The problem with the argument that human bodies are essentially better designed to digest plants than they are to digest animals is that it doesn't take into account the reason's why people eat animals beyond that of general "pleasure." Those environmental ethicists who champion such views are both numerous and stubborn as hell because they have loads of sound, objective, scientific evidence to support the claims they make. What they fail to realize is that "pleasure" isn't generally why a culture eats meat; it's survival. Even those who live in a country like the U.S. where the average amount of meat eaten per person is astronomically high, the motivation to eat it does not fundamentally come from the thought of pleasure, but rather from cultural dietary norms that dictate what we are "supposed" to do to survive ("supposed" is obviously a relative description concerning normative dietary behavior for various cultures).

Phew. That was a bit much - good to get the brain working again. Great thread.

Edit: I should have put a disclaimer that this was obviously my own opinion stemming from my experience with the issue - I realized after I had written all of the above that I wrote in too much of a "matter of fact" tone.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Are we really going to equate all pleasures?

Well, it's a perfectly understandable response just to say, "No, because pleasure derived directly from causing pain or death in others is always illegitimate." That's how I tend to feel.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Yeah, I share the same instinctive feeling. But think about it this way: Nobody needs to eat meat to survive. Strictly speaking, the animal deaths caused by the habits of people eating meat are just as unnecessary as those caused by people who torture animals for kicks. Ultimately both groups are causing deaths or pain to animals for the sake of their own personal pleasure, not out of any strict necessity. The only difference is that in the case of the sadist the pleasure comes directly from the pain or death of the animal, while in the case of the meat-eater the pleasure comes from the tastiness of the resulting carcass. But is this difference really all that relevant? Either way, the animal is dying unnecessarily so that humans can add some pleasure to their lives.

Given that we don't need meat to survive, fact is that today the livelihood of millions depends on the meat industry and hence on the slaughter of the animals. So killing animals for food is better off than killing them for sick pleasure.

___________________

Download and review ! Omega_M - In the Mix (Beta Version)

Originally posted by twilightki : It feels like something you'd listen to at 4 in the morning, or listen to in your car while you're going in a tunnel.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills not really killing, but same idea at least. www.milksucks.com

I think PETA is a plague. In fact, I think the whole obsession of counting and over analyzing the foods you eat to death is a plague. I don't need PETA to tell me what I should and should not eat.

Hell, I don't even want a magazine or article written by some supposed doctor to tell me what I should and should not eat. You only live once so why not indulge in all the dead animals and raped cows you can?!

If I do end up caring about my health to a more serious measure where I want to build healthy bones, muscles and improve my cell growth and repair I'll pick up a quality book and do some research.

omg...

my shenanigans are lighthearted... and fun...

but damn!

___________________
www.illysounds.com

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Given that we don't need meat to survive, fact is that today the livelihood of millions depends on the meat industry and hence on the slaughter of the animals. So killing animals for food is better off than killing them for sick pleasure.

I was at a conference last year where someone gave a speech that was essentially an argument for exactly what you are saying - effectively that the reason we eat meat is to help support ourselves (something roughly along those lines).

The problem for most environment types is going to be one of the massive environmental implications the meat industry has for the planet - so they'll see any activity supporting it as in fundamental opposition to what they're trying to accomplish. Frankly, I don't really disagree with them - because as far as impact is concerned, the meat industry/industrial agriculture in general is destroying the planet.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

Bump because I don't want this thread to die solely because TA broke for a while.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

Animals have feelings. One thing is to kill them instantly (because they won't feel pain) and another thing is to torture them (because it's obviously immoral to put them through agony).

D'oh...

I once tortured a squirrel by swearing to him on my still-living mother's grave that I had Hollywood connections and could thus get him a lucrative spot in a Geico commercial. After about a month of jerking his chain, I told him the awful truth - that like the rest of the other squirrels he'd have to gather nuts to feed his family, there was no Hollywood connection. He went home that afternoon and murdered his entire family.


True story.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by Zoso I once tortured a squirrel by swearing to him on my still-living mother's grave that I had Hollywood connections and could thus get him a lucrative spot in a Geico commercial. After about a month of jerking his chain, I told him the awful truth - that like the rest of the other squirrels he'd have to gather nuts to feed his family, there was no Hollywood connection. He went home that afternoon and murdered his entire family. True story.

This thread just got REAL.

___________________