Shivari:

pieeater911:
Barbaric? No.

Meat is delicious.

Once again, the taste of a product doesn't mean it's alright.

This may seem like a dumb question but: Why not?

Eldritch Warlord:

Shivari:

pieeater911:
Barbaric? No.

Meat is delicious.

Once again, the taste of a product doesn't mean it's alright.

This may seem like a dumb question but: Why not?

I think people taste delicious, so I'm going to kill my neighbor.

This argument by itself can't justify my action. If we put aside the whole people vs. animal thing you're sure to bring up, you're killing something for the sole purpose to satisfy your taste buds. That IS barbaric no matter which way you spin it.

Shivari:

Eldritch Warlord:

Shivari:

pieeater911:
Barbaric? No.

Meat is delicious.

Once again, the taste of a product doesn't mean it's alright.

This may seem like a dumb question but: Why not?

I think people taste delicious, so I'm going to kill my neighbor.

This argument by itself can't justify my action. If we put aside the whole people vs. animal thing you're sure to bring up, you're killing something for the sole purpose to satisfy your taste buds. That IS barbaric no matter which way you spin it.

No.

"Barbarian" is a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos perceived as having an inferior level of civilization, or in an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, warlike, insensitive person whose behaviour is unacceptable in the society of the speaker. Barbarians are considered distinct from savages in that they are perceived as being willfully ignorant, choosing to preserve their way of life despite contact with more civilized societies (e.g. the ancient Greek-speaking peoples often considered any ethnic group unwilling to accept their culture as barbarian).

SuperFriendBFG:
No.

"Barbarian" is a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos perceived as having an inferior level of civilization, or in an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, warlike, insensitive person whose behaviour is unacceptable in the society of the speaker. Barbarians are considered distinct from savages in that they are perceived as being willfully ignorant, choosing to preserve their way of life despite contact with more civilized societies (e.g. the ancient Greek-speaking peoples often considered any ethnic group unwilling to accept their culture as barbarian).

Care to respond to my argument or just pick apart my wording?

Barbaric- "without civilizing influences; uncivilized" - Dictionary.com

The advances of civilization have pretty much created industrial/commercial farming.
Though I'm not saying it's a particularly good thing, there are things wrong with most systems that only have profit in mind, barbarian means uncivilized and civilization has created a steady supply of meat for the masses.
But I know you're going to try to rip me a new one for this post about my logic so please keep in mind that ripping people new ones is uncivilized.

Shivari:

Care to respond to my argument or just pick apart my wording?

Actually from the get go you've often referred to meat eaters as being barbaric. Sometimes how you say something is more important then what you're saying.

Ok, can we please just get past the word?

Here:

That IS (insert your preferred word to fit the context here) no matter which way you spin it.

Shivari:
I think people taste delicious, so I'm going to kill my neighbor.

This argument by itself can't justify my action. If we put aside the whole people vs. animal thing you're sure to bring up, you're killing something for the sole purpose to satisfy your taste buds. That IS barbaric no matter which way you spin it.

But that "people vs. animal thing" is a huge, huge, huge point central to this discussion to simply "put aside."

I guess that's why you're so intent on dismissing it?

Shivari:
Ok, can we please just get past the word?

Here:

That IS (insert your preferred word to fit the context here) no matter which way you spin it.

Nah, you can say you think it is Barbaric. I'm not going to put words in your mouth in any way. You are entitled to your opinion. Both sides of the argument have put up facts, and in the end it changed nothing.

I try not to call anyone names when debating. But if ever you see me do it, feel free to call me out on it. :>

Shivari, words are paint, the page the canvas, your meanings dictate how you use the paint on the canvas, but if you've got the wrong paint... well, some people don't enjoy orange rivers and brown clouds.

Booze Zombie:
Shivari, words are paint, the page the canvas, your meaning chooses how you use the paint on the canvas, but if you've got the wrong paint... well, some people don't enjoy orange rivers and brown clouds.

The point is that people understand what I'm trying to say. It's not making my points any less valid. We should be spending less time on this word and more time on other stuff.

Because humans are the most vocal of creatures, not to mention that it's replusive as it would be the same as eating yourself. Also, a choice like that is rumored to have created AIDs. That is, a man ate diseased monkey meat, a man ate that man, that man had sex with someone, the world's now a sadder place.

"Why are you killing me? I'm not a farm animal! Someone help me!"

Edit: You edited your post as I posted? Damn.

Shivari:

Booze Zombie:
Shivari, words are paint, the page the canvas, your meaning chooses how you use the paint on the canvas, but if you've got the wrong paint... well, some people don't enjoy orange rivers and brown clouds.

The point is that people understand what I'm trying to say. It's not making my points any less valid.

In any serious debate, calling someone Barbaric would make you lose all credibility to everyone else in the room. So weather your point still stands or not is simply moot because people just won't listen to someone who condescends, or appears to do so.

Gonna take my leave from this thread though, I've stated my opinions, and a few facts to back some of my opinions. Was a blast.

-Cheers.

Shivari:
Even if we leave it in, why should we kill animals for taste and not humans?

Are you seriously asking this?

Booze Zombie:
Because humans are the most vocal of creatures, not to mention that it's replusive as it would be the same as eating yourself.

Is it not repulsive to eat any animal then? It's not a person, but it sure was walking around before it got slaughtered.

Also, here's a good link (thank you jboking) that shows that animals really aren't in good conditions.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Ramirez/FaithSeekingFood.html

Shivari, do you have any proof for cows, pigs, and chickens having the same level of cognition and intelligence as humans?

Eggo:
Shivari, do you have any proof for cows, pigs, and chickens having the same level of cognition and intelligence as humans?

Did I say they were as intelligent as us? Where are you getting this?

Shivari:
Is it not repulsive to eat any animal then? It's not a person, but it sure was walking around before it got slaughtered.

Also, here's a good link (thank you jboking) that shows that animals really aren't in good conditions.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Ramirez/FaithSeekingFood.html

It's not repulsive to eat a pig or a chicken because it's not made out of my kind, you see?

Though, I do agree that animals should be treated like they deserve to be alive if we're going to go through the trouble of farming them. Not to mention, if the animal is scared when it dies it actually ruins the meat... so treating an animal nicely has it's rewards for the killers, too.

Booze Zombie:
It's not repulsive to eat a pig or a chicken because it's not made out of my kind, you see?

Well, we have to draw our own lines on this. I just drew mine in a less lenient spot than most of you.

Yeah, we went over this already.

Well, why is it so wrong to eat meat? Other animals eat meat, why can't I enjoy the same quality of life as a lion or a bear?

Shivari:
SNIP
Is it not repulsive to eat any animal then? It's not a person, but it sure was walking around before it got slaughtered.

Also, here's a good link (thank you jboking) that shows that animals really aren't in good conditions.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Ramirez/FaithSeekingFood.html

But aren't you arguing that it's barbaric to eat any meat, not just meat commercially raised? In other words, if I put an arrow through a deer's heart (a quicker death than any nature offers, by the way), wouldn't you be just as upset that I ate its flesh as if I ate beef from the local supermarket? Seems to me that better conditions for food animals is different from a prohibition on eating animals, although animal rights groups try to emphasize the former to implement the latter.

Eggo, to be fair she's not attributing human intelligence to animals except for that one quote attributed to a pig too smart to eat all at once. Rather, where most of us draw the line at what's acceptable for consumption at humans (with the odd exclusions for pets and perhaps for particularly bright animals), she wants the line drawn at mammals and (presumably) fowl - things that walk around. Some people draw the line at eating mammals, some at eating fowl, some at eating fish, and some at eating any animal product. (If meat is murder, then eggs and milk are rape. And keeping a pet is slavery; better your poodle starve as a free creature. That's the PETA position.)

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, what about walking catfish? They walk around like animals. Or cichlids, they are fish but smarter than some warm-blooded animals.

Booze Zombie:
Well, why is it so wrong to eat meat? Other animals eat meat, why can't I enjoy the same quality of life as a lion or a bear?

Because we have morals and the convenience to not have to eat meat. Those animals really don't have a choice in the matter, but we do. We don't have to, so why should we kill the animal?

Shivari:

Booze Zombie:
Well, why is it so wrong to eat meat? Other animals eat meat, why can't I enjoy the same quality of life as a lion or a bear?

Because we have morals and the convenience to not have to eat meat. Those animals really don't have a choice in the matter, but we do. We don't have to, so why should we kill the animal?

Because we think we're better than them. Happy?

Well, maybe that's how the animal survives? By humans keeping it alive in massive numbers for eating? I mean, plants make themselves tasty to survive, why not cows and other animals?

Everything doesn't operate on the same survival mechanics as a human.

werepossum:
But aren't you arguing that it's barbaric to eat any meat, not just meat commercially raised? In other words, if I put an arrow through a deer's heart (a quicker death than any nature offers, by the way), wouldn't you be just as upset that I ate its flesh as if I ate beef from the local supermarket? Seems to me that better conditions for food animals is different from a prohibition on eating animals, although animal rights groups try to emphasize the former to implement the latter.

Yes, I was just posting a link for the people that were downplaying how poorly animals are treated. I was using that as an extra talking point, I'm still against eating meat no matter what, yes.

she wants the line drawn at mammals and (presumably) fowl - things that walk around.

It's all animals I'm against eating, not just walking ones.

Booze Zombie:
Well, maybe that's how the animal survives? By humans keeping it alive in massive numbers for eating? I mean, plants make themselves tasty to survive, why not cows and other animals?

Everything doesn't operate on the same survival mechanics as a human.

We're also the reason they're being slaughtered in mass numbers.

What's your stand on PETA ( you probably mentioned it before but I'm not going to go through 25 pages of posts for something I could ask you about.)

Shivari:

Booze Zombie:
Well, why is it so wrong to eat meat? Other animals eat meat, why can't I enjoy the same quality of life as a lion or a bear?

Because we have morals and the convenience to not have to eat meat. Those animals really don't have a choice in the matter, but we do. We don't have to, so why should we kill the animal?

Morals? What morals? YOUR morals, not mine. Also, in regards to convenience: It is more convenient to get nutrients from meat than not. Its called a balanced diet.

Stringytank:
What's your stand on PETA ( you probably mentioned it before but I'm not going to go through 25 pages of posts for something I could ask you about.)

They rely on theatrics instead of focusing on what they should be about, caring for animals.

snowplow:
Morals? What morals? YOUR morals, not mine. Also, in regards to convenience: It is more convenient to get nutrients from meat than not. Its called a balanced diet.

But we don't need to have meat to get those nutrients in this day in age. I don't care if it's more convenient to eat animals, I don't need to be eating them, so I won't.

Shivari:
We're also the reason they're being slaughtered in mass numbers.

Well, isn't that the best way for some species to survive? If your predator likes how you taste, he won't kill all of you and he can't anyway, because there'll be too many of you to compensate for the predation, anyway.

It's like the American WW2 method of warfare, just throw the troops at the enemy until you side wins.

But we don't need to have meat to get those nutrients in this day in age. I don't care if it's more convenient to eat animals, I don't need to be eating them, so I won't.[/quote]

You're right. The fact is you don't have to eat meat to survive. It's your personal choice, and no-one should tell you how to live.
On the other side however, if you want to eat meat, it's a choice, and no-one should tell you how to live your life.
Basically, live and let live.

Booze Zombie:
Well, isn't that the best way for some species to survive? If your predator likes how you taste, he won't kill all of you and he can't anyway, because there'll be too many of you to compensate for the predation, anyway.

So are you suggesting that cows want to get killed in hopes that some of them won't be killed? They're all slaughtered, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

It's like the American WW2 method of warfare, just throw the troops at the enemy until you side wins.

Wasn't it Russia that did that?

Stringytank:
You're right. The fact is you don't have to eat meat to survive. It's your personal choice, and no-one should tell you how to live.
On the other side however, if you want to eat meat, it's a choice, and no-one should tell you how to live your life.
Basically, live and let live.

Yep, like I said before this thread is about getting people to think about it, not convert them.

Well, both sides did rush en masse attacks... but, I digress.

Point is, it might be desirable to survive as cattle than to die out all together.

Shivari:

But we don't need to have meat to get those nutrients in this day in age. I don't care if it's more convenient to eat animals, I don't need to be eating them, so I won't.

We don't need lots of things. You're not giving up on them though. Like a/c, jewelry, cable tv, bluray, etc.