Shivari:

I guess it's more for less, but in this day in age we don't need to worry about that.

Aye, but doesn't the main argument consist largly of the fact that we're consuming too much, and creating bad living conditions by breeding more than we have to? Also, there's my natural cycle argument above, we can't abandon meat altogether or we'd be overrun by animals that don't have enough predators.

It's not eating meat that we need to remedy, it's the vast consumption and excess.

Shivari:

Bulletinmybrain:

Shivari:

Maet:
So you really don't know anything about the Classical age, do you? Citizens participated directly in politics, everyone had rights to the degree that they chose to enforce them, the democracy was run in ways that virtually ensured each adult citizen had a chance to directly participate in public affairs at least once in their life, etc.

What the ancient Greeks had is head and shoulders above the mockeries we deal with today.

We aren't discussing politics, we're talking about morality.

People still had slaves back then, women couldn't own property, etc. I mean you really think their moral code was better back then?

Lol...There were no slaves back then shivari in most greek countrys.(Besides POW and such.)

Slavery didn't get put on a rocket until america's need for labor.

http://www.crystalinks.com/greekslavery.html

The first link I found on Google.

To point out in the text.

They might have been taken prisoner if their city was attacked in one of the many battles which took place during these times. They might have been exposed as an infant, meaning the parents abandoned their newborn baby upon a hillside or at the gates of the city to die or be claimed by a passerby. - Pretty much POW

Usually it was a daughter because the male children were much needed to help out with the chores or the farm. Kidnapping was another fairly common way in which one could have been sold into slavery. - Still happens today.

If one was a household servant, they had a fairly good situation, at least as good as slavery could be. They were often treated almost as part of the family. - For a slave thats damn good.

Or children were sold into slavery by their parents.

Thats a different ball park then invading another continent raping, Pillaging and kidnapping people in the thosands.

EDIT: Also the thing stated that there were a great many slaves after a big battle meaning POW.

Monkfish Acc.:

Shivari:

I guess it's more for less, but in this day in age we don't need to worry about that.

Aye, but doesn't the main argument consist largly of the fact that we're consuming too much, and creating bad living conditions by breeding more than we have to? Also, there's my natural cycle argument above, we can't abandon meat altogether or we'd be overrun by animals that don't have enough predators.

We would stop breeding them though if we all stopped eating meat. They'd probably get the population down to a healthy number and then release them into the wild. We wouldn't just leave hundreds of cows sitting around everywhere when we don't want that many hanging around across the nation.

It's not eating meat that we need to remedy, it's the vast consumption and excess.

Believe me, if we got even that far I'd be very happy.

Also if some of these chains got back on topic it would be just lovely.

Really, as a species man was able to move out of the trees and become the smartest species on the planet because we were able to include meat in our diet. Your view on how 'barbaric' it is doesn't matter. We are an omnivorous species, and will remain that way until we find some way to wipe ourselves out. We've done a good job this far of not eating species that are close to our own for the most part. If any meat eating could be considered barbaric it would be eating other primates. The day may come when that rule goes away and we decide that eating chinese would actually be a good idea, but I don't see that happening for a long while.

If an animal kills another animal, how would we punish the killer? If we shouldn't allow animals to be treated badly, then wolves have to stop attacking sheep, and birds need to stop eating fish, and snakes need to stop eating rats. Would this not destroy the ecosystem? This little habitat called "Earth" has evolved itself so that everything is balanced with everything else. It's like a Rube Goldberg machine; it all works, but if you take one thing out, it falls to shambles. Imagine if whales stopped eating plankton. Not only would they die, but plankton would proliferate, and the ocean in general would be changed dramatically, and a few other species might die, which would kill a few others. And barren oceans mean death for fish-eating birds and fishing animals, which would kill a few other species.

Granting rights to everything is impossible; there is always something inferior.

And something being natural does make it, according to the majority, 'right.' As I said above, natural things are what keep the planet going and what keep species alive.

Also: Don't animals eat plants/fruits/whatever else? So, killing the animals instantly is worse than starving them to death, eh? (Mostly jest.)

Also: You mention that some places treat the animals they plan to kill badly, therefore the whole of slaughterhouses and ranches and such are wrong and immoral. That seems similar to people claiming that all Muslims want to take over the world and that all Christians hate atheists, because a few do. (Definitely not jest.)

Also: Don't argue that plants are fine to kill. They are living things and they, like animals, have surviving in their best interest.

gim73:
Really, as a species man was able to move out of the trees and become the smartest species on the planet because we were able to include meat in our diet. Your view on how 'barbaric' it is doesn't matter. We are an omnivorous species, and will remain that way until we find some way to wipe ourselves out. We've done a good job this far of not eating species that are close to our own for the most part. If any meat eating could be considered barbaric it would be eating other primates. The day may come when that rule goes away and we decide that eating chinese would actually be a good idea, but I don't see that happening for a long while.

Then how come carnivores aren't super intelligent and flying off to Mars to colonize it? That doesn't make any sense.

Shivari:

gim73:
Really, as a species man was able to move out of the trees and become the smartest species on the planet because we were able to include meat in our diet. Your view on how 'barbaric' it is doesn't matter. We are an omnivorous species, and will remain that way until we find some way to wipe ourselves out. We've done a good job this far of not eating species that are close to our own for the most part. If any meat eating could be considered barbaric it would be eating other primates. The day may come when that rule goes away and we decide that eating chinese would actually be a good idea, but I don't see that happening for a long while.

Then how come carnivores aren't super intelligent and flying off to Mars to colonize it? That doesn't make any sense.

Because carnivores are usually solo creatures only mating during certain times of the year fucking and going?

Shivari:

We aren't discussing politics, we're talking about morality.

Well, if we are talking totally about morality, then there's one thing I always wondered about. Lets say that overnight everyone becomes vegetarian/vegan. So...what happens to all those animals that are now commercially worthless?

For example all non-dairy cows, (and many dairy ones as well since we will have far more supply than demand) are now money sinks and thus farmers will want to be rid of them as soon as possible. Since nobody can take care of that many cows (most people cant anyway, especially not in developed countries) we would be forced to kill them off. Is this morally correct? Turning everyone to vegetarianism would be, like it or not, a death sentence to the vast majority of pigs, cows, chickens and other livestock.

I suppose you could argue that killing off the majority of them now would mean that other future livestock wouldn't suffer. Assuming there is any livestock leftover as the only reason to keep nonchickens/cows/goats would be as pets/zoos, and I don't think there's much of a market for pet pigs.

In a sentence: What do we do with all the left over (arguably worthless) livestock once everyone is vegetarian? Keep in mind that you would be unable to release them into the wild (they are domesticated, and would die), nor would you find homes for more than a tiny percentage of them.

gim73:
Really, as a species man was able to move out of the trees and become the smartest species on the planet because we were able to include meat in our diet.

How is eating meat linked to being smart?!

We(think we) are the most intelligent species because we're self aware and have built a form of communication that is language. Not because we eat meat.

Shivari:

Monkfish Acc.:

Shivari:

I guess it's more for less, but in this day in age we don't need to worry about that.

Aye, but doesn't the main argument consist largly of the fact that we're consuming too much, and creating bad living conditions by breeding more than we have to? Also, there's my natural cycle argument above, we can't abandon meat altogether or we'd be overrun by animals that don't have enough predators.

We would stop breeding them though if we all stopped eating meat. They'd probably get the population down to a healthy number and then release them into the wild. We wouldn't just leave hundreds of cows sitting around everywhere when we don't want that many hanging around across the nation.

It's not eating meat that we need to remedy, it's the vast consumption and excess.

Believe me, if we got even that far I'd be very happy.

Also if some of these chains got back on topic it would be just lovely.

So basicly, the best plan would be to stop eating meat long enough for the retards in charge to stop breeding them and release them into the wild, and then start eating them again so that they don't take over. Actualy, if enough people did this, it just might work.

By the way, I argue on the side of meat because I was on a healthy vegan diet for about a year. Trust me, when you love meat and dairy as much as I do, surviving off of rice, beans and soya is pure torture. I wasn't even allowed to eat anything with barley, oats, rye or wheat in it because of gluten. After a while, I was starting to get quite frustrated with my options. Life is bland when everything you eat is bland.

I still don't eat dairy or anything with gluten in it, but I'm allowed to eat meat because the radical "healthy" diet was beginning to cause waves of dizziness. I suppose that actualy helps the meat side of the argument, but I've decided on a plan and now I'm sticking to it. In fact, with just my fat arse ceasing with the meat-eating(hehe, rhymes), I'll probably cut the irish consumption in half.

As I can remember a time where 'will I eat' was more pressing than 'what will I eat', I consider the movement to declare the consumption of meat an inherently immoral action a luxury of the privileged. If you, as a personal choice, determine that meat is unnecessary, and are able to afford the dietary changes necessary to make that choice a viable option, I can respect that. I do not respect the conclusion some take that if it works for a few, all humans must follow suit or they are somehow lesser if they do not.

Life feeds on life, from the lowest to the highest. Respect what you get and where you get it from, and waste as little of it as you can.

This thread is a great example of the thing I find the most troubling about vegetarianism. It would seem that not eating meat releases a chemical into the brain that makes a person go on a self-righteous crusade to convert the meat eating side to their new cause.

To answer the question, no, I don't think eating meat is barbaric at all. In some cases the way meat is obtained can be barbaric but an individual can't be held accountable for what another human or groups of humans do. Oh, but Shivari or someone is going to say that since I'm eating the meat that these companies produce I'm culpable. And of course I would then reply that until they can account for every stitch of clothing, consumable, beauty product, and hard good they have ever used in their adult life, they shouldn't pretend they're better than me because I happen to like steak.

vdgmprgrmr:
If an animal kills another animal, how would we punish the killer? If we shouldn't allow animals to be treated badly, then wolves have to stop attacking sheep, and birds need to stop eating fish, and snakes need to stop eating rats. Would this not destroy the ecosystem? This little habitat called "Earth" has evolved itself so that everything is balanced with everything else. It's like a Rube Goldberg machine; it all works, but if you take one thing out, it falls to shambles. Imagine if whales stopped eating plankton. Not only would they die, but plankton would proliferate, and the ocean in general would be changed dramatically, and a few other species might die, which would kill a few others. And barren oceans mean death for fish-eating birds and fishing animals, which would kill a few other species.

It has to do with how us as humans behave. We are the most intelligent and dominant species on this planet. With this role as high as it is, why must we still be so feral? Are we not higher than that?

Some of these arguments are falling apart. You say we have the right to kill these animals and eat them because we are the dominant species, yet you don't think that we're above that type of savagery after how far we've come.

And something being natural does make it, according to the majority, 'right.' As I said above, natural things are what keep the planet going and what keep species alive.

Killing someone who wronged you is natural if you are mad. That is not right, the appeal to nature doesn't work.

Also: Don't animals eat plants/fruits/whatever else? So, killing the animals instantly is worse than starving them to death, eh? (Mostly jest.)

Why are so many of you living in this fantasy where we would make a switch but not produce more vegetables and fruits? The animals would still have food.

Also: You mention that some places treat the animals they plan to kill badly, therefore the whole of slaughterhouses and ranches and such are wrong and immoral. That seems similar to people claiming that all Muslims want to take over the world and that all Christians hate atheists, because a few do. (Definitely not jest.)

I just mentioned factory farming. And yes, to a vegetarian, I think that a slaughterhouse is wrong. Why would I think "Oh well that's one of the good places where they kill tons of animals every day."

Also: Don't argue that plants are fine to kill. They are living things and they, like animals, have surviving in their best interest.

We have to get nutrients from somewhere. Someone might be more eloquent at saying this than I, I'm not sure if having a brain is the best way to put it, but animals are more important.

Yeah, I just can't put this into the right words.

Deg:

Shivari:

We aren't discussing politics, we're talking about morality.

In a sentence: What do we do with all the left over (arguably worthless) livestock once everyone is vegetarian? Keep in mind that you would be unable to release them into the wild (they are domesticated, and would die), nor would you find homes for more than a tiny percentage of them.

It would be a gradual switch, it would never happen overnight. Just look at this poll.

mspencer82:
This thread is a great example of the thing I find the most troubling about vegetarianism. It would seem that not eating meat releases a chemical into the brain that makes a person go on a self-righteous crusade to convert the meat eating side to their new cause.

To answer the question, no, I don't think eating meat is barbaric at all. In some cases the way meat is obtained can be barbaric but an individual can't be held accountable for what another human or groups of humans do. Oh, but Shivari or someone is going to say that since I'm eating the meat that these companies produce I'm culpable. And of course I would then reply that until they can account for every stitch of clothing, consumable, beauty product, and hard good they have ever used in their adult life, they shouldn't pretend they're better than me because I happen to like steak.

Also lamb, While not a stupid animal god damn it its tasty. :D

No simply no. Plants are more important then all of this on the basis. We live because of them.

mspencer82:
This thread is a great example of the thing I find the most troubling about vegetarianism. It would seem that not eating meat releases a chemical into the brain that makes a person go on a self-righteous crusade to convert the meat eating side to their new cause.

Where am I trying to convert anyone here? We're debating, I know no one is going to become a vegetarian just because I said how great it is.

The rest of you don't think I'm being self-righteous, right?

After ignoring everybody's statements before me (I hate coming late to the party!), I'll put in my 2 cents.

No, I don't think eating meat is barbaric. It's the CIIRRRRRRRCCCLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEE OF LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Sorry, the song popped in my head for a second.

It's not barbaric to do what's a natural thing of life, the strong eat the weak and the weak give to the rest of the world.

That's my, not very deep, 2 cents.

Wow, there's a lot of massively ignorant people on this thread. It's quite baffling. Let's set a few things straight:

I'm a 6'4" 210 lb. Canadian. I've been a vegetarian for 5 years (moral reasons). I'm a big man, but I'm fit (getting into law enforcement). It is waaaaay healthier (and cheaper) to be a vegetarian. Vegetarians don't have heart attacks at 35 and colon cancer at 40. Yes, there are many, many people who eat meat who are healthy. If you have a small portion. The problem is the western world doesn't know "small". Have you seen the Wendy's "Baconator"?

Second, this stuff about a possible global lack of oxygen because of vegetarianism is completely, appallingly idiotic. There is NO ONE of any credit who supports this idea. I actually can't even find anyone talking about it. Please don't make up science. That's what Republicans are for.

Cattle, chickens, pigs do not only eat grass (they do early on in their life-cycle). They eat feed. This feed is grown on land that could otherwise be used to grow things to feed people. Animals are a middle-man in the quest to keep people fed. eg. When Taiwan industrialized, its per capita grain consumption *doubled* as a result of having to feed their new-found meat-based diet. It takes a LOT of grain/land to make a pound of beef.

Anyway, if people didn't treat animals like shit, I never would have become a vegetarian. I don't like to be a part of suffering if I can at all help it.

Shivari:

mspencer82:
This thread is a great example of the thing I find the most troubling about vegetarianism. It would seem that not eating meat releases a chemical into the brain that makes a person go on a self-righteous crusade to convert the meat eating side to their new cause.

Where am I trying to convert anyone here? We're debating, I know no one is going to become a vegetarian just because I said how great it is.

The rest of you don't think I'm being self-righteous, right?

Well you are spending a lot of time telling people how wrong they are. Then again, some of the replies you're getting aren't much better.

Bulletinmybrain:
No simply no. Plants are more important then all of this on the basis. We live because of them.

I get it, but there's enough vegetation on Earth to supply us with oxygen. You act like we have 10 trees on Earth left and I'm proposing we cut them down and make origami frogs. This argument ran out of juice on page 2.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the OP had reached a conclusion before making this thread.

Shivari:

Bulletinmybrain:
No simply no. Plants are more important then all of this on the basis. We live because of them.

I get it, but there's enough vegetation on Earth to supply us with oxygen. You act like we have 10 trees on Earth left and I'm proposing we cut them down and make origami frogs. This argument ran out of juice on page 2, give it up.

I don't seem to recall chickens or cows on the endangered species list.

Shivari:

It has to do with how us as humans behave. We are the most intelligent and dominant species on this planet. With this role as high as it is, why must we still be so feral? Are we not higher than that?

Wrong. It has been proven that dolphins are the most intelligent species on the planet. I don't know much, and I'm not gonna claim I do, but on some scale of language complexity, dolphins rated a nine and humans rated either a seven or a four. Language is supposed to define the intelligence of a species. Now, I have no way of explaining how humans have accomplished(or ruined, depending on your view) so much, but it isn't because we're the most intelligent species.

If you have some way of correcting me, please do, I don't like being ignorant.

mspencer82:
Well you are spending a lot of time telling people how wrong they are. Then again, some of the replies you're getting aren't much better.

If people are blatantly wrong I'm going to call them out on it. I'm educating them in a way.

John Stalvern:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the OP had reached a conclusion before making this thread.

I am a vegetarian.

mspencer82:
I don't seem to recall chickens or cows on the endangered species list.

He's talking about there not being enough vegetation to support vegetarians and produce oxygen. He's not talking about animals.

Of course it's okay to eat meat. It's completely natural, it's simply how the world works. Predators eat prey so they can continue to survive and. Circle of life and all that. To question eating meat would be to question the fundamentals of all life as we know it.

Shivari:

Bulletinmybrain:
No simply no. Plants are more important then all of this on the basis. We live because of them.

I get it, but there's enough vegetation on Earth to supply us with oxygen. You act like we have 10 trees on Earth left and I'm proposing we cut them down and make origami frogs. This argument ran out of juice on page 2, give it up.

So all this hissy fits about mass-deforestation is just coming out of peoples asses?

I was doing a hypothetical what if we all became vegetarians not if some of us became vegetarians by the way.

Shivari:
Now the question is; is it barbaric to eat meat in this day in age? Do you not look at how these animals are treated and think that it's inhumane? When we all have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies, why are we killing so many animals? It just seems we could be less feral as a society and become healthier in the process.

Death is a part of life, it is a philosophy we have to accept, and I might concern myself with other species who are kept warm and fed and have laws that prevent their suffering on the books in virtually every established agricultural society on the planet when we live in a world in which no human preteen is starving target practice for the local militia.

I hiked 200 miles from Calgary to Edmonton to raise funds for the children in Darfur. Sorry for not being to concerned if a chicken isn't free ranging when there are toddlers who would kill one another for the opportunity to keep chickens in pens within 5 km of their home. And not to be shot at. That's about priorities.

Besides, given the world it is hardly feral, it is simple survival, I very much doubt that even in the civilized world people could function and survive if forced to find alternatives to the protein and nutrients offered by meat. One person who suffers ailments caused by malnourishment because of a vegan diet (which has already happened thousands of times across the globe) then it automatically ceases to be feral or barbaric.

Two points right there.