Why do non vegetarians think they are not eating a product of murder? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
33Opinion
You are putting way to much thought into this. Let people eat whatever they want... don't be that vegetarian that makes other vegetarians look bad. I am a vegetarian and as much as I don't want people telling me the benefits of eat meat, they don't want to hear how you think they are "double murders" (lol really?). Your love, or whatever this is, for animals is in no way going to change a single persons perspective on the food they eat.
You are a vegetarian for different reasons than me. They are paying to kill someone. I call that murder. Why does the murderer feel insulted if he's called a murderer? . They haven't actually slaughtered them but they are paying for it. I am not looking to change them, my question is what justification they have to defend themself? I just wanted to know that.
Because it's tasty and it's life. It's how it is, we've been eating meat for a long ass time. A lot of animals eat meat. It's okay for them but not us? Naw bruuhhh
They are carnivores and we are omnivores. Learn the difference.
Animals also commit what we'd identify as rape and cannibalism. Does that make those OK.
Uhhhh I didn't say we're carnivores. I said we eat meat. Learn the difference. 😒 Shouldn't you be off playing with my little pony dolls somewhere? You guys are pussies.
Excuse me ," A lot of animals eat meat. Its okay for them but not for us?", you implied that since animals eat other animals it is okay for us to eat them too. Not all animals eat other animals and those that do are called 'carnivores'. We are omnivores. That's the difference. Sorry that you're 29 and still don't know what you are typing. I think you should be playing with those dolls since you clearly can't come in terms with adulthood, sweetie.
It's amazing how fast a vegetarian will turn to eating meat as soon as they don't have the modern farming industry delivering food nearly to their front door.
Unless there's absolutely no food available, in which case survival kicks in, a true vegetarian won't.
without modern farming, storage, shipping a vegetarian diet is not possible if health is remotely important to you.
so? As long as nobody is getting harmed who cares?
oh but people and animals are getting harmed, modern farming + shipping plant foods thousands of miles so you can eat your vegetarian diet has a huge impact. If you truly cared you would find a way to eat a local organic diet, but then that would probably require meat for you to be healthy and you'd likely be doing a lot of your own farming as well.
A lot of things get shipped across the world, why is plant food a big deal? We have been doing overseas trade for centuries. Actually it would help if you didn't eat meat.
www.onegreenplanet.org/.../
Look in the What You Can Do section.
We used to use wind, wood and hemp to ship, now we use oil, coal and iron, not the same thing... but since we do so much of it I guess it's ok right? Blood for oil and all that, no big deal right? Have you looked into toilet paper? or the American Sugar industry? yikes!! the list can go on and on and on.
Meat is only the tip of the iceberg, if you want to be self righteous and claim people who eat meat are murderers then you must live like an Amish person or your a raging hypocrite.
"Blood for oil", what? Can you explain just how animals or humans are exploited in processing of plant food? You're not being very clear.
Oil is used for growing, fertilizing, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, shipping, refrigerating, processing, packaging, the crops. Coal, iron and oil is used to make/maintain the machinery that does all this, coal is burnt to make the electricity etc..
Vegies don't just magically pop up at the super market impact free.
Yeah and I still don't see where the 'animal and human' exploitation comes in...
Nothing comes for free, good sir :)
K.. So you are totally uninformed of the human and environmental costs of oil, coal, mining, farming, shipping yet your still making self righteous proclamations about eating meat being murder? I guess it's an honest mistake from someone who just doesn't know what they don't know.
I never claimed anything came for free, not sure how you got that idea.
I have every right to ask you to clear what you mean when you are arguing with me. If you have posted something, you're supposed to defend yourself and give the needed information.
I still don't see how "blood for oil" is done. All those humans involved in processing of plant food are doing their job, just as everyone else is doing. They deserve no special treatment. "Environmental costs", plants reproduce much faster than animals and you can plant a new plant for every plant you take, but can you make the same animal you killed? There are seriously no environmental costs. If you are going to make claims, I would like to see any links to any reputable and scientific evidence of the latter. Otherwise don't give yourself any false airs.
When I got into this conversation I thought you at least had a basic understanding of things, you do not. This means the amount of work involved in getting you up to speed is huge, just not sure I feel up to it. You can only have these kinds of conversations so many times before the repetition of it all becomes something you simply can't be bothered with.
Why don't you go learn about the politics of oil, global fiat currency, how the world bank operate's, industrial farming, sustainable farming, the politics of farming and Monsanto to name a few.
You don't even understand how farming plants can be harmful, how shipping food thousands of miles is harmful or how getting oil can be uber bad as well, yet you have no problem standing on a self righteous soapbox claiming anyone who eats meat is a murderer... lol
Says I am ignorant and still can't explain what exactly is he talking about. #Hatsoff
I have explained my point you just seem to be having a really hard time with simple comprehension so I will reiterate for you.
Mounting your self righteous high horse and proclaiming that eating meat is murder makes you a hypocrite because the life style you live makes you a murderer by your own standards, regardless of being vegan/vegetarian or not.
I have given you plenty of leads for you to further research and learn about the world, some the problems it faces and the difficult moral situation it puts us all in and why your self righteous rant makes your a hypocrite. You have refused to do this, this makes you willfully ignorant.
You cannot expect other people to do the work for you in life, I will not treat you like a silly child and do all the googling for you and just because I won't should not bother you but for some reason it does, that is your problem not mine.
Excuse me you have not given me any explanation and all you keep commenting is how I cn't seem to grasp what you have said. You only mention vague terms which you throw around to make yourself seem so intelligent. Excuse me, its not my job to do any research, you have to defend yourself and show me the evidence not the other way around. You have not even provided me ANY good source to confirm all this nonsense about vegetarians being murderers ( honestly) then all that you are saying is your own opinion. Its not science.
Unless you show me any good sources for your claims, I will continue to call meat eaters murderers because that's what they are, can't help it if truth hurts.
And please don't comment again about how I can't understand, either give proof and explain or kindly stop commenting. You are flooding my notifications and wasting my time.
I thought we were having a conversation, didn't realize this was a debate to you?
Our modern way of life makes it impossible for anyone, vegetarians included, to not be a murderer by your standards, It's a very tricky moral dilemma we find our self's in. Meaning you calling people murderers for eating meat is very hypocritical, unless your Amish or something.
Nearly every single thing in modern life is seriously harmful in some way, take toilet paper for example, the tree's grown to farm it destroy whole ecosystems because they consume so much water that self sustaining local people can no longer feed their families, animals die off, and hundreds/thousands of people are left homeless and destitute. But hey you got to wipe your ass with cushy soft TP.
Look into oil! The wars fought over it, the ecosystems destroyed, the health problems caused from Fracking and Flaring!! (can't believe I even need to say this about oil)
The world Bank give out predatory loans to poor countries to develop their natural resource's. Meaning that they can't repay the loan unless they develop the resource and to do that they need the help of a first world corporation who will then take the profits leaving the country with almost nothing.
They will then require the raw resources be shipped to another country to be processed into something more valuable, preventing country of origins people from profiting so they cannot repay the loan and another loan with higher interest must be taken out to avoid collapse of their government. The resources are shipped multiple times around the world up the ladder of richer and richer countries until they end up on a store shelf.
If the governments default on the loan then they forfeit their rights to the natural resources and don't even get the peanuts they were getting. The companies harvesting the resources also don;t give a single fuck for the environment and it's common practice to destroy whole ecosystems to make a few extra $'s This happens for nearly everything you will consume in your life, somethings are worse then others but it's all really bad news. Then you must account for the slavery wages people are paid in this process.
Africa for example is VERY!!! wealthy as a continent, for every 1$ that enters there 40$ leave, ever wonder why so many Africans are always starving and at war? this is why, it's the same for every country on earth, the first world just gets to be at the top of the totem pole.
So bitching about eating meat = murder is hypocritical unless you live like an Amish person.
Of course if you did go all Amish or what ever you would have to eat meat to survive so... yeah.
Yeah this is a debate.
Toilet Paper. Okay don't how this is related to this but for that we can just wash, we don't need toilet paper, I personally find it very unclean not to wash it but whatever. You have further proved my point that despite there being other alternatives we are going for more convenient even at the cost of environment degradation.
Those wars are fought because oil is costly and whoever controls those territories, like gulf countries, rolls in money. That's not related to meat or anything at all lol. That's just money wars. Any war causes that, and I never said I support wars, nobody should fight a war unless absolutely necessary.
Okay whatever you said there might be right but how is it related to vegetarianism? You are doing just one thing, saying that"this is how the world is and we have to accept it" just as others are. The first world countries are cheating the third world, yes tell me something new. The world is cruel yes- but we should try to prevent as much cruelties as much possible. Just like in your toilet paper argument, we have better alternatives which won't harm environment but we don't follow it. Same way we can survive on plant food and be just as healthy. But no meat is better because it tastes better, wtf? Don't you think that humans should show some 'humanity' and have some actual compassion if they claim to be at the top of the animal kingdom?
My point is that your a hypocrite and you have essentially agreed with me, thank you.
*You're
and I did not agree, I just said what you said about first world countries was right ( which had nothing to do with the issue at hand) and you actually proved my point with the Toilet Paper argument. Would I care if we were still in a hunter-gatherer nomadic society and hunting animals? No. Because back then the plant food like wild berries were not sufficient to survive and we gotta do what we gotta do to survive. Survival of The Fittest. However, we have moved on to a 'civilized' society and created rules and laws that enable us to live peacefully and co-exist in a just way. The world is not fair, yeah, but we are trying to make it fair by imposing this justice system on ourselves and punishing those who commit crimes against each other. We also claim to be 'human' as in have compassion, sympathy, forgiveness and empathy which non-humans do not have but when it comes to our selfish interest we suddenly use the argument of "Thats just the way it is; animals do it too
and the survival of the fittest" . Okay so argument no. 1 - thats just the way it is. If it is so then why do punish a person when they commit 'crimes', he was stronger or more clever and he managed to kill you and that's how the world works right? Whoever is better prevails and the other loses but no we are trying to make it a just society but when it comes to animals we revert back to this argument. Hypocrite much? Argument no 2- Animals do it too, they also commit rapes and murder other animals and they don't punish that animal, instead he becomes their new leader so should we work that into our society too? What a childish argument," but he also did it!". Argument no. 2- Survival of the fittest. Same as first, either live like non humans do or don't use this argument. You're not 'surviving', you have more food than needed to keep you alive. I am honestly sick of these stupid people who change sides for their convenience, they are humans when they want to be treated respectfully
but they are animals when they want to justify their crimes. Just as all those stupid men saying,"Boys will be boys" and if a girl is showing skin, his animalistic instincts takeover and he can't control himself and he has to rape her but when he's in the court he's pleading to not do sentence him for this or that for the sake of 'humanity'. Oh you're a human now? Either be a civilized human or an animal, not in between.
Nobody gets murdered for plant food, and we can be healthy on plant food just fine. There are a lot of body builders who's names I will provide if you want, who are pure vegetarians. So, you sir, stop being a hypocrite.
Wow I never seen it that way. Plant killers! That's cool I love plants and animal on my plate.
Because it has been specifically reared to be murdered. So it's become a thing, not really an animal.
I am not going to argue because I have already done that with more than 33+ 12= 45 people over here and this is an old question. Do feel free to scroll down and see my debates.
No i am not here to debate. Just in case someone missed this, we are evolutionarily omnivores, law of nature, the fittest survives.
If that is the case don't complain if any anybody kills your friend or something, he/ she was stronger, better thus they prevailed. Survival of the fittest right?
Hint- You're not surviving, hun.
@Asker it all depends. If my friend were beaten by several men, i would really feel bad (i would avenge). If he were beaten by some 'one' i wouldn't feel bad unless he is innocent. Don't do that analogy. We are talking about species here. All humans are one species.
Why would you avenge? If you invoke the Survival of the Fittest theory then you don't punish that person, that person just showed he was better, even if it was a group. I am talking about killing not beating, humans are punished for any wrong do and do you know what happens when a animal kills another animal? He becomes pack leader because he proved he's better. Not so in humans so you can't apply different rules to them and humans.
What has that animal done to deserve to be killed and eaten? Why do you imply that an animal is not innocent and while humans are? Humans are the most selfish, ruthless people on earth.
Animals are also a species.
Lol bc he is my friend 😛 what you are saying as selfishness and ruthlessness is actually our superiority. We have the merit and that's why we go to space, animals don't. We have to pay bc we ave growm up in numbers. Tribal people don't pay but still kill animals, bc they are less in number and have to hint it themselves. @Asker
So if everyone started to favor, corruption would be rampant everywhere and no one will get any justice. Just because someone's a friend doesn't mean you should side with him on killing.
Humans are selfish and ruthless because animals don't kill or harm anyone except for their own protection and hunger but humans destroy their natural habitats, poach them, eat them and even put them into zoos inside cages so some stupid people can look at them for a few minutes and be happy. Just how will you like if someone put you in a cage, no matter how large, for display? Worse, have to perform in circus for entertainment for someone else? . Humans exploit them in every way possible while animals don't do anything. Humans exploit each other and kill each other too. They don't let anybody, including their own species live peacefully. That is not superiority, that's pure selfishness. We claim to be 'humane' and that what distinguishes from non humans is that we have compassion, empathy, sympathy
which animals don't have but when it comes to your interests, you are an animal and its all"natural" and "survival" . If you are superior then act like it, if both the species kill without any sense of reason or compassion, how exactly are we 'superior'?
Tribal people are living in a hunter gatherer, animalistic life, you can kill as many animals you want if you live that life.
@Asker your assumption that plants don't have feelings, they don't feel pain, are very immature. You don't do your homework properly, that's what it says. Scientists have proved that plants are affected by the incidents around them, they don't give Nobel prize for nothing. Your analogy with my friend as you have said, is incompatible here, we are talking of two species not one. Now let me tell you that before we discovered fire, wild animals did kill and exploit us. With time, we got a little intelligence, and boom, here we are. In nature, we can't he in constant mutualism with everyone. One loses, when some one else gains, that's a law. Moreover, animals (except the developed primates) feel but little for their relatives. We feel remorse for someone's death, it's human because we are developed organisms. Animals don't feel as much. Animals are known to eat their offsprings when starving, in humans, it's rare. A human parent would rather die than eat their child. That explainsall @Asker
Okay, then post a link to even ONE study that CONFIRMS this that plants feel pain. They Don't. No, its justified, since its the same with all species. They all had life. Yes, and so did we, because we were Nomads and we lived like an animal. No non humans never exploitd us, never ever. They killed us for hunger and protection, they didn't kill us so they could have a rug on their floor. If that is so, why do we punish those who kill, murder and rape people? Why don't we let them do that?
No that doesn't explain killing any animal. You can't claim to be 'human' and superior if the very thing that separates you from them you can't practice. If you refuse to show compassion or 'feelings' to other species, what right do you have to call yourself humane? And if you are humane then act humane! Look up and see that you are eating something that is a product of murder.
That's not my job. Search it on Google. YOU neeed to get YOUR homework done. Well, we exploit animals for our own welfare. Say, make wool, leather, and rugs, because they provide what plant products don't. You need to rather pay more attention to the hundreds of species on the Endangered List of the UN, those species are the ones that need people like you. Also, it's not justified from what you say that just because animals "feel" they should not be exploited. Absurd. There are more pros than cons to it. You can't just go for moral reasons. The world would become a dumb place if we act out of just morality. We get some many proteins and other micro and macromolecules from meat that plants don't offer. If you are so skeptical about this, you should go back to Neanderthals and tell them to stop eating meat. We have to cater to the large human population, that's why we exploit. So take it on yourselves to make people aware of making babies, you can go buy contraceptives for them. @Asker
If people eat meat: don't care and move on with your life.
If people eat plants: don't care and move on with your life.
Neither side is going to see eye to eye, why constantly try to make them?
Because they have no sense. They only want to exploit nature. It's truly sickening
It's nature. The more evolved animal eats the less evolved one.
The more evolved animal knows its wrong to kill someone when you don't need it because they have higher cognitive capacity and a bigger brain.
It's not someone. It's just an animal. Without self-consciousness. They don't even know they themselves exist.
We are also animals. All animals have self-conciousness. Ofcourse they do. You don't kill someone for your benefit because it is lesser priviliged than you. Its barbaric. If you are evolved show maturity and not nomadic sense
Yeah, but we're animals with developed frontal lobes. They don't think "I need to eat" because they don't think at all. They're only instincts.
So... you are saying those animals and us are no different? We do things just because we want to without thinking it is right or wrong?
Ahh... now I understand why a girl I knew used to say ," all men are animals!"... then we are all the same I guess.
There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved" animals; all ORGANISMS are equally "evolved" as the have all been "evolving" for the past 3.75 billion years since the lowest common ancestor of all life lived in some primordial mud puddle. In other words, a common bacterium is as evolved as you are. Now there are more BASAL and more DERIVED organisms (ones that have more and less in common with the common ancestor of both) but that doesn't have any bearing on whom eats whom. I mean sea lions are way more derived than great white sharks are from the common ancestor of the two but does that mean that sea lions eat great white sharks? NO, it's the other way around. Now you may be talking about intelligence but again sea lions are more intelligent than sharks but they still get preyed on by sharks. If you're going to talk about how the natural world works try actually learning something about it before you post garbage like this -_-
@adquidorator That changes nothing. We are superior to other animals.
@Asker Actually, I said the exact opposite thing. We're different. We're better than them.
That is debatable. Man has created havoc on earth while animals have done nothing but exist. Man has destroyed the environment, created harmful things like atom bombs, man is harming basically everybody including itself.
We are more developed in sense of our brain and cognitive capacity means we have power to justify. And clearly people over here aren't really thinking if their actions are justified.
@Asker Humans have also created good things, things that animals haven't. And we're the only ones with the capacity of research and logical knowledge.
Superior, by what measure? Again, there's no such thing as superior or inferior organisms in the sense that you're talking.
Actually, at the very least birds, mammals and cephalopods are conscious in the same sense that we are and that's not my conjecture, that's the scientific consensus reached by the world's leading neuroscientists about 3 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSbom5MsfNM
@adquidorator Superior by measure of being able to think and ask questions. You won't see a deer painting a mural.
If people really used their ability to think and reason they would see how wrong it is and stop.
@Asker It's not wrong. We're omnivores. We're meant to eat meat.
By that logic a whale's superior to you in terms of size and a fly's superior to you in the capacity to proliferate. If there is one measure by which the superiority of an organisms can be judged it's adaptability, not intelligence (this should be obvious because bacteria and plants are extremely prolific yet they lack even the most basic capacity to think). I mean look at sharks, one the size of a human has a brain the size of a pea, yet they've hardly changed for 400+ million years. You see, this is another reason meat eaters are just like creationists: you both conjure up criteria that you say is needed to prove your case when in reality it has no relevance to the argument at hand. I mean really, you saying a deer painting a mural would prove your case is just like a creationist saying "I'll believe in evolution when a I see a human give birth to a monkey".
@adquidorator What I mean is that we have the capacity to look at things beyond the physical aspect. We can think of abstract concepts. And if it is about adaptability, humans are clearly superior to any other animal on Earth. Other animals have not reached the Moon.
Again, intelligence is just one measure by which the adaptability of an organism can be be decided. And so what if we went to the moon, that doesn't make us more "adaptable" than other organisms and as we discussed before, even if we're more intelligent that has no bearing on the morality of killing another animal when there's no necessity so I don't know why you keep bringing up this point.
@adquidorator We're more adaptable than other animals because we live in every part of the planet regardless of climate.
Yeah only because of technology, but some animals can even survive in the vacuum of space without a space suit, but again, this has NO RELEVANCE TO ETHICS so why do you keep bringing it up?
@adquidorator There is no need for ethics besides causing a death as painless and quick as possible. They can't think. There is literally no reason to stop killing them.
We've already discussed this: Animals do think, they are conscious in the same sense that we are and that is not my opinion that is a scientific consensus. How many times am I going to have to repeat this?
@adquidorator They are not, They are not capable of thinking "I am X". If they were, they would have some sort of language. They only work through instinct.
So if I got a taste for human meat, my only concern should be to give you a quick and painful death? Wow. What a lack of empathy and humanity to show to someone who shares this earth with us.
if we have to live peacefully we have to co exist without killing each other when we can survive without it.
@Asker Humans are SELF-CONSCIOUS ANIMALS. That's why it's wrong to kill them. NON-SELF-CONSCIOUS ANIMALS, on the other hand, are fair game.
Again, that is not true.
1st. animals can recognize their names
2nd: other animals think even though they don't have a language. They just think with images as opposed to words.
"Humans are SELF-CONSCIOUS ANIMALS. That's why it's wrong to kill them. NON-SELF-CONSCIOUS ANIMALS, on the other hand, are fair game." There are non self conscious animals like clams, sponges and jellyfish, but cows, chickens and pigs are self-conscious animals like we are.
@adquidorator Animals don't recognize their names. It's just a matter of repeating the same sound over and over until they associate it with food or other things.
"Animals don't recognize their names." yeah they do
"It's just a matter of repeating the same sound over and over until they associate it with food or other things." that's the same way we learned to recognize ours. Again, at the very least birds, mammals and cephalopods are conscious like we are. Just accept it and move on because repeating myself is getting tiresome.
@adquidorator Yeah, but we then give meaning to our name. We realize it's not "just another word". We realize it means "us".
Excuse me dogs, cats and even birds sometime recognise their names. How can you know this?
Not*
@Asker They recognize it because you repeat it to them. They never give the word any meaning.
@asker he doesn't accept it because h's too closed minded to and he pretends that theirs a fundamental difference in the way we experience consciousness and the way other animals do which would make them, in his self-righteous world view just biological machines acting on instincts even though I already explained to him that at the Cambridge declaration on consciousness in non-human animals the consensus reached by the worlds leading neuroscientists states otherwise. This is why meat eaters are just like creationists... They hate everything that challenges their world view and constantly move the goal post.
@adquidorator Yeah, because you're not close-minded at all.
How am I closed minded?
@adquidorator You're fed up on your own superiority over me.
never claimed any kind of "superiority" over you.
@adquidorator You're literally calling me a murderer every ten seconds.
"You're literally calling me a murderer every ten seconds."
um, if you look through my previous posts, you can see that I didn't once use the word "murder"
Right now you're just putting words in my mouth.
@adquidorator If you think meat eaters are murderers, then you're calling me a murderer.
If I think something it doesn't mean I said it. I unlike the asker believes that murder has a defintion: one human killing another so I don't consider meat to be murder, but at the same token I don't consider it to be much better. But me saying that you're a murder wouldn't be the same as saying that I'm innately superior to you.
@adquidorator Whatever. I don't even care anymore. Let the future generations decide who's right.
Spoiler alert: It's me.
You care enough to posts and it's not future generations who will decide what's right, it's how our actions now will affect them www.theguardian.com/.../food-shortages-world-vegetarianism
@adquidorator There is no actual food shortage. We actually have more food than necessary. The problem is with the distribution.
The problem isn't distribution, that's just an excuse. One easily hull enough food to feed 43 people for a year.
The problem is that wasting all of the grain we do on animal feed inflates the price of it.
@adquidorator If some people are obese and other starve to death, obviously the problem is distribution.
Most of the obese people live in areas where animal products are readily available where factory farms are given tax subsidies which in turn inflates the price of grain.
One metric ton of food can have over 4 million calories (enough to feed a person for over four years and four months) and can easily be shipped on the back of a pickup truck.
@adquidorator You see? It's easy to transport it. The problem is the way it is distributed. As long as private companies do it, it will always suck.
Transporting it is distributing it and as long as factory farms are given subsidies, it will be more profitable for farmers to sell their crops to them than to the rest of the world.
@adquidorator People have the right to eat what they want. And it could work, if countries would take a hold of their economy instead of obeying transnationals.
The ability to do something doesn't mean you have the right to and that's especially true if the action that you undertake harms others.
@adquidorator We're not harming people. We're harming animals here.
1. Harm is harm, whether it's done to a human or an animal and harm is the basis for what is considered right and wrong.
2. Starving people is harming them whether or not it's done directly or indirectly.
@adquidorator People are starving because the rich bastards want to earn money more than having a good world.
Except an animal's life is worthless unless it is in danger of extinction. Except humans, because we're special.
"People are starving because the rich bastards want to earn money more than having a good world." and because people like you don't realize that by eating meat, you're playing into their game. If people would stop eating meat, the price of grain would deflate and the only way that farmers could make their yield profitable is to sell it to relief organizations.
"Except an animal's life is worthless unless it is in danger of extinction. Except humans, because we're special." As I explained to you time after time, from an ethical standpoint, there is nothing special about humans. Maybe from a technological perspective, but that same argument has been used to justify countless crimes against other society's of people because they weren't as advanced so there lives didn't matter as much. And this isn't a hypothetical it was used as a justification for all sorts of atrocities.
But here's another way to look at it: we are now in the midst of the 6th great mass extinction. Species are dying out at a rate that is virtually unprecedented over the course of prehistory. No single species of organisms has ever been as destructive and detrimental to the global biodiversity as we have. If any other organism did what we do a conservation biologist would call for its immediate eradication.
Plants are less evolved so... youtu. be/d9uz3P2qHp0
Food animals are a resource, nothing more.
I frankly don't care about whether they suffer at all.
So you'll starve to death in a scenario where plant life is dead? Besides, meat is delicious and provides far more nutrients than veggies do.
That can never really happen. Just because something is delicious doesn't give you the right to take somebody's life. If you care enough to look it up, you will find plenty of good subsitutes.
Yes of course it can. Do you know what droughts do to plant life? Know how many have already existed? Did I ever say I murder a person so I can eat meat because it's delicious? Grow up and get off your high horse. "I'm better than you because I refuse to eat meat!" Good for you. If you don't want to eat meat, fine. But don't tell me how to live my life
That has happened in only some areas with extreme climates. The point is right now plant food is available and we are still taking lives of animals to get food.
You said " meat is delicious" that implies its justified to kill as long as its delicious. I don't care if you are having a Dairy Milk Chocolate or a black chocolate but I care if someone's life is at stake to provide your food.
No ones life is at stake. You're confusing humans and animals. And no, saying meat is delicious wasn't a justification, it was personal opinion. And you want to talk about killing things as people, you're killing plant life to eat so you're actually quite hypocritical. Land as plant life actually benefits life on this planet, I say you're very hypocritical. Just don't tell me how to live my life and what I'm doing is wrong because you don't agree with it.
Uh, yes animals are getting killed so you are eating them so their life is at stake. Did you even read what I explained above about plants? Plants dont live in the same sense as we do, they don't feel pain like animals do. Lol, plants grow at a much, much faster rate than any animal and frankly, comparing plants to animals is plain silly. Besides you can plant new plants but you can't grow the same animal you killed.
Lol so because you've been cult fed some very basic line of crap you think you know everything? If only there was another way to make animals.. Only someway to bring two animals together and make a new life. And no, no "ones" life is at stake. Again you're confusing with humans. Animals and plants alike are "things." And "frankly" every cult fed and spewed excuse you've made is silly. Judge not lest ye be judged. Well you'll be judged one day for your actions here, force feeding people an ideology and insulting them because of what they choose to eat. Eat meat, don't eat meat, I really don't cRe nor the reasons behind your logic for your choice. Why do you care about mine? And by the way, my point of comparing plants and animals was the benefit they provide the world, aside from food. Considering plants are a big part of the reason we're all alive. And how do you know plants don't feel? Because they can't make a noise like mammals? Just stop judging people and let them live as theywant
They don't think it's murder because the word means the killing of a human being.
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.
Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
... Because they're not
I am not taking any more opinions on this. This is an old question. Thanks for commenting anyway, teacher.
don't ask if you don't want answers...
I asked it a long time ago. I officially closed this question when I selected the MHO.
apparently you didn't...
Look up old definition of murder
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.
oh jeez. 'Plants have feelings' is not meant to be taken seriously. No need to take it seriously.
Many non veg people take it pretty seriously. This is for them
Another vegan bully being a pain in the ass.
vegetarian* learn the difference. Its a question, I am not pointing a gun to your head and asking you to not eat meat.
You're all the same to me.
Take your ass somewhere else then. Stop commenting here.
And you stop being a bully. You're nothing less than a fascist like every vegan.
You haven't seen a real bully then and never have gotten a wedgie. Go away kid and stop telling me what to do.
Calling me kid... the under 18 vegan user who's afraid to show her profile
calling me a bully... a 23rd unemployed chap with nothing better to do than post hateful comments because he has no logical or scientific arguments against me.
I am not afraid, I just choose to do so I don't get hateful messages from people like you. I have a right to privacy under the Constitution.
lol unemplyed...
and yes you are afraid to show your profile. and yet you try to convince others about your ideas. Nice try sister.
Bro, even if you do have a job at McDonalds, you have a lot of free time to go on ranting about me being a bully.
Why will I be afraid? Lol? Its not like someone will declare Jihad on me.
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.
animals are sentient. still murder.
Murder relates to humans, not to animals.
It relates to everyone. Kindly look the definition of murder up.
Wrong.
Muder : Unlawful and premeditated killing. It is not confined to humans. Read up before posting things.
Very few animals kill for fun. You can't tell a lion to stop killing gazelles or the lion itself will die.
People are omnivores, we can eat plant and meat however we cannot truly survive on just one or the other. We become defficent in some vitamin or mineral or whatever. A vegetarian may get their protein through eggs or that nplant that has protein in it. But they miss out on so many other things you can only get in red meat (or supplements which really, how much meat do you think they needed to waste to get that supplement?)
I think before accusing us who eat what we were born to eat of murder, you need to tink about the human anatomy and dietary needs.
@BaileyisDarcy Lion is a carnivore and cannot survive on a vegetarian diet. How many times will I have to say that? We can survive without meat.
Lol, I wonder how vegetarians have been surviving from the dawn of existencethen? You can survive on both or off just one. No we don't, if you take good subsitutes for those proteins in vegetarian diet you can very well be healthy.
You did not just mention red meat, read meat does far more HARM than benefit.
www.medicaldaily.com/how-red-meat-affects-your-health-7-reasons-avoid-beef-253727
Supplements are not made out of meat, Lol, are you serious? They are made out of mostly broccoli, carrots, lemons, limes, oranges, rice brans.
Think* and I think you should first check these facts out ^^
Eh whatever. You can't justify eating meat so you aren't going to get the answer you're lookingfor and asking this question is simply asking for people to begin yelling and throwing fits.
I know how to spell think. Thank you.
Most people eat meat because they were raised on it. Its an ingrained thing that many people can't, won't, and don't want to get out of. I don't like most meats, but you won't stop me eating it.
Oh and I saw a comment of hours further down, you must be stupid to think cows are going to go extinct anytime soon.
*yours. Since you're so adamant on correcting me.
@BaileyisDarcy Yes nobody can really justify eating meat. I don't see anyone yelling and throwing fits, we are all just having a debate. I provided facts and rest you can believe whatever you want.
So if I was raised in a really conservative household who believed shit like women should be in hijabs and burqas all the time, I am supposed to follow it blindly? . That is blind faith. We should question our faith as it gets stronger when it is questioned. Most people can get out of it, they won't or don't want to is another thing.
I am going to have to correct you once more since you are clearly not very bright and make lots of mistakes. I never said 'anytime soon' I said in about 100 centuries or one day. Scroll down and read again, sweetie.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
there are a lot of definitions and one of them doesn't specify humans.
Murder - Legal Information Institute - Cornell Universityhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder
Definition. Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder.
If you google it there are 4 definitions and the 3rd one doesn't specify.
Quote: 1536. Murder -- Definition And Degrees
Section 1751(a) of Title 18 incorporates by reference 18 U. S. C. §§ 1111 and 1112. 18 U. S. C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. Murder in the first degree is punishable by death. In any case in which the death penalty may be applicable, it is necessary for the United States Attorney to follow the procedures set forth in USAM 9-10.000. The Attorney General must authorize the United States Attorney to seek the death penalty in any case. Any other kind of murder is murder in the second degree and is punishable by any term of imprisonment including life.
[cited in USAM 9-65.300]
www.justice.gov/.../criminal-resource-manual-1536-murder-definition-and-degrees
I am talking about definition not punishment
Official and academic publications leave no doubt.
It just says there are 2 types of punishment under the US law which have different punishments. It doesn't define anything per say.
murders*
Otherwise, try to kill you girlfriends lover and tell the judge you didn't murder but slaughtered him. :D
"18 U. S. C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice "
Nuff said.
The US law is not applicable everywhere. And this is still a poor argument for killing innocent animals for meat.
"innocent animals "
Innocent? Animals kill and rape each other. Not so innocent.
They do not do anything to be deserved to be murdered, not by humans. They do that as survival and self defense tactics and they do not have a sense of right or wrong. They just do what they do. Animals do not get punishment for raping while humans do since we live in a society bound by rules and they don't.
Humans are animals.
@Mare95 Nothing I didn't know.
@BaileyisDarcy
"Very few animals kill for fun."
Just look at a cat playing with a mouse.
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 for animals, it is none other than 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 to any sentient being, this definition still counts. So you want to stick to the meaning or still play with words
Yawn, I'm going to eat meat.
But you should not it is not a personal choice... just think of the animals and your health. I guess you disregard science and your health. You clearly disregard animals, I know that for sure.
Because animals aren't as important as people.
Life is life. You don't kill someone just because they don't have a more developed brain like us.
Who said they think so?
All non vegetarians people I have met say we kill plants so its all justified.
That's stupid, plants have no consciousness.
Retarded people will say just about any crap to justify themselves.
Yeah, that's true...
We don't, we just don't care