fucking clue about the shit you spew out of your mouth you arrogant little shit.

And animals have caused the extinctions of other animals, but thats how nature and evolution works you fucking idiot. Dont say stupid shit when you have no idea what you're talking about. I already explained why I eat meat, and I dont kill animals for accessories, I kill them for the same reasons other omnivores kill animals, for nutrition. And just because you kill an animal doesn't mean you have to make it painful, if you choose to make it painful you are a complete psychopath.

[adquidorator]

@Asker yeah, I see what you mean. All he ever does is conjecture and say that he's right because "the rest of the world" agrees with him lol. He keeps saying that we have "lots of traits" in common with carnivores but he doesn't mention what those traits actually are an he keeps just insinuating that animal suffering is not comparable with human suffering even though the world's leading authorities on the subject have stated otherwise and he's free to look it up but yet he still continues to call it "my opinion." Instead of providing any evidence to support his claims he just says that he's right and spews ad hominem attacks. Seriously, this is why meat eaters are just like creationists XD

[adquidorator]

He also makes excuses like "animals don't have abstract thoughts" like that has any relevance to their capacity to suffer

[Maik567]

@adquidorator Quickly killing an animal doesn't make it suffer.

[Asker]

Yes you dumb asshole, you are paying to kill animals and terrorists are killing people and the end product is same.

Are you blind or illiterate or both? I never said animals have the same emotions as humans do. But they do have basic emotions like anger, love, etc. but they are not as highly developed as ours. The only real differences apart from our physical system is that we have higher cognitive abilities and all of our functions, emotions, feelings, abilities are just way more evolved and complex than their. Otherwise we are also animals, we are just the most developed animals. And as the most developed species we also have emotions like empathy, compassion which we show to other human beings and we should extend to all creatures since we are the mature ones here.

"Animals have caused extinction of other animals", are you aware the SHIT that comes out of that hole in your face? HUMANS hunt, poach and eat herbivores and hence they have become extinct. Nobody can become extinct

[Asker]

UNLESS you poach, hunt and eat other animals all species reproduce themselves so they cannot become extinct themselves. Stuff doesn't disappear in thin air.

[Asker]

Maybe we should euthanize you and the do the world a favor.

[Maik567]

@Asker "I never said animals have the same emotions as humans do."

"An animal has all the emotions that we have"

You literally said that you fucking illiterate blind moron.

And the end result is the same? The other results in a dead animal and a food on my plate, and the other results in countless dead humans and an incredible amount of pain, grief and hate. You absolutely fucking sicken me, that you are trying to make light of something so horrible.

You obviously aren't aware about the stupid shit that comes out of your mouth, or you wouldn't have said a fucking word. Everything you say is stupid ignorant bullshit, every single thing youve said so far is just your ignorant opinions presented in a condescending way as if you had somekind of a moral higher ground. You are a fucking piece of shit with no clue about reality. The gap in our intelligence between other animals makes all the fucking difference.

[Maik567]

@Asker And "we" should euthanize me? Who is "we"? Who the fuck do you think is behind you, look at my fucking post, 11 people is behind me and 1 is behind you since the other down arrow comes from you. Im pretty sure if you tried to euthanize me, it would end incredibly badly for you, you goddamn idiot.

Evolution and other animal species have driven some species into extinction. Yes, humans have driven many species into extinction, Im not trying to excuse or deny that, but other animals, especially carnivores, have done that to some herbivore species.

And I dont support poaching, but eating meat is a moral choice we all make, if you dont agree with mine, thats too fucking bad. But don't fucking try to compare it to terrorism you fucking piece of shit, that just proves how spoiled and out of touch with reality you actually are.

[Asker]

What I meant you moron, is that animals do have the same BASIC emotions but at the same time there emotions aren't as developed and complex like ours. You're not in fucking 2nd grade, learn to interpret the text as given to you, everything will not come in a clear definition to you.
If you don't care about lives of one species and can support their killing for such a SICK reason as getting tasty food on the table then you'e the one who's fucking sick, idiot. If you can justify their killing then perhaps the terrorists are doing a good job by reducing population of people like you. Its all balanced then. The pot shouldn't call the kettle black.

Every word I have said is completely rational unlike yours, whos just trying to twist logic desperately to justify killing to get 'food' on the table. You think cussing at me makes you right? It makes you a pathetic, rude angry teen ranting out. Its laughable. Truth hurts, eh? If killing someone less intelligent was legal I could get away with

[Asker]

your murder easily if I wanted. What a stupid and incompetent answer.

According to you killing is justified if the animal doesn't suffer and the death is quick so whats the big deal? You won't suffer. Bwahahahahah those 11 people can't do anything but 'like' your post while my one person is giving scientific and rational arguments which you cannto counter that is why you are so angry. Lol. The whole PETA is behind me and all the animal activists in the world and even if nobody is behind me, I have zero fucks to give because I don't jump on the bandwagon like you brainwashed idiots do. Most people are stupid and incapable of being intelligent that is why not every person can be called truly intelligent, only a handful of population.

I will end with this : Non veg people are the terrorists for animals. I will continue to say this and you can't stop me just as you will continue eating that product of murder. You can bring 7 million people and I will still believe what I do.

[Maik567]

@Asker You are fucking ridiculous. Saying "An animal has all the emotions that we have" is not even fucking close to "Animals have the same basic emotions" You were wrong and now you are backtracking pretending that thats what you meant, you are a complete fucking joke. And I interpreted it just right you fucking idiot, you can't expect people to read your mind when you say something totally different than what you mean. Fuck off.

Yes, I dont give a shit about the lives of mosquitos for example, and neither do they because they dont even fucking understand that they exist. All of their actions are based purely on instincts they have no self awareness. The fact that you would compare these species to humans shows how fucking retarded you are.

"Reducing the population of people like you" Terrorists dont discriminate based on your diet you complete fucking idiot, you are just as likely to be killed as I am, well maybe a little bit less since it sounds like you dont go out much.

[Maik567]

@Asker If killing someone less intelligent was legal, anyone on this fucking website could kill you.

"I could get away easily with your murder if I wanted"

And you call me a pathetic rude teen who is ranting. You are fucking mentally ill. You say killing is wrong, yet you constantly fantasize about murdering others, you are a complete fucking psychopath and yet you try to act as you were morally superior to others. And no you couldnt murder anyone easily, you are a spoiled little fucking brat living a closeted life, you have no idea about things as serious as that.

And the other person was not giving scientific explanations, all his arguments were emotional and he was saying things that were just straight up wrong, like he said that humans aren't omnivores even though we scientifically count as omnivores.

No the whole PETA is not behind you, you delusional retard. Thats like if I said that all meat eaters are behind me. You are a fucking ignorant child. Thats all you are.

[adquidorator]

@Asker, let me correct you on a few things you said. It's not that our emotions that are more developed than another animals because the neurology behind emotions in all mammals is the same and it has analogous counterparts in birds and cephalopods. Joy, grief, anger etc... feels the same to us as it does (at the very least) these three groups of animals. Now how we are different is in our level of thinking and reasoning capacity, but that isn't to say that animals have no capacity to think or reason whatsoever. Many people think that because they don't have a language animals don't think at all. But this is complete nonsense, they just think with images as opposed to words. And the intelligence of most birds and mammals is estimated to be on the order of small children. And that's the problem with the standard meat eaters' line of reasoning that because animals are less intelligent than us it's OK to abuse them.

[adquidorator]

@Asker And like I said before that there is a scientific consensus that at the very least birds, mammals and cephalopods are conscious creatures like we are and as such human and non human animal suffering are indeed comparable (this is scientific fact) so meat eaters have to come to terms with this: if they think there's somehow a fundamental difference between human and non human animal suffering or that it's just instinct or a conditioned response as or some other garbage while the way we feel suffering is somehow unique and incomparable to what animals feel, that's just their opinion but there's no scientific basis for it whatsoever and they have no right to force it on other animals. And to clarify, having the ability to do something is not the same thing as having the right to.

[Asker]

@adquidorator www.grandin.com/.../...als.in.translation.ch3.html
Animal emotions are simple and pure. We share the same basic emotions but ours are developed in fact, euphoria, joy, exhilaration, exuberance and rejoicing these are the complicated forms of happiness which animals do not have. All these feelings are extended versions of basic emotions like love, happiness, sadness etc and animals don't feel them. Humans do. Hence, our emotions ARE more developed. Animals do not feel sexual arousal, romantic, love, remorse, depression, friendship. only humans do. Animals think yes, but not as complicatedly as we do, because our brain is more evolved and developed. We have the biggest brain and developed cognitive functions. This is a fact. Animals do not have the sense of reason as well as we do, they cannot think of long term consequences of anything, only short term. Animals have a language, yes, dogs bark, cats meow etc. I didn't say they didn't have a language.

[Asker]

@adquidorator Um, I didn't say that animals didn't have a conscious infact I presented a link saying there is. Animal suffering and human suffering in terms of pain is same yes. I never disagreed and I don't get why you are telling me this?

[Saveanimals]

If you like world play over meaning and if you can remove the anthropocentric definition you can see it is murder. There are more words for human murder like homicide, genocide, serial; killing, mass murder, holocaust. etc but none for animals it is just slaughter whether it is one animal or more The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

Look there is a creature in it and the word can clearly tell it refers to harming any being, this old definition still counts. So you want to stick to the meaning or still play with words

[Maik567]

@Saveanimals I have no idea why you're commenting a post that's probably way over a year old by now but I'll explain anyway.

No, it's not the "anthropocentric" definition of murder, it is the actual definition of murder.

"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." This is the definition of murder according to the English Oxford dictionaries. Whatever definition you choose to use is your personal choice, you can come back when your definition actually gets into the official English language dictionaries.

Furthermore why in the fuck would I stop being anthropocentric in the first place, of course I value human lives higher compared to animal lives. If you want your life to be treated as the equal of any other animals then that's good for you, but again don't try to force that on others.

And no, old definitions do not count are you stupid? You didn't even quote it correctly.

[chuppachup]

I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable when eating meat. I'm more aware that there is pretty much no need for me to eat meat when plants can replace most food items easily.
There is a shit ton of humans and we simply don't need to eat meat. It's not like we're back in the primitive ages, hunting for survival. Our version of hunting is going to the super-market.

[Asker]

don't eat eat meat when you realize that it is wrong. Set an example for fellow non vegetarians.

[Anonymous]

The human body was made to be an omnivore. Hence why we have sharp teeth, and teeth to grind plants, It's a natural thing that we were all born with and that's the way nature is. Frankly I don't care why vegetarians eat their food, or why omnivores eat their food, I just think it's food.

if you're really trying to make a big deal of someone eating a cow... well then obviously your life isn't very exciting now is it? It's meat. Who really cares?

You can eat whatever you want as long as your healthy and happy in my opinion and you should really stop debating this. Some people like the taste of meat, that's it. It's all personal preference. And really, like people care how much Joules they're getting when they eat? I don't! I just think that I'm hungry. Honestly you need to stop endorsing something people aren't interested in, it's something that everyone will forget about when they walk away from a conversation, it won't stick in their mind and haunt them whenever they eat chicken.

and plus, if you vegetarians eat all the plants, the animals end up starving. Think about it...

[Asker]

Yes, the human body was made to be an omnivore and we have sharp teeth but we also have a lot of vestigial organs that we used to use earlier. If that is the way the nature is, why don't we live as we used to in the nomadic times? Hunting around naked wildly like animals. If you are going to make the " Its just the way it is" argument then tell me why we are living in a 'civilized' world and teaching people to not kill, murder or rape? The world isn't equal, That is the way it is. You need to live like an animal if you want to behave like one.

Well nobody cared about the slavery of blacks for a really long time but then someone did and it changed, right?
So if I want to be a cannibal and eat human flesh, it is okay? Fine so don't punish those people who like human meat. Joules gives you ENERGY, to do all the work including typing this opinion here. If you eat vegetarian food, you will have MORE energy. That's only good for your health , there are no side effects to vegetarian food.

[Asker]

Plants reproduce faster than all animals do, and we can plant new plants for every plant that we take but we can't grow the same animal again, can you?

[Anonymous]

We have evolved to eat meat. Your own mouth proves it- that's why we have canines. Obviously, we can eat plants too, because that's what molars are for.
Obviously, that doesn't mean you have to- not by any means.
But, as animals, we are omnivores and we needed to eat meat to evolve in the way we have. We are still evolving now and although we don't necessarily need meat, there's no reason why we can't eat it.
But please. Have some respect for your non-vegetarian counterparts. We know where meat comes from and guess what? We're not stupid either. We understand how it works.
I like eating meat, it tastes good, fills me up and gives me the minerals, nutrients and energy I need to live. If that means eating a dead cow/pig/goat etc. I'm fine with that. As long as it's done quickly and with as little pain as possible. I know it's a product of a killing (not murder) and guess what? That's my choice!
Don't preach that I am a murderer please. I don't hate upon your dietary decisions so don't insult mine please.

[lexythelou22]

Actually, eating meat can benefit the animals themselves (not the ones we eat, obviously, but others.) There is a capacity limit for animals. Say there is a small large field of grass. If deer continue to reproduce and die off due to natural causes only, the grass will soon run out, because the animals eat faster than the plants can grow. This will cause the animals to compete for food, either killing the competition or dying a slow, painful death due to starvation which is much worse than being slaughtered. Eating meat makes less competition for the animals in question, and more food to go around. This of course isn't stating that animals used for food are treated well. The conditions could be improved greatly, lessening the suffering of the animal that is being slaughtered, but eating meat shouldn't be turned into a terrible, awful, evil act.

[Asker]

As far as I heard, it was " one lion for ten deers" not " 7 humans for 1 sheep", what you are saying is true but carnivores animals are doing that job for herbivores animals. They can't live without eating meat. Humans have a higher cognitive capacity and they have the sense to know right and wrong while animals don't. That is the reason we are at the top of the food chain because we actually have morals and a sense of justifications.
You kill me this way or that way, its killing anyway.

[lexythelou22]

Not only are carnivorous animals decreasing in the wild due to a range of factors, but there were many more herbivores to begin with. Carnivores can only do so much.

[Asker]

Moreover, the population of humans is increasing much, much more rapidly than animals since they are poached and killed while humans are not killed by any higher creature. That will mean the herbivores animals are in great danger since they have both humans and carnivores animals to kill them. They will seriously become extinct if both species hunts them.

[lexythelou22]

There are laws and systems put in place to stop extinction from happening. Animals are going extinct for more reasons than being eaten by humans. Sure, there are people who won't follow the laws, namely poachers, but you can't stop that from happening, so there's no point in getting into it. When those people are caught, they face serious charges. On the topic of deer, the male will mate with multiple females during mating season, resulting in more babies which grow into adults and reproduce even more babies within just a year or two of their lives. Of course they don't reproduce as quickly as humans do because they have time constraints, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a bad outcome if all humans instantly drop meat all at once. Even if the capacity limit isn't reached, there will be excess competition thus resulting in more animal violence with each other especially during the mating seasons, and often times the loser won't die, but be badly injured, forced to live in pain.

[Asker]

There were, lexy, not now. Humans have a bigger population than herbivores animals now. Even if people did that then they should stop now if they don't want a time to come when you will take your kid to the zoo to show them a cow because it is an endangered species.

[lexythelou22]

What part of my argument was a "were"? You just tried to use a scare tactic. You obviously don't know how many farms there are with a large numbers of cows, and farms for specifically breeding, and other farms with cows that are only for milking. It's very unlikely that cows will become endangered, and if they do there isn't a very high chance that it would be anywhere near our life time.

[Asker]

There are more reasons sure, but it is a significant reason. You have to believe that.

First of all, I don't think the human race will stop eating meat anywhere in the coming 100 centuries at least, that is if we are lucky.
Second, there are carnivores to take care of herbivores animals.
Third, Yes our population grows more rapidly so if all people eat meat there are even more deadly outcomes like extinction of herbivores.
Fourth, animal violence will not happen if we side by side stop killing carnivores animals too, then it will balance out.

[lexythelou22]

That isn't exactly how the environment works, but I see my points won't get across even if I had a talking deer with me to plead my case, so I believe this is done with. Congratulations.

[Asker]

"There were many herbivores to begin with" . Scroll up, here is what you wrote. My concern is not for my life time, in that sense, why do we care about water conservation, environment degradation? We are safe and our children will be too. I am thinking beyond that. I also said " 100 centuries", in my last comment, which meant I am not just thinking about my life time. Cows are also slaughtered.

[Asker]

You have no evidence or scientific sources to back your claims up. Just an opinion and I asked everyone to provide evidence not just an opinion so I don't think i can really take your " environment works this way" as a very reliable source as you are not a scientist. You are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for commenting.

[lexythelou22]

Oh, you're one of those people. The type who has an argument stopped, then starts it back up again later on. Well if I have to show evidence, where's yours?

[adquidorator]

1. Most of the meat consumed in the first world was not "hunted" it was forced bred and slaughtered.
2. The reason that the herbivores like deer are overpopulating is because we wiped out their natural predators like wolves.

[lexythelou22]

@adquidorator You just wiped out half of BOTH of our arguments

[Asker]

I am not sure what " type" I am really and you will have to elaborate what evidence you want from me. Non vegetarians constantly said to me," You kill plants and we kill animals, we all kill so its all OK" so I provided the evidence above ^^

[lexythelou22]

Evidence for one bit isn't the same as evidence for the whole argument..

[Asker]

Then what kind of evidence you want from me?

[Anonymous]

I'm not the one who tortured the animal and killed it. I am simply eating it's corpse. Yes it is wrong and unethical how these animals are killed but don't blame the people who eat meat because they don't know where these animals are coming from. If you have a problem with the TORTURING of animals then go after the people who actually kill and murder them.

[Asker]

Excuse me? You're paying to eat them. If you stopped paying, slaughtering of animals would stop. You are an equal stakeholder in their death.
They know they are animals.
They know they were killed just to eat when there was no need.
Guilty enough.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm not paying. My parents are.

[Asker]

Ask your parents to stop buying it for you. Or don't buy it when you have a job

[Opinion Owner]

I don't eat it. I'm becoming began when I move out.

[Asker]

Way to go! :D :D

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks.

[Opinion Owner]

Thank u for mho

[Frost_Byt3]

I am completely aware that i am eating the product of murder. Do i care? Hell no. We need a suffucient source or protein. And don't try to tell me that nuts and beans are an adequate substitute, because you would have to eat so much of it that you would be too full to take in any other necessary nutrients, in order to equate how much protein you get from meat.

I know you want everyone to be a vegetarian like you, but men are not suited for that. If we stopped eating meat, our testosterone would be drained, and we would therefore have higher levels of estrogen. All men lose muscle and become soft and feminine. It'd be virtually impossible for them to gain muscles. Which I'm sure you wouldn't like because i bet you like fit and ripped guys don't ya?

Soon enough the only difference between men and women would be our genitals.

[Asker]

No many vegetarian meals are rich in protein and you can take plenty of different subsitutes for protein than meat. If someday it was found that eating human meat gives energy like no other, would you do that too? Engage in cannabalism? Murdering someone for no reason is not justified and certainly not for personal gains.
Do you have any evidence to back your claim that men are not suited for vegetarianism?

[Frost_Byt3]

I didn't mean it like that. Men could survive without meat, but our species would probably go instinct because none of us would be muscular--which is what all women demand.

Also, name these substitutes you speak of (besides nuts and beans) and how many grams of protein they contain in a serving.

[adquidorator]

XD BWAHAHAHAHAHA Is this comment a joke? 1st of all, as for the protein remark, you only need to get about 8% of your calories from protein for maintenance and even if you're bodybuilding you only need around 21-22% of your calories from protein and for a 225 lb guy that's only 135 grams a day. That's what 1 pack of beans a day? I mean really, there's no evidence whatsoever that vegans/vegetarians don't get enough protein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4p8s7xskQ As for testosterone, vegan men have HIGHER levels than average, (oh the irony) but there is one feminizing effect that a vegan diet had: it does lower the risk of suffering from diseases that are more common in men than women nutritionfacts.org/.../ Next time do some research before you regurgitate the crap you've been fed all your life on forums like this ;)

[Asker]

My ex was a vegetarian and had a fabulous six pack, muscled and toned body. He was everything a masculine man is defined as. Hence, no your logic can't sustain.

[FakeName123]

And this is why most people don't like vegetarians and specifically vegans. Because you are into everyones face with it. Instead of just doing your thing and talk about it, if someone shows interest - you are like the most annoying religious missionaries.

"Three people walk into a bar. One is a vegan, one does crossfit and one is an atheist. How do you know who is who? - Don't worry, they will tell you."

[Asker]

I am not really looking to be liked. I am a vegetarian, atheist and a feminist. I am pretty much hated :P

[FakeName123]

So you think you are a martyr with what you do? Gets even better.

[Asker]

I don't. Nobody here has been really able to give me a good reason to eat meat except that its rich in protein. I am not someone go jumps on the bandwagon, I do or believe in something only if I have my logical, rational reasons to justify them. If somebody doesn't like that, they can fuck off.

[Asker]

who*

[adquidorator]

"And this is why most people don't like vegetarians and specifically vegans." No shit, truth hurts.
"Because you are into everyones face with it. Instead of just doing your thing and talk about it, if someone shows interest " She isn't in your face about, she's posting it on an online forum. If you don't like it you have the OPTION not to click. But you know who had no option: your victim (the animal). "- you are like the most annoying religious missionaries." Except the claims of christian missionaries are in no way verifiable but the impacts of the meat industry are plain for all to see. A carnist comparing a vegan activist to a religious extremist makes about as much sense as a creationist calling evolution a religion.

[adquidorator]

""Three people walk into a bar. One is a vegan, one does crossfit and one is an atheist. How do you know who is who? - Don't worry, they will tell you."" Yeah, because there are better things to be outspoken about than the greatest form of institutionalized cruelty that has ever existed, right -_-

[FakeName123]

The problem is that your vegetarian arguments aren't logical nor rational, but solely based on your subjective view on morals and ethics.

Your joule argument is also invalid as energy doesn't vanish, but just changes shape. Even Einstein knew that already.

[Asker]

the 10% Law is completely valid. Look it up.

[Asker]

That energy gets used up.

[FakeName123]

1. Those sources are probably absolutely non-biased vegetarian sources.

2. Even if it is true, you wrote "990 J are lost to the environment". The point is that said energy is not lost, it just changes shape and is still within our ecosystem.

[Asker]

The site I read it from said it like that. I had this for my 10th grade exam, I know what I am talking about. I will quote my textbook definition," it gets up in various functions of the animal". If I rephrase and say the energy gets used up, will you believe my concept then?

[Asker]

used*

[adquidorator]

"The problem is that your vegetarian arguments aren't logical nor rational, but solely based on your subjective view on morals and ethics." Actually that's a load of crap. What can be said to be objectively right or wrong is what causes pain and suffering and there are animals that process these emotions in the same way that we do and to clarify, that isn't my opinion that is a scientific consensus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSbom5MsfNM

[FakeName123]

And in return an animal produces heat, releases chemicals (methane for example), poops, etc - all things which are energy and stay in our eco system.

Energy just shapes form, but it doesn't vanish magically into nothingness.

[FakeName123]

@adquidorator

"what causes pain and suffering"

So does an animal live pain and suffering if it's normally raised on a farm and butchered in an instant? No, it doesn't.

Your argument solely relates to the ethical questionable animal farming of mass livestocks. That is an argument against a specific case, but not against eating meat per se. Try again though.

[Asker]

It gets used up. It doesn't pass on to the next animal. My argument was that its much more beneficial to eat plants and get 10 Joule than get 0.1% Joule. It may remain in the ecosystem but you are not going to get it so it is not of use to you.

[adquidorator]

"So does an animal live pain and suffering if it's normally raised on a farm and butchered in an instant? No, it doesn't." Um, news flash, virtually all animals that are raised for meat lived an agony filled life in factory farms and suffered a painful and frightening death.
"Your argument solely relates to the ethical questionable animal farming of mass livestocks. That is an argument against a specific case, but not against eating meat per se. Try again though." So is cannibalism OK as long as the victim died instantaneously?

[Asker]

If that animal could convey I don't think it would say" Yeah I am okay to get killed for nothing as long as it is painless and quick".
If you murder someone by beheading them like ISIS for example in a quick and painless way does it justify killing them?
Killing is never justified with expection to self defense, survival and punishment as prescribed by the Law

[FakeName123]

"It doesn't pass on to the next animal."

To make it idiot-safe in simplicity: Cow poops -> Bacterias and insects on poop -> Insects eat bacteria and/or poop -> small animal eats insects.

There are thousands of chains like this in the eco-system. Thing's dont go to waste, simple as that.

Furthermore meat simply has a lot more joules per gramm than plants have. This is universally true to the common meats we eat. No amount of vegetarian propaganda will change that. So your argument still stays invalid, because you use data but are unable to put it into context and to understand it properly.
Not to mention that I am still calling your data out on being probably biased as fuck.

[FakeName123]

And inb4 broccoli has more proteins than beef. The problem is that a lot of the proteins of broccoli can't be properly digested and turned into energy while most of beef actually can be. Read up on the differences of proteins.

[FakeName123]

@adquidorator

"news flash, virtually all animals that are raised for meat lived an agony filled life in factory farms and suffered a painful and frightening death."

I will go to my local farmer soon, talk about it and we have a heartly laugh. Toppest of keks, mate. You realise that not all meat comes from mass livestocks, right?

"So is cannibalism OK as long as the victim died instantaneously?"

Which brings us back to the point of a philosophical discourse of morals and ethics. You equal an animal life to a human life for whatever reason. I don't. That is once again not an argument against eating meat though, but just your moral-standard you try to claim as an absolute right. Maybe we should talk about self-righteousness, narcissm and self-entitlement.

[FakeName123]

@Asker

You are comparing the murdering of people for no reason, but different beliefs to the killing of animals and completely use their bodies (meat, skin, etc.) for a working society.

You are not even comparing apples with pears, you are comparing apples with dinosaurs.

[Asker]

I said it gets passed on to the next animal as in WHO EATS THAT PLANTS/ANIMAL.
I didn't say it gets wasted, it stays in the ecosystem but it doesn't benefit the next animal who eats that animal for plant. Vegetarians eat the plant directly and get the 10 J and non veg people get 0.1 or even less Joules as explained above.

No meat does not have more Joules than Plants because plants get 1000 J directly from sun while animals don't. Provide evidence if you are going to say that.
I will take the data of a renowned scientist over you, thank you.

[adquidorator]

"Energy just shapes form, but it doesn't vanish magically into nothingness." No but it does turn into a form that's useless to us (2nd law of thermodynamics).
"Furthermore meat simply has a lot more joules per gramm than plants have. This is universally true to the common meats we eat."
1. That's blatantly untrue peanuts have 5.67 Calories/gram while steak only has 1.94.
2. As long as the human digestive tract has enough volume to extract 2000-2500 calories a day from plants (which it does) your point is moot.
3. This is especially true in a society where so many people are overweight.

[adquidorator]

""Furthermore meat simply has a lot more joules per gramm than plants have. This is universally true to the common meats we eat."
1. All protein can be used for energy, the question is whether or not it can be turned into proteins for structural/functional use in humans (perhaps you should also have "Read up on the differences of proteins.")
2. Even though broccoli isn't a complete protein, there are many plant sources that are. Black and kidney beans are both complete sources of protein and +50% of the calories in them are from protein and unlike steak which is packed full of cholesterol and carcinogens beans are packed with fiber and antioxidants.

[Asker]

I don't think people will die if they don't eat meat, wear leather jackets and animal skin rugs etc. I consider life equal and to me killing an animal and killing a human is equal. They do nothing to be deserved to be murdered yet we humans murder them for stupid and selfish af reasons like skin meat etc.

The reason humans like you will never agree with all the logic laid out in front of you and make up pathetic excuses is because you have the same mentality people had for slaves back then. That they are not equal to us and its okay to exploit them and even kill them because they are useless just existing and worthy of living only if providing us something
The society can work just as better without killing animals.

[FakeName123]

"No meat does not have more Joules than Plants because plants get 1000 J directly from sun while animals don't. Provide evidence if you are going to say that."

Just because 1000J goes into the plant it doesn't mean you digest 1000J out of it. That's a ridiculous logic you got there.

"1. That's blatantly untrue peanuts have 5.67 Calories/gram while steak only has 1.94."

My bad, I switched calories with proteins. Obviously peanuts, and nuts in general, are some of the best calory-suppliers.

"2. As long as the human digestive tract has enough volume to extract 2000-2500 calories a day from plants (which it does) your point is moot."

You could also gain 2000-2500 calories from eating poop - that doesn't make it a healthy diet. Independent of that the problem is still that this is an ethical and moral argument and not a scientific while the asker tried to display things as absolute facts which aren't.

[FakeName123]

"This is especially true in a society where so many people are overweight."

And at the same time I can argue that many vegetarians and vegans are under-nutritioned. That's not the problem though. A healthy diet is what both sides of the extreme are missing and not the fact that they are eating meat or plants.

"1. All protein can be used for energy, the question is whether or not it can be turned into proteins for structural/functional use in humans"

And the human can't use a lot of plant-based proteins as well as meat-based, or rather the essential amino acids coming from it. Something which plants have not even a shot of competing with meat.

[FakeName123]

"I consider life equal and to me killing an animal and killing a human is equal."

Which is an argument about ethics and morals, which has often little to do with rational arguments and much rather with the philosophic view the person of choice has.

"The reason humans like you will never agree with all the logic laid out in front of you and make up pathetic excuses is because you have the same mentality people had for slaves back then."

Slavery of people for labor work and animal livestocks aren't even remotely comparable. Further you are still lacking rational arguments, because you lack to create a proper context. A plant could soak in a bazillion joules - what matters is how much your digestive system gets out of it.

adquidorator is donig a way better job at rational arguments at this point.

[adquidorator]

"You equal an animal life to a human life for whatever reason." Well 1st of all humans are animals but I don't place value on life per se I put it on consciouseness and as we now KNOW at the very least every bird, mammal and cephalopod is conscious in the same sense that we are "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSbom5MsfNM" but you could grow and eat cow, chicken, pig or human meat in vitro for all I care.
"There are thousands of chains like this in the eco-system. Thing's dont go to waste, simple as that."
But it is in a form that is still useless to us and it takes more resources to sustain people off plants and meat than plants alone. Simple as that.
"Maybe we should talk about self-righteousness, narcissm and self-entitlement." I could hardly think of anything that is more self-righteous, narcissistic and shows a greater sense of self-entitlement than believing that somehow satisfying your taste buds could justify taking the life of another conscious animal.

[adquidorator]

"And your arguments have been based on how you feel that it is wrong, and on this absolutely retarded idea that eating a cow is comparable to eating a human, try telling that in court, or to any human after youve eaten a person, and see how many people agree with you, you fucking sicko." Uh, it's pretty clear that your level of moral permissability is much closer to that of a cannibal than mine ;)

[adquidorator]

Oops, wrong comment XD

[Jack32]

"nobody here has given a good reason the eat meat. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon" that's exactly the point. No one here cares if you eat meat or not. You're judging us because we do.

[Asker]

@Jack32 You are what you are. if you're doing something wrong, I will call you out. Deal with it.

[Asker]

No, according to the 10% Law, you don't get 1000J, the plant does and 990 J gets used in photosynthesis and other processes so you get only 10 J if you eat it. And yes our body is capable of digesting 10 J.

No, slaves were pretty much treated like animal livestocks, somebody existing just to provide you with resources and I bet my buttons that if they could have eaten them, they would have. We can easily digest 10 J, as all vegetarians have from the dawn of existence. Non veg folks also eat veg dishes, so how do they digest it then? A plant cannot soak in a bazillion Joules at once, only 1000 J. These are all rational arguments, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Meat has many harmful effects but vegetarian food does not. Does that not tell you something?
He is probably a science student since he was very much scientific knowledge while I have little interest in science, i am more towards arts, literature but still I know the science behind the things I am interested in.

[FakeName123]

You keep repeating your nonsense. The plant could have 1379513780464012 Joules - it doesn't matter if our body can't properly digest and take it in. You are just repeating cold facts without understanding the context of it.

[Asker]

Got any shred of evidence that you are right and I am wrong? Don't act like you are right unless you have any concrete evidence. A plant can have only 1000 J 990 J gets used up in photosysnethis and remaining 10 J we get, if we are vegetarian that os. Otherwise take your 0.1 J and go home. Our body can digest 10 J and always had been, how else do you think vegetarians are surviving?

[Mesonfielde]

Well we are omnivores, if you are placed in the saharas the lions don't really care about your sense of morality; we were designed to eat meat and the world was designed in such a way that we need meat. That is just how it is.

[Asker]

Lions are carnivores and they don't have any sense of judgement or reason. They do whatever their instincts tell them to, thats the difference between us and them. We actually know what is right and wrong while they don't. Whats the use but we are not going to use our sense of reason?
We do not need meat. We can survive without it very well.

[Mesonfielde]

Our "judgement and reason" is just higher level decision making, but it is still s similar system to what animals share. We seek reward and avoid what causes pain or long-term disadvantages.

[Mesonfielde]

Our ability to "reason" is just a verbalized way of stating what our instincts tell us.

[Asker]

No, animals do not have a sense of right or wrong while humans do. Hunger, thirst and sex are 3 primal needs of humans, who are also, by the way animals. But humans can fast and practice abstinence for religious, moral or personal reasons. An animal doesn't have the ability to have complex thoughts and descions like that. In many animals, after the child grows up and becomes an adult, the parent refuses to recognize him/her and looks at it like a predator, does this happen in humans? No. Animals do not care what happens to their counterparts, while humans advocate " selflessness" and "altruism", if they share the same system, does it not defeat the purpose of 'humanity', as they say?

[Mesonfielde]

Humans practice religious "fasting" and "abstinence" for the sake of future benefit, and also partly out of fear of punishment. All animals learn to associate certain behaviors with certain events; and try to avoid events that cause them harm. The moral assessment is just a facade for the evaluation of whether an event is rewarding or results in punishment; there is nothing special about it whatsoever.

The only interesting thing here is that we can learn of such attributions from WORDS without having to experience it on our own; hence why people can be programmed to fear "God" and then do everything to avoid punishment from said "God" for the sake of being "rewarded" instead.

[Asker]

You can try as hard to say that animals and humans have the same system in everything but they don't. They both have life and that is precious and needs to be precious. Humans are more compassionate, empathetic, understand and altruistic towards one other as compared to animals. In animals, polygamy is the norm in most cases and in humans it is the opposite. In most animals, the father does not play a role in rearing of the child while in humans he does and there is a concept of 'family' . Humans are more bonded and closely knit than animals and they aren't trained to do so, it happens out of nature. Just like sexual arousal and romantic love. Its purely human nature here, and the only way humans are superior is a bigger brain which is how we have evolved so much and they haven't. We are actually very weak compared to a Lion. But we happen to have a bigger brain that is different from that of a non-human and has psychological emotions. Therefore humans should show compassion towards

[Asker]

animals as they are not really capable of feeling emotions such as compassion towards us but we have.
What is 'humanity'? Quality of being humane and benevolent. We claim to be benevolent compared to animals but what is the difference between us and them beside the physical system?
If we were living in a nomadic society like animals, like we once did, I would never ask you not to eat meat. At the time we were not governed by any laws of right and wrong. You are more clever, you killed an animal for food ( since wild fruits were not enough) to survive and that is Survival of the Fittest. Nobody would be punished for killing anybody. Truth is life is UNFAIR, but we humans have moved to a civilized society which is bound by right and wrong to try and make life fair and live peacefully. We apply these rules to ourselves but not to animals, what hypocrisy is that? Life is life and precious. Either live as a true animal or if you consider yourself a higher, civilized species who knows what

[Asker]

is right and wrong then act like it. This is the same as if I am living in a country like India and living like a US citizen, whichever society you choose to live in, you abide by its rules. All those monks that claim to go to a higher consciousness and are not affected by the world anymore, they practice meditation and thinking in a rational way, and use their cognitive powers to become like that. That is what we have done too, man used his brain and controlled his natural urges and found a way to live together where everyone can benefit and we have got a fair set up as you see. Animals do not use their brain in complex thoughts and ideas while humans do and that is why they have been able to train themselves to overcome greed ( you don't snatch something from someone just because you have an urge to or you want to) , lust, anger, etc. while animals are still in that nomadic culture.

We can live as nomads, civilized humans or monks and denounce everything but whatever you apply to you

[Asker]

have to apply it to yourself too. As simple as that. Don't be a hypocrite and say " its my natural instinct" when it comes to killing animals and say ," You're an animal" when someone gets angry and beats you to pulp, it is all natural.

[Mesonfielde]

The rules of "right and wrong" exist to provide a means of punishment to those who disobey the general course defined for members of a given "civilized society". You kill a random person - it could be a doctor, who provides as the sole earning member of a family who never really did anything lawfully wrong. Obviously such scenario does not support the long-term goals of society.

In the USA, people are not prohibited from eating meat. Therefore they still follow what is determined to be " right" and "wrong" in their society.

And higher tier animals such as mammals do have the capacity to feel the 7 basic "psychological emotions".

[Asker]

Killing animals will also not support long term society, be it by poaching, hunting, or eating them since it will damage the ecosystem. Herbivores are decreasing in our ecosystem which means no food for carnivores who cannot survive on vegetarian diet unlike us. It also means those animals, some day, can become extinct. This is not a joke, many species are now extinct and some are critically endangered. Does this sound like a long term goal of society?

US is a democracy and it can't go against the wishes of the majority no matter how harmful. Otherwise whoever is the President will not to get elected next time, and for the fear of losing votes, he/she will never dare to introduce such a law. Why do you think so many male dominated countries can't introduce laws for women empowerment? because the majority are men and they will lose their vote bank and the women are also divided. Similarly, non veg people will revolt and he/she will never get elected again and vegetarian people are

[Asker]

also divided. Many of them are doing it out of religious reasons, others because they were raised like that. People who are doing it for animals are a small minority hence not every vegetarian will agree. Again, everything that is legal is not 'right'
I don't suppose people are eating those animals. People generally eat herbivores animals like goat, sheep, cow etc. which don't have those emotions,

[Mesonfielde]

Goats and sheep also feel pain, but their consumption is inevitable. Wolves don't care about the pain they inflict when they rip a sheep into shreds to feed their young.

If we truly wanted to support the long-term benefits of society, we would eat the humans who don't qualify to be sufficiently beneficial for the future of society; so that they stop consuming resources from those who actually have the ability to provide something valuable. But I haven't seen anyone say we should eat criminals and homeless people.

[Asker]

STOP COMPARING YOURSELF TO WOLVES, LIONS ETC. They are CARNIVORES and we are OMNIVORES, they are non-humans and we are humans, we don't live naked in the jungles and they do. They don't feel psychological pain like " my mom left me" , they feel physical pain, there is a difference.

Look dude, this is getting absolutely ludicrous, you don't 'eat' somebody to punish them. We are humans, we have a brain, we use different method of punishment while in animal kingdom, they don't give a fuck and just eat them because there is no jail, they can't think that complexly , and they are not looking to co-exist naturally with other animals. If they were like humans, herbivores and carnivores would have some contract about living peacefully but they can't because they just act on their primal instincts. AND WE DON'T NEED TO EAT SOMEBODY, ANYBODY. That person has a right to live because humans have all these amazing capacities to reform, think and repent on what they did and be a better human.

[Asker]

We now every crime needs different degree of punishment, you can't hang somebody for stealing and you can't fine somebody for murdering. We can think like that because we are wiser. You are literally thinking like an animal " Let me eat that SOB since he dared to do this to me and it makes me mad", not like what was the severity of the crime, what were the cirmcumstances etc. Please come back to humanity.
We would still be running around naked in the jungles if we didn't have this gift of reason and logic. But we do so use it.

[Mesonfielde]

""That person has a right to live because humans have all these amazing capacities to reform, think and repent on what they did and be a better human.""

You give people with sociopathic tendencies far too much credit, why on earth else do you think they get jailed for the rest of their lives? What benefit is there to keeping them alive just to watch them rot away behind the cells? Mass murderers, rapists, people who commit violent crimes - they are volatile, and they do not serve society.

If you want to reduce the animal meat consumption, then you can just eat them. It's actually a fairly simple solution as you provide food source for those who need meat, and you eliminate a food sink by killing the criminal. It's actually a pretty efficient means of solving the problem.

If our laws functioned that way, would you still claim it is "wrong"?

[adquidorator]

@Asker, Neither carnivores nor omnivores will develop atherosclerosis as a result of cholesterol in their diet, yet humans and herbivores do. But it makes no difference because as long as there is enough plants to sustain themselves, omnivores won't hunt.

[Asker]

This is ridiculous, I am not reducing myself to canabalism to punish crimminals. Our system works just fine. Don't change the topic.

[Mesonfielde]

You're saying it's not working, which is why you are trying to persuade me into not eating meat.

[Asker]

I am saying our criminal justice system. Not eating meat.

[Saveanimals]

Nope, humans have no known anatomical, physiological and genetic adaptations to meat eating. We don't need meat. The only reasons to eat meat are convieneience, taste, habit and tradition that's it. No nutrition value no health benefit, instead they are the cause of many diseases. (unfortunately I can't post links so search Christina warriner- Debunking Paleo diet. and go to nutritionfacts. org or WHO

[Anonymous]

I eat meat. I know animals were murdered for me to get it. I'm just okay with it. I murder plants for my shirt and bed sheets and home. I murder bacteria and virus on a daily basis just to stay alive. I murder insects pretty much everyday driving to work. So until we've discovered a way to synthetically create nutrients without murdering a living being I'm not really concerned if it's a cow or a plant just as long as the cows life before its death was enjoyable. We all die eventually. That's why I'm giving my body to science so that when It's no longer useful to me it can help someone else live a better life. Just the circle of life.

[Asker]

Those organisms that you killed for existence is not really a good argument here. That was not voluntary killing, you can't help it. Killing to survive is okay but if you can survive without it, there is no reason why you should kill.

[Opinion Owner]

I wasn't making an argument for morality just stating facts. Things get murdered and I'm okay with that. Life isn't meant to last forever. It's a blip. You come in you experience it you leave. If humans were running around murdering humans I'd just have to adapt to living in a situation like that. And there are plenty of places on earth where it's still happening. I was just lucky enough to be born in an area were humans agreed not to kill each other. I'm really not sure if that's the best plan of action or if it's right or wrong but I'm okay with the decision. That's really all morality is. People deciding and arguing with other people over their own personal beliefs. Some people try to elevate morality to this overarching objective code of right and wrong. I'm just willing to say I don't know what's objectively right or wrong I'm just living to the best of my abilities and dealing with the consequences as they come. If that doesn't sit well with you feel free to try and change things

[Asker]

Dying out of natural causes and murdering someone is two different things. if I kill someone and say ," he was going to die one day anway" is not justified. Humans do kill other humans and they kill everywhere, except they get jailed for it. Why? If its all part of life, don't jail people for murder then. But they do, because it is infact an act against nature. Making someone die before they were intended to is an act against humanity. If you want to try your best to live right, then make an effort to not kill anyone when it is in your hands not to.

[Opinion Owner]

You're not understanding me. I didn't say live right I said live to the best of my abilities. I never claimed any similarity between murder and dieing naturally. I know their difference. And personally I don't care about jailing murders. We jail murderers because it goes against the codes humans have established to maintain society not because it's immoral. You could make an argument that jailing people is just as immoral as murder. Me and you aren't arguing the same things. You keep trying to convince me that murdering is wrong. I'm simply saying wrong is a subjective term and therefore as much as you may want to impose it on others you can't because you can't determine the beliefs of an other. Change the laws, change society, but you can't make people believe what you want them to believe. "You have your way, I have mine, but as for the right way there is none" - Nietzsche

[Asker]

Murdering for pleasure is wrong and is agreed by most of people so it is an objective sense of wrong. If you believe that everything should run its course naturally then don't complain when anybody does anything wrong to you at all. Murdered you, robbed you, cheated you, just about anything. Since according to you wrong is an objective word.

[Opinion Owner]

The majority of people under hurlers rule believed capturing Jews and placing them in concentration action camps was acceptable behavior. Majority rule and objectivity aren't the same thing. I believe law are society are natural occurrence born from social organisms so I'm not sure why you believe I support murder, cheating and robbery. I don't I just don't believe they're morally wrong.

[Opinion Owner]

*Hitler not hurler

[Opinion Owner]

*law and society

[Opinion Owner]

Murder isn't wrong. Cheating isn't wrong. Robbery isn't wrong. However murder threatens society because people will fear interacting with each other. Cheating undermines agreements creating distrust between people which also threatens the stability of society. Robbery threatens society because if people have no safe claim to what they've acquired or created there would be no point in cooperation. These laws exists because people agreed upon abiding by these rules to maintain social stability for trade and peaceful living not because they're wrong.

[Asker]

But nobody has ever justified killing for pleasure as right so it is objective till now. If somebody changes it someday than that is another thing.
People rob, cheat, murder because of reasons not just because they are retards. It is also nature. But we live in a civilized society in which we need to be bound by a set of laws to sustain an equal life. Natural life would not be equal. Darwin's survival of the fittest would apply, somebody got robbed, cheated, or murdered because the other person was smarter. But that is not how we live.

[Opinion Owner]

Some murderer thought it was right... Simply put if morality was objective we wouldn't be arguing. Whether or not humans need oxygen is objective. There's no subjectivity in that ideal. There's no room for a differing opinion it's simply truth. Humans need oxygen to live. That's objectivity. Morality isn't that cut and dry and is therefore subjective and can be anticipated to change and differ from person to person and society to society. You can continue trying to persuade people to believe like you but you can't force them to. That's the truth. Moralistic Relativity. And it's also why I'm resigning from arguing any further. Some people will eat meet and have no problem doing so. Unless you find a way to ban meat eating you're just going to have to deal with that.

[adquidorator]

The difference is that plants and bacteria aren't conscious in the same sense that we are while at the very least birds, mammals and cephalopods are, so if you take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you couldn't condemn murder. And it isn't just the circle of life it's the circle of death.

[Opinion Owner]

Did you actually read the comments or did you skin and post?

[Opinion Owner]

*Skim

[adquidorator]

I read the whole thing.

[Opinion Owner]

Then I'm unsure of what point you were trying to make.

[adquidorator]

My point was that killing an organism incapable of feeling pain is of no moral consequence.

[Opinion Owner]

But my argument is that morality is relative so therefore you can't impose your morality onto another. Whether or not an organism can feel pain is irrelevant to that discussion.

[Opinion Owner]

Also by that logic you could kill people with CIPA with no moral consequence

[Asker]

Some aspects of morality like harming others for personal benefit is wrong are objective. For an ecosystem to sustain we need to live peacefully and avoid killing unless absolutely necessary.
Whether an organism feels pain or not is completely relevant, when someone wants to abort a fetus which is not even born yet, everyone gets so mad. A full fledged living animal with develoepd emotions and pain is killed while a fetus who can't feel pain before 20-24 weeks cannot be aborted because it is a sin.

[Opinion Owner]

The beauty of humanity is having the ability to choose. Living in a world so diverse and ever changing is a marvelous experience to me. I absolutely admire that you feel so strongly about protecting the lives of animals that can not defend themselves. If that's what makes you feel happy and betters your life then I say do it. Continue to justify your desire to protect the lives of these creatures. Maybe one day your beliefs will be the majority. But I enjoy eating meat and I plan on continuing. According to you that may be wrong but at this moment I'm tired of arguing my point because it doesn't seem to be getting across as effectively as I'd like it too. So we'll all agree that your morally correct and your views are the rights ones and I'll just be wrong and continue to eat meat anyways. You can put me in jail and I'll deal with the consequences.

[Anonymous]

I'm aware what I eat has been alive once. Yes the death of an animal for the use of food is sad but people do what is necessary to survive. It's a bit hard for vegetarians to get protein (considering you can get them from nuts but it's not a large amount). I don't claim to know everything, but many animals kill for food. People are no different. I understand there are exceptions to the rule but the majority seem to be carnivores. I respect vegetarians and their ways, they should in turn respect carnivores and theirs.

[Asker]

Human being can survive both on plants and animals. We don't need it to survive at all. Vegetarian food has health benefits too. You can get protein from many sources : Green peas, nuts and nut butter, beans, leafy greens, hemp, chia seeds, sesame, sunflower and poppy seeds etc are high in protein. Animals who kill other animals for food like tigers do so because they are carnivores and cannot survive without meat. We can survive very well without meat.

[Asker]

We are ominvores not carnivores

[Opinion Owner]

Which means we eat both plants and animals. It's not saying we survive without meat, it's saying we can survive off both.

[Asker]

It also means we can survive without one.

[Opinion Owner]

We can, yes, but it limits us on certain nutrients and such as we would get with both.

[Asker]

If you looked it up, there are many good subsitutes for proteins.

[adquidorator]

Eating animals isn't necessary to survive and that should be blatantly obvious because so many people survive and thrive without eating meat and it's not like meat production makes food, in fact it just wastes it. And yes, we do respect carnivores and omnivores like hawks, wolves, crocodiles, bears, racoons, crows etc... because they have to eat meat to survive, but humans being herbivores have no such need so don't ask me to respect someone who causes harm to others for no other reason than palate pleasure.

[Anonymous]

Because 'murder' is unlawful killing and laws are rules of conduct agreed to by or imposed on a social body. In the society where I live it is lawful to kill and eat most animals so no murder.

The very existence of your body causes the deaths of thousands of organisms a day, some, it's true are small single celled creatures but others, like dust mites are at least as sophisticated as a crab.

Life causes death, every organism reproduces at a rate which cannot be sustained unless some, usually most of them die prematurely.

[Asker]

Those organisms that are dying by my body are dying because of my natural reactions. I have no hold over it, its involuntary completely but why kill an animal voluntary?

Murder: Unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. It is also premeditated, those bacteria and organisms are not dying because of my premeditated actions to kill them.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. A lot of things were legal before which are not now. You can always amend the constitution.

[Opinion Owner]

The premeditated part is a specific condition of murder in many modern societies. The more general definition of murder, one which has applied to all times and places is just unlawful killing.

Well, now you know bathing kills dust mites, if you continue to wash you are premeditatedly killing hundreds of them. Harmless little creatures who just want to eat your dandruff and you have drowned millions of them, shame, shame.

[Opinion Owner]

Look at the face of your victims!

upload.wikimedia.org/.../...yia_formosa_2_edit.jpg

[Asker]

The very difference between murder and killing is that murder is voluntary and premeditated while killing is not.

As I said, that killing those organism is involuntary and I have no hold over it. While the case with animals is not the same. Also, killing for survival is justified, I would kill you if there was no way I could go on without surviving without doing that. Killing for your taste buds, on the other hand, is wrong. We are omnivores and can survive very well without killing them.

[Opinion Owner]

You don't need to wash. People lived just fine for hundreds of thousands of years without doing so. You only wash because it makes you feel good. That's worse than killing to eat, it's killing for pleasure.

[Asker]

I will get an infection and might die because of it. I will be in danger of getting some fatal infection everday.
You non veg people are getting more and more unreasonable everyday.

[Opinion Owner]

A tiny fraction of people are sensitive to inhaling dust mite feces but other than that they are harmless. Your mattress and pillows are full of the stuff. Not washing will have no ill health effects except perhaps for the loneliness of no one wanting to be around you. Just find some like-minded people and start a commune.

I'm being perfectly reasonable, I'm using reason to demonstrate your position is quite impossible to maintain logically. You can't live without killing, you can sit in ignorance of this fact and claim to not do it deliberately but now that you have been told you no longer have that slender pretense to hide behind.

Oh and stop laundering your clothes, it's a holocaust!

[Asker]

You refuse to accept my logic. If you need to kill to survive then you gotta do it but killing for eating when there is no need is wrong. All those bacterias are dying because of need for survival not because I am intentionally killing them.
Um, no look this stuff up, you can get a pretty bad infection if you don't bath.

[Opinion Owner]

Sounds like rationalization of your crimes against dustmitedom. I can see you at the dust mite Nuremburg trials claiming you were only doing what you needed to do to survive.

Dust mites are not bacteria, they are small animals not unlike insects or arthropods such as as crabs or lobsters.

[Asker]

Are you being a troll or serious? I am taking time out of my busy schedule to discuss this.

They are all organisms, so yeah, whatever.

[Opinion Owner]

Not a troll. I'm serious about life being only possible through the death of other organisms. but I do find your moral gyrations around this painfully obvious fact kind of amusing. Once you face that the price of you living is other things dying you'll realize it doesn't matter what you intend or don't intend. The very space you take up in the ecosystem is a death sentence to other organisms. If you intend to live you intend the death of other things, it's as simple and inescapable as that. You say you only kill that you might live but why do you have to live except that you want to. I don't see the moral difference between you and a guy eating a hamburger. He's doing it because he can and he wants to, so are you.

[Asker]

I am banging my head against a wall. If you choose not to understand, then don't. If you are such an avid believer in life running its natural course, then we shouldn't jail people for murdering people. Someone got angry, which is natural, they were stronger, survival of the fittest, killed the other. End of the story. Don't punish that person. Killing someone without reason is justified in a nomadic society not a civilized one.
The punishment one gets also depends on whether it was intended or not, if it was intended the sentence increases while if it was unintended then the punishment lessens. You are free to live as a tribal though.

[adquidorator]

That's called the tu quo que fallacy.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm not an advocate of anything but rationality. It isn't rational to jail a murderer unless they are likely to murder again. It serves no purpose but revenge, but that's really beside the point. I'm telling you there is no moral difference between living by killing things without eating them and living by killing things and eating them.

Intention is impossible to know, in a way it's a figment of our imagination. There is a lot of modern split brain research which is very suggestive of it being an illusion. Our justice system does take intention into account but that is completely unscientific. We can never know what someone intends, it will always just be a surmise on our part.

Tu quo que, would be if I accused her of eating hamburgers, I'm just trying to show there is no moral difference between eating hamburgers and drowning dust mites. I'm not accusing her of hypocrisy so much as saying killing other things to live is inescapable and that intention to live is intention to kill.

[adquidorator]

No it wouldn't be if you accused her of eating hamburgers. It's impossible to live a life without impacting others in some way but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to minimize the impact you have.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

Wow, now that is a moral doctrine with some fascinatingly strange implications. So the fewer organisms they kill the better a person is but they have to kill some so they have a kind of original sin. They can feel good about themselves though because they have 'good intentions' (I can see now why intention is so important in this system)

So just a couple questions to start; is someone who only showers once a week better than someone who eats a cow once a year? What I'm asking really is is the sinfulness of killing based on number of individual organisms killed or biomass or something else? Do you have a kind of moral trade off? I mean if you let mice live in your house could you eat a chicken? I really interested in how this works.

[adquidorator]

Right now what you're trying to use is the tu quo que debate fallacy; or the the claim that because the other side isn't morally "perfect" they have no grounds to judge you for your shortcomings. We can represent the problem with this argument with a continuum of causing more and more harm with no harm at postion 0. A vegan is at position 7 and a meat eater is at position 10. Obviously position 10 causes more harm than position 7 so a vegan would condemn the meat eater for what he does to get to position 10. But then the meat eater invokes the TQQ fallacy and says wait a minute, your judging me for being at 10 but you cause harm to animals because they get killed in the tractors that harvest the plants that you eat (i. e. collateral damage). So a person who grew their own crops with no collateral damage (ignoring for a moment the fact that we couldn't feed the world's population without industrialized agriculture) would be at position 3.

[adquidorator]

So that person would have as much right to condemn you as you are condemning me. In fact if the basis of your case is that hurting animals in any way is wrong than even the person at position 3 should be condemned because of all the little aphids on their plants that they kill when they eat them. Indeed if you were to follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion on this continuum the only way to be at position 0 would be to not eat anything and simply starve to death. So why don't you just practice what you preach and kill yourself. Your'e not perfect so don't judge others. This is of course a very one tract way of thinking, but even a one tract road has two directions. So while (following this line of reasoning) if a vegan was to follow their argument to it's logical conclusion they'd kill themselves, following the meat-eaters' line of reasoning, they would have no grounds to judge someone at position 15 where someone is committing rape and murder.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

Not at all, I'm just trying to get a clear picture of how you assess, what rational process allows you to arrive at vegans as 7 and meat eaters as 10 on your moral continuum. What are your criteria? I'd like to hear them. Is it the number of things you kill or their size for example? I'm not trying to judge anybody, I'm just trying to understand your thinking which seems utterly irrational to me.

[adquidorator]

And if the meat eater tried to condemn that person for what they did the rapist/murderer could just as easily use the same "you're not perfect" argument that the meat eater used against the vegan. Indeed if you followed the meat eaters line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion at the other end of the continuum nobody could condemn anyone for any act no matter how heinous it may be because the accused could just tell the accuser that they do wrong as well thus any accusations they throw out become moot and void. So the TQQ fallacy really is a double edged sword and if you follow either line of reasoning you either have to kill yourself and cause no harm or do whatever you like with no fear of moral repercussions. So you obviously have to draw the line somewhere but the question is where and with regards to our diets, why would it be at veganism? the answer of course is trivial: plants are producers and animals are consumers.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

Let me say it again. I am not using that argument, I am not condemning you for not living up to your principles, How can I when I don't understand what they are? I am asking you to explain them. All you say is vegans are better than meat eaters (morally) but you don't explain why in a way that makes consistent logical sense. I am not using TQQ but you do seem to be pummeling a strawman.

[adquidorator]

Plants take matter and energy from inorganic sources such as sunlight, water, carbon dioxide, nitrates and nitrites and convert it into the chemical energy in bio-molecules like carbs, fats and proteins (i. e. biomass). Animals take in the biomass, break it down into it's inorganic constituents and use the energy released by those oxidation reactions to power their metabolism while converting a small portion of the biomass the consume into their own flesh. In other words, growing plants makes food, producing meat wastes it. I hope I've answered your question.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

No you haven't. Both plants and animals are expressions of entropy. They are dissipating energy. That's what life is, a chemical reaction dissipating the sun's energy why is one form of entropy morally superior to another?

[adquidorator]

Because we are animals, we are consumers, we are not producers and we cannot take energy from the sun and matter from inorganic sources and convert it into biomass. Plants can and of course 100% of the energy taken up by the plants isn't going to end up as food on your plate but without the plants there would be no energy in a form that would be in any way useful to us. But as I stated before animals won't produce any more biomass, they just break it down. So plants increase the total biomass available to us while meat production decreases it. Did you read through my previous comments explaining how you were using the TQQ fallacy?

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

Yes, did you read mine explaining why it is not TQQ to point out your position (which you have apparently now changed from a moral one to one based on efficiency) is illogical?

[adquidorator]

The Continuum was just to illustrate a point. The criteria by which it is measured is how much suffering an individual causes and AS WE NOW KNOW at the very least every bird mammal and cephalopod is conscious in the same sense that we are so causing harm to them raises your position on the continuum. The specific ranking of the individuals (the murderer/rapist, the meat eater, the vegan and the freegan) were not arbitrary. The specific numbers assigned were just to give some perspective.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

Well if it's suffering do you differentiate between suffering and pain? Or are they the same thing to you? I mean exercise causes pain but is that suffering? If so why would people voluntarily suffer? If suffering is not the exact same thing as pain, what is the difference? Is suffering/pain only wrong when someone inflicts it? Who or what is being wrong when pain/suffering is caused by a natural event, like sickness or an accident?

[adquidorator]

Suffering is not strictly "physical pain" it is better defined as "mental pain" stress. When people work out they experience physical pain but do not experience stress because of it. Although physical pain can be part of what causes stress, it isn't the only thing. For example, if you lock up someone in a room, they may not experience any physical pain but they will "suffer" from it and as such it is deemed "morally wrong."

[adquidorator]

"Is suffering/pain only wrong when someone inflicts it? Who or what is being wrong when pain/suffering is caused by a natural event, like sickness or an accident?" Well, here is where we have to delineate between being "unfortunate" and "condemn-able" For example, if a volcano erupts and the pyroclastic flows kill hundreds or thousands of people in the nearby settlements, it is "unfortunate" in that it caused suffering to those people but it isn't "condemn-able" in that there was no intent behind it. However if someone was to rescue people from the nearby settlements it would both be "good" and "commendable" because it reduced suffering and there was intent behind it. Conversely, a rain shower happening in a parched and famished are would be "good" but not commendable.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator
So to experience stress, to suffer, you would have to have some level of awareness, perhaps even of contingency? You would have to know the situation need not be happening? Otherwise it would just be pain.

For suffering to be condemn-able it must be contingent, it must be possible for it not to happen. There must be an agent with free will choosing to inflict suffering and understanding what they are doing?

[adquidorator]

"So to experience stress, to suffer, you would have to have some level of awareness, perhaps even of contingency? You would have to know the situation need not be happening? Otherwise it would just be pain." Non-human animals have exhibited psychological stress without physical pain being involved.
"For suffering to be condemn-able it must be contingent, it must be possible for it not to happen. There must be an agent with free will choosing to inflict suffering and understanding what they are doing?" Yeah, and it is possible to live as we do without the suffering involved in the meat industry.

[adquidorator]

As for free will, that's a separate issue altogether. Some argue that animals are just biological machines acting on things like instinct and conditioned responses. The problem with that is who's to say that that's not all our thoughts and emotions are as well (I mean after all the neurophysiology is virtually identical). But the world's leading neuroscientists have reached a consensus on this debate: at the very least birds, mammals and cephalopods are conscious in the same sense that we are. They experience it in the same way we do. No they're not as intelligent as an adult human but there's is for the most part similar to that of a toddler and many of us do remember conscious experiences at that age. So the bottom line is this: if we have free will then so do those 3 groups of animals.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

So a cat that kills mice when it has plenty of cat food to eat is accountable in the same way a human who eats cows is?

[adquidorator]

Is a person who was kept pent up in a room in solitary confinement with a complete lack of any stimuli until they went insane and upon being released attacked someone else just as accountable as someone who wasn't put in that situation that also randomly assaulted another person? NO. While some accountability would rest with the person who was pent up for attacking the person far more accountability would rest with the party that put him in that position in the first place. Just like cats have instincts to hunt because they're predators but one placed in a domestic environment they're denied this stimuli as something that needs to be done to survive so they need some kind of outlet for this. Just like the prisoner assaulted someone to vent his frustration.

[Opinion Owner]

@adquidorator

That seems like a very difficult rule to parse. Wouldn't any attempt to assess accountability just come down to the prejudices and POV of the judges? Is a rule which amounts to a poll of opinion a rule at all?

[Minxxie]

... well what about the animals killed in the process of planting and harvesting? Machines run over animals like foxes all the time, and agriculture ruins natural habitats and starves out native species. So no matter what you eat as a human being something had to die to get that food on your plate unfortunately humans require destruction to exist.

[Asker]

No it does not justify killing someone. Those who kill them for those purposes are not doing any right thing, and they need to be stopped and animal rights need to be more prominent. Man's greed is basically destroying everyone including themselves. Village and tribal people near and in the forest also have their lives uprooted. That is why the concept of reserved forests came up.

Honestly blaming others is not going to work. The plantation owners and industrialists are going to blame meat eaters and vice versa. We need to do our bit and put an end to killing of animals.
No, I just explained above why eating plants is not wrongs, you don't have to kill.

[Minxxie]

okay little girl

[Asker]

You are 4 years older to me and I am "little" girl? LOL

[adquidorator]

That's called the tu quo que fallacy. Yes harvesting food will cause some destruction. The difference is this: meat production doesn't make food, it wastes it.

[jacquesvol]

Asker
'Someone' refers to personhood, which an animal has not!
An animal can be owned, you can't own 'someone'.

[Asker]

@jacquesvol Slavery went on for a long time and they were owned. They were humans.

[JustinTheGreat]

Killing other animals for food is nature. We were meant to eat meat. Just like how other animals like lions eat meat too. Yes we are 'murdering' the animals but that's life.

[Asker]

We are omnivores, we don't need to eat meat to survive while lions are carnivores who need meat to survive. Simple.

[adquidorator]

We were not "meant to eat meat" and if you think we are try eating meat the way a lion would (no plucking, no draining blood, no cooking, swallowing pieces of raw meat whole and eating >10% of your own weight in one sitting) and tell me how that goes.

[JustinTheGreat]

Species of pigs, badgers, bears, coatis, hedgehogs, opossums, skunks, sloths, squirrels, raccoons, chipmunks, mice, and rats. All omnivores as well.

@adquidorator https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

[adquidorator]

That post did nothing to address my point.

[sm17deloro]

Animals were created by science and are mostly all over because of breeding, they are there for us too get nutrition from/to eat. Vegetables are good for us, but meat gives us lots of iron and protein in one sitting. I mean us human might be a little too greedy, we eat a lot more food than we should and its not very good for us.

[Asker]

No plants are there for our nutrition not animals. Meat has its harmful effects too which I have mentioned above and for the benefits it provides, you can't murder someone for a few benefits and your own personal gain. Yes and greed is never good. We should live and let live.

[adquidorator]

Animals were not created by science, in fact they weren't created at all and the fact that we bred and domesticated them doesn't justify us killing them for food without any necessity in doing so.

[playdatesx]

Lots of reason. Most people don't care. I was vegetarian for two years of my life. I'm no longer any more, but really? Some people just don't believe in what you believe in or care about what you care about and that's that. Humans kill other humans every day, if they don't give a shit about their own species, they won't give a shit about other species.

Plus some dishes are really good, and I'm a huge foodie. I also love McDonald's. I tried, I can't resist.

[tyber1]

I don't think it is immoral for us to kill for food. Omnivores can eat either plants or meat but the reason we are Omnivores is because it was necessary to eat both to ensure continued survival. If we didn't need meat to survive we would be herbivores.

Regardless I do think factory farming is an atrocity. I only eat beef and very occasionally bacon so I don't eat as much meat as some people do.

[Asker]

It might have been because when the world came into existence, there were few humans and far many herbivores. Its opposite now, there are far, far more humans than herbivores. Cows might become an endangered species one day and you will have to take your kid to the zoo to show them a cow. We don't need meat to survive.

[adquidorator]

Omnivores can eat plants or animals but we are not omnivores (we share no traits with omnivores that they don't already share with herbivores) and it is not in any way necessary for us to eat animals to survive.

[tyber1]

Cows aren't going extinct. They will always be bred in sufficient numbers to meet demand. Cows are far more likely to become endangered if we stop eating them because their species would no longer be an 'asset' worth maintaining. And there are not more humans than herbivores. We consume billions of animals per year.

We do have physical characteristics of omnivores, molars are designed to chew meat and wisdom teeth were used to chew raw meat before they became redundant when mankind began cooking with fire.

[tyber1]

If you guys can't use real facts to support your cause then you will always be a fringe minority.

[adquidorator]

Actually molars that are EVOLVED to chew whatever the animal eats. Sharp, blade-like molars are used to chew meat (www.vivo.colostate.edu/.../labdoglatman.jpg) while flat and more square shaped molars (like the ones that we have) are used to chew plants. This is why meat eaters are just like creationists; pretty much every argument that they are convinced prioves their case can be debunked by a simple google search.

[tyber1]

If you're gonna post a link make sure it works

[adquidorator]

Oh, then just google "dog molars"

[Asker]

There numbers will go up even more if you stop eating them. Ever bof thought of that? They are breeded for selfish personal gains, not because anyone cares whether they live or die.

There are more humans than herbivores.

[tyber1]

Their populations would not go up if we stopped eating them. They aren't poached from the wild for fucks sake, they are specifically bred for consumption and without demand for beef cows would not be bred in massive numbers and their numbers would dwindle. Compare them to bison and you will see what I am talking about. Few people eat bison so few people breed them and their numbers are low. Cows chickens and pigs are all more numerous than the human population specifically because we breed them for food.

Dog molars are irrelevant, they descended from wolves and wolves are carnivores not omnivores. So of course they would be different. If you Google wisdom teeth, you will see that their purpose was to chew tough foods like nuts and meats.

[tyber1]

If humans are not omnivores, explain to me why all human societies that developed independent of each other were omnivores. Why we're humans primarily hunter-gatherer groups until we developed agriculture?

[Asker]

googleweblight.com/.../&ei=VpMCrnun&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=876&ts=1446920577&sig=APONPFmpOvswbnlzHVPbSPtYw8KzPx29ZA
Herbivores are in the danger of extinction

[tyber1]

Humans have incisors and canines which most herbivores simply do not have. Omnivores do though.

[tyber1]

Plenty of herbivore populations are at risk I will grant you that but which ones aren't even close? The ones we eat.

[Asker]

The population of herbivores was far greater than omnivores and carnivores " 1 lion for 10 deers" so in order to survive at the nomadic times when we couldn't get all the proteins and necessary supplements from environment ( no means of cooking, frying) eeverything was to be eaten raw and thus surviving on wild fruit was not enough.
Today herbivores population is far less than human population, herbivores are estimated half a million and human population is an estimated 7 million. We don't need meat to survive today so it makes no sense to eat meat today.

[tyber1]

They are talking about specific herbavores. There are plenty of herbivore species that have numbers higher than 500000. I bet even bison are more populous than that.

[Asker]

Can you post any link to prove this?

[adquidorator]

"Dog molars are irrelevant, they descended from wolves and wolves are carnivores not omnivores." Many carnivores evolved from herbivores and vice-versa. Omnivores and herbivores both have flat, grinding molars while carnivores have blade-like molars. And our wisdom teeth are vestigial so they really don't have much relevance in this discussion. however omnivores also have very pronounced canines while herbivores' are either absent or blunted (like ours) and they have conical incisors while humans and herbivores' incisors are spade-shaped. Carnivores have no capacity to move their jaw in a lateral fashion and omnivores have a minimal capacity to do so while herbivores and humans have a wide range of lateral movements. Carnivores and omnivores both have acidic saliva while herbivores and humans have basic saliva. The stomach makes up the majority of the volume of the digestive tract of carnivores and omnivores while in humans and herbivores the intestines do.

[adquidorator]

In carnivores the intestine is 1.5-3 times the length of the body, in omnivores it's 3-5 and in herbivores it's 8-20 and in humans it's 9. Carnivores and omnivores have a stomach pH of less than 1 with food in it while in herbivores and humans it's 3-5. Omnivores and carnivores both have livers that can detoxify vitamin A while the livers of humans and herbivores cannot. Also, wolves are definitely carnivores, yet during the summer months they get up to 40% of their calories from plants. That's because even though they're carnivores, they'r not obligate carnivores.

[tyber1]

Google 'are humans omnivores?' and one of the first links that should come up is the vegetarian resource group. They discuss all the relevant anatomical characteristics and conclude that humans are very typical examples of omnivores in pretty much any sense. They address many of the things you mentioned, such as our blunted canines, which they state is an indirect result of the large size of our heads.

Also, wisdom teeth may be vestigial organs but they only became outdated relatively recently from an evolutionary standpoint.

[adquidorator]

I did but they didn't address those points very well. As for the canines, no human fossil ancestor has been shown to have large canines, even those with brain cases the size of a chimps. Another thing that it mentioned was the "fermenting vats" claiming that they're a characteristic of herbivores but it depends on what kind of herbivore you're talking about. Foliovores have them but frugivores and granivores don't. The website made a critical flaw in its deduction in that it assumed that omnivores have an even mix of carnivore and herbivore traits while omnivores have a lot more in common with carnivores than they do herbivores. That becomes apparent when they say our digestive tract is intermediate between the length of a carnivore and herbivore. Again, it depends on what kind of herbivore you're talking about. Foliovores have intestines that are usually 20-16 times the length of their body while granivores/frugivores' intestines are usually 8-12 (ours are 9).

[tyber1]

Well this is cute but I'm getting sick of this discussion. Herbavores only eat plants. Carnivores eat a diet that is entirely or mostly meat. Omnivores eat both and are opportunistic eaters. The ape-like creatures we evolved from were herbavores initially but eventually began scavenging from carcasses for extra food. Eventually they developed tools that allowed them to hunt animals instead of just scavenging what was left from another animals hunt. We are opportunistic eaters. The fact that humans will naturally eat plants or animals means that humans are omnivores. I didn't give you a link to the bacon lobby. I gave you a link to a bunch of vegitarians. Even they will admit what we are and they are on your side. They are not claiming that they are reverting mankind to its natural ways, they are going against the grain to change our nature.

[adquidorator]

"he fact that humans will naturally eat plants or animals means that humans are omnivores." My brother feeds his parrot cooked meat but the parrot's definatley a herbivore. You see, omnivore and herbivore describe physiological predispositions to a certain diet regardless of whether or not the animal follows that diet in practice. And it isn't unheard of for herbivores to scavenge meat once placed in an environment that can't sustain them off plants alone news.nationalgeographic.com/.../...vorousdeer.html

[tyber1]

It is true that a herbavore might eat meat if it's available and they are hungry but when one starts hunting antelope we can revisit what they really are.

[adquidorator]

No it wouldn't we still have all of the physiological and anatomical traits characteristic of herbivores

[tyber1]

If we were herbivores we wouldn't have historically consumed large amounts of meat. End of story.

[adquidorator]

If wolves weren't carnivores they wouldn't be getting up to 40% of their calories from plants during the summer months (and coincidentally people who follow a standard American diet get about 40% of their calories from meat). The difference is that they're not obligate carnivores.

[adquidorator]

To be more specific, an obligate carnivore like a cat has to eat meat to survive and doesn't have the digestive wherewithal to extract nutrition from plants. A non-obligate carnivore like a wolf (or its domestic counterpart the dog) needs to eat meat to survive but does have the anatomical hardware to get nutrition from plants however if they do so in large quantities they start to suffer from the ill effects of it. And conversely an obligate herbivore can only get nutrition from plants but while a non obligate herbivore needs to eat plants they can get nutrition from flesh, but if they eat to much of it they will suffer from the ill effects such as atherosclerosis. Now, as a general rule of thumb, the herbivores that eat the rougher parts of the plants such as leaves and stems tend to be obligate and have multi-chambered stomachs and intestines that are 16-20X the length of their body while the herbivores that eat the softer plant materials like fruits and seeds tend to be facultative

[adquidorator]

And they usually have simple stomachs and intestines that are 8-12 times the length of their body while humans' intestines are 9X. However the kind of animals that they compliment their diet with are usually small invertebrates. So that renders your "humans have historically consumed large quantities of meat" argument moot. But we can go further. I mentioned that if a non-obligate herbivore eats too much meat it will suffer some ill effects like atherosclerosis. However this won't happen to omnivores. You can feed a bear all the egg yolks, liver, bacon and whatever kind of cholesterol laiden food you can think of but it still won't develop atherosclerosis because of it. Now, just to clarify, omnivores (and even carnivores) can develop atherosclerosis, BUT not as a direct result of cholesterol in their diet. Omnivores also have intestines that are 3-6X the length of their body to pass meat through more quickly so it doesn't release toxins that lead to colon cancer.

[adquidorator]

And they have livers that can detoxify vitamin A to prevent it from reaching dangerous levels. So the case is closed for humans being omnivores.

[Cateyes123]

We're animals. It's in our nature. The world isn't pretty but you can't spend so much time feeling bad for actions animals have been taken since the dawn of their existence. Why feel bad about it?

[Asker]

Then we shouldn't jail people for murdering other people. Somebody got angry, which is natural, and killed somebody. Why jail them and punish them? Either don't have any sense of right or wrong and don't feel bad when somebody kills your friend or someone and let nature run its course or live in the society which has rules we have to abide and morals. Many things happened in the past, slavery, oppression of women etc. but now we know it was not right. We have moved from a nomadic society to a civilized one and in a civilized society you have to follow certain norms and laws about right and wrong.

[Cateyes123]

I'm not turning into a vegetarian because you associate it with murder. If it makes me a horrible murderer then so be it. Don't be one of those people who tries to put using animals as food on the same level as killing a person. It's a hopeless debate, because you're right, technically it's the same... society just doesn't care because meat tastes so damn good. :P

[Asker]

At least you acknowledged its wrong. That's enough. Both humans and animals are living beings with emotions, killing both is equally wrong.

[adquidorator]

We're animals, yes, but it's not in our nature (75% of animals are herbivores, including us). Why you should feel bad about it is because you're causing suffering when there's no necessity to do so. You don't need meat, in fact it's not even good for you and it's not like you're making more food producing meat, in fact you're just wasting it.

[Cateyes123]

@adquidorator still going to eating. Morals and the concepts of right and wrong are human creations anyway.

[adquidorator]

Actually, morality is
A: Well documented in non human animals and
B: non human animals have been observed extending acts of morality beyond the species "barrier"

[Cateyes123]

@adquidorator Well I guess I'm just a piece of crap who needs a good burger lol. I don't want to get into a debate over this, especially now that we're just debating anything now. I respect your opinion. Good day.

[adquidorator]

We're not debating "just anything" we're debating facts relative to the issue at hand.

[Cateyes123]

@adquidorator Now we're debating whether or not we're debating! Ugh, lol. I think I've had enough internet today. :P

[adquidorator]

Well, how are we not debating?

[Cateyes123]

@adquidorator I just don't feel like debating. You're a vegetarian. I am not. Good for you and good for me. Let's just coexist and get on with our lives.

[adquidorator]

I do coexist with the world around me and let other animals live their lives while you force your belief that somehow your culinary satisfaction can justify the cruelty present in the meat industry. I'm sorry but supporting that kind of abuse isn't exactly "coexisting".

[Cateyes123]

@adquidorator Wow, you really are a visionary aren't you. Pat yourself on the back there buddy. You are special. You vegans have a superior way of thinking that's in the minority and that's just amazing. I support your self-righteous lifestyle 100% and look forward to a world where we can live in peace with our animal brothers. Hell, we had out first president who was African American, maybe our next president will be a cow. 😁

[Asker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Animals have self conciousness. Here.

[Cateyes123]

I had a whopper with cheese and a side of chicken fries at Burger King yesterday. I ate the burger first and made the chicken fries watch. >:)

[adquidorator]

So you take pride and brag about your indifference -_-

[Cateyes123]

@adquidorator I guess. I'm basically just trolling at this point. So how's your Sunday going? 😁

[HoodieGuy]

It's not that we don't know, we just don't care. Something has to die for me to keep living, same for you and everybody else. Do we have to eat meat? No. Does everyone want to live comfortable? Yes. Eating meat is comfortable for most people, most people don't wanna live off of just fruits and veggies.

[Anonymous]

I love meat.
Chicken, beef, lamb/goat to be specific.
Ducks and birds might taste good too. I gotta ask my parents

Anyway, we eat meat because we are allowed to.
But I am also thinking of eating more plants for fiber..

by the way plants can feel too... I think. They are living.

[adquidorator]

"by the way plants can feel too... I think."
You think but the fact of the matter is that they lack a centralized nervous system, so no they don't.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes they do

If you pull on their leaves they do get hurt.

[Asker]

Did you not read what I explained above? They can't because they do not have a central nervous system. As simple as that.

[JoeCensored]

Unless you're eating human beings you're not eating a product of murder. That's just because the definition of murder is specific to the killing of humans only.

[Asker]

It is NOT specific to just humans. Look it up. It just says unlawful and premeditated killing.

[Jager66]

"unlawful" it is lawful to eat slaughtered animals therefore not murder.

[Asker]

@Jager66 In some countries it is banned.

[JoeCensored]

@Asker um I did look it up

mur·der

ˈmərdər/

noun

1.

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

synonyms:killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More

[Asker]

Murder
Verb:
1. Kill someone unlawfully with premeditation.
www.google.co.in/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Murder=Definition

[JoeCensored]

@Asker Exactly, but you obviously don't know the definition of "someone." I'm sorry English is so difficult for you.

some·one

ˈsəmˌwən/

pronoun

1.

an unknown or unspecified person; some person.

"there's someone at the door"

2.

a person of importance or authority.

"a small-time lawyer keen to be someone"

[Asker]

https://www.google.co.in/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Murder+ Definition

[JoeCensored]

@Asker you're just making yourself look like a complete idiot at this point. You already copy pasted the definition earlier which clearly said it applies to "someone" which can only be a person. Stop trying to prove you can make yourself appear even dumber. Give up, geez

[JoeCensored]

@Asker The link you just posted is broken by the way.

[Asker]

We personify animals all the time.
We refer to them as he/ she. " My dog's name is Cucoo. She's such a sweet dog"
Animals are given names. We only give people name.
You don't go " I have named my plant Angelina" or " My plant is a female"
They are someone, we give them names, we refer to them as he/ she and we don't refer to them as " it"
You dont say " She's my plant" " Its my plant"
If they were not someone, we would say " It just litters the place all over." we say " He just litters the place all over". They are not objects or items. They ARE someone.

[Asker]

Let me tell you, you are commenting on my post. Not the other way round. I am right. No word has a rigid and fixed definition, it is open to interpretations. I am on PC and I have to literally type the whole link and paste it so excuse me if there is some error. You can google it yourself " Murder definition" and you'll find what I posted.

[JoeCensored]

@Asker you're a very confused person. It's a little sad.

[Asker]

I am not and the fact that you're discussing English here instead of the issue on hand, is what is confusing.

[Saveanimals]

The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

Look animals are creature so this definition counts. Just world play. Hope this makes sense to you.

[theccanyon]

If you are a troll, I must tip my hat to you. If not,

https://i.imgur.com/07O8bwo.png

I found you ^_^

[Asker]

Glad you did :)

[Transigence]

Because it's literally impossible to murder a non-human.

[Asker]

Seriously? Like SERIOUSLY? Murder : premeditated and unlawful killing. English over here is awful.

[Transigence]

... of a human.

[Asker]

No google it www.google.co.in/?gws_rd=ssl#q=murder+definition
3rd definition that is under verb
Humans are also animals anyway.

[Transigence]

Uh, "kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation."
Animals aren't "ones," it's not unlawful to kill a non-human animal.

Yes, humans are animals, that doesn't mean all animals are humans (see: Affirming the Consequent).

Murder is the crime of killing another human.

[Asker]

Its illegal to kill cows in India right now. So Its not legal everywhere. If it is legal or not doesn't make it right.

[Transigence]

@Asker Right, and it's illegal to kill a Bald Eagle here. That doesn't make either one murder.

If you want to advance an argument that killing animals for food is immoral, then advance that argument. But it's not MURDER. By doing so, you dilute the seriousness of killing a human -- unless you think that it's just as serious to kill a chicken as it is to kill a human.

[Asker]

I do think killing any animal human or non human is equally despicable. Why not? Life is life, both don't want to die, both have done nothing to deserve it.

[Transigence]

Plants are alive, too. So are fungi. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but life is but a chain of chemical reactions passing energy from one end to the other.

Do you think we should jail all the wildlife for murdering each other?

[Asker]

I have explained the plant thing above^^. Plants don't live in the way we do.
They don't have a law system like ours, there's is" survival of the fittest" which we had in the nomadic era. But we have left that behind and moved to a society with laws to ensure equality. So we shouldn't discriminate that only human lives matter and animal lives don't matter.

[Saveanimals]

If you like world play over meaning and if you can remove the anthropocentric definition you can see it is murder. There are more words for human murder like homicide, genocide, serial; killing, mass murder, holocaust. etc but none for animals it is just slaughter whether it is one animal or more The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

Look there is a creature in it and the word can clearly tell it refers to harm. So you want to stick to the meaning or still play with words

[Transigence]

So then do you think that if a human were to hunt and kill an animal outside the context of a farm of any kind, this is then legitimate as it's survival of the fittest?

[Blueeyes81]

I feel no different about eating meat than a lion fells about eating meat.

[Blueeyes81]

*feels

[Asker]

Don't call yourself a human then.

[Blueeyes81]

Same for you sweetie.

[Asker]

Actually. ... I can't relate to how a lion feels about eating his natural meal while you sir can. You can't know how he feels if you are human so yeah you aren't. While I am because I don't ;)

[Blueeyes81]

Thanks for your insight into the plant world but I need to go and check on my steak, I like my rare. Don't want to overcook it.

[Asker]

Enjoy your products of murder.

[Blueeyes81]

Would you eat a cow that died of old age?

[Asker]

No. Not only would it get horrible infections and be diseased, that would be disgusting. I don't eat animals anyway.

[AngryHorny]

It's justifiable homicide. All animals kill for food.

[Asker]

All carnivores animals who can't survive without meat kill others for food. We are omnivores and can survive very well without meat.

[AngryHorny]

Look up omnivore again, apparently you didn't understand the term.

[Asker]

An omnivore can survive both on plants or animals. Is that wrong?

[adquidorator]

"It's justifiable homicide. All animals kill for food."
News flash: 75% of the animals on this planet (including humans) are herbivores.

[AngryHorny]

@adquidorator As the Asker said, humans are omnivores. That means we eat both meat and non-meat products. I don't think many humans could remain healthy on a diet without any meat.

[Asker]

I am perfectly healthy as are thousands of vegetarians. Meats have many harmful effects as I mentioned above. Vegetarians are pure healthy.

[adquidorator]

Plenty of humans remain healthy on a meat-free diet.

[usernameisnttaken]

Food is food. I'm human. I may the top of the food chain. I'll enjoy my hamburger and my side salad thank you. Thank you cow for the beef and thank you lettuce for the salad

[Asker]

Learn to write first. I am at the top of the food chain.

[usernameisnttaken]

It's called a typo thanks to the iPhone. No one likes a vegetarian grammar nazi child.

[Asker]

If I wanted to be liked I would not go against the majority of people in this world, which are non vegetarians.

[adquidorator]

Food is food huh, well would you have a problem with cannibalism?

[Cateyes123]

I think you go against the majority of the world because it makes you feel special and different. Like you're leading a cause or something that you think everyone is too afraid to speak up about. The truth is barely anybody cares. Even if you were able to convince the entire population of the world that eating meat is like murder, everyone would still do it. I'm not even laughing at you, I actually wish you luck in this crusade because it's going to be hard, my friend. Good luck. 😕

[usernameisnttaken]

Exactly @Cateyes123. Even if killing any kind of animal was considered murder, there will always be people who will eat meat. In Korea, they eat dog meat. In the phillipines I've heard they eat monkey brain. In America we don't eat those. It's all in how the society views that animal. i will continue eating meat. It's delicious. The asker can continue to deny her body the nutrients it gets from meat. I personally do not care about someone else's eating habits

[Cateyes123]

Exactly! This guy gets it!

[Asker]

You both can enjoy the glorious products of murder as much as you want. Just because in other countries they do such shit doesn't justify it. Saudi Arabia says I should be in burqa and get married at 8 years of age so should I do it? Majority are actually wrong most of the time. Everyone believed women should not vote in the 1800s but then it changed. If someone doesn't stand for rights they are never going to get it. PETA is a pretty big organisation and they have a huge influence so the case is not lost.
My body doesn't need another animal's shit inside it, thank you. I prefer to lead a safe, healthy life without murdering anyone.

[Cateyes123]

Okay, thank you Mrs. Hippie. Have fun with PETA. Hey, usernameisnttaken, wanna go grab a murder burger? 😊

[usernameisnttaken]

@Cateyes123 yes, yes I do. I'll buy. How's a double bacon burger sound?
@asker you are comparing two very different things. If someone offered me dog, I would probably try it. Hell I've had dolphin once. That's good stuff.
maybe you should put on a burqa so no one will have to see your self righteous arrogant plant eating ass. Problem solved!

[Asker]

Maybe you should shut your murder filled mouth and actually provide some evidence to any scientific research which contradicts my views and put that murderous ass to some actual good work.

[Asker]

If you are a very big fan of killing, I hear ISIS is an awfully good place to start and you do seem to be highly qualified. You just might get in!

[usernameisnttaken]

Drama filled child. I feel so bad for your parents. Poor spoiled child

[Asker]

My mom is an animal rights activist and a vegan she feels far more passionate about this than I do. If she saw this she'll probably be proud :') . Now if you'll excuse me grandpa I need to go and get on with my young life, you should also change those adult diapers once in a while.

[usernameisnttaken]

enjoy starving yourself while the rest of the world eats healthy and as nature intended. Go on with your spoiled life, child! Please don't respond. I have nothing more to say to you. Thank you.

[adquidorator]

"enjoy starving yourself" Actually, you can sustain yourself just as well (if not better) on a plant based as you could a meat based "while the rest of the world eats healthy" Actually, worldwide 900 million people go hungry and 8.5 million people starve to death every year yet we waist enough grain as animal feed to feed the hungry population 4.5 times over. "and as nature intended" And tell me why would it make any sense for an animal to squander food for palate pleasure when they could simply eat the crops produced and get 100% yield of the available energy and resources? Haven't you ever heard of survival of the fittest (which contrary to what a lot of people want to believe doesn't mean survival of the fittest but of the most resourceful). "Go on with your spoiled life, child!" Oh the irony :)