[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by The Left 

it is not science at all.

it is ethics.

if you can justify eating a free range hen because it got to go out side before it was slaugthered for you to eat it, then more power to you...but I find stupid to make such distinctions....and morally compromised.

We have made it illegal in many cities and states to eat foie gras, that is a start, but only a start to enforcing a etchically fair diet for everyone that is not harmful to any animal.

You may agree that "it is not science at all" but that doesn't stop the animal rights movement from lying to people with fake "scientific evidence" does it? How is that ethical?

Foie gras is hardly a staple of the American diet. When you go after t-bone steaks and chicken breasts that's when you'll meet a strong cultural resistance. However, I doubt the animals rights movement would try to lobby Congress. Instead, you will continue to convince trendy teenage girls that its fashionable by using junk science and drawing false analogies between the family dog and a food cow.

BTW, just so we're clear I don't care if a product is "free range" or not. I think you have me confused with someone else.

[The Left]

I agree, it is not scientific evidence at all. it is ethics.

wearing a mink coat/foie gras is a first step, then factory farms, then all animal products.

I think some view free range as acceptable as a short term propaganda to get people used to understanding ethics and what is best for them...but in the long run it is so ethically compromised.

It will happen in stages but with the recent victories in the house/senate we can expect legislation to hopefully begin to address these issues to have a enforced ethical diet.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by The Left 

I agree, it is not scientific evidence at all. it is ethics.

wearing a mink coat/foie gras is a first step, then factory farms, then all animal products.

I think some view free range as acceptable as a short term propaganda to get people used to understanding ethics and what is best for them...but in the long run it is so ethically compromised.

It will happen in stages but with the recent victories in the house/senate we can expect legislation to hopefully begin to address these issues to have a enforced ethical diet.

Ok, I haven't heard any Democratic candidates run on a vegan platform but then again I haven't been paying attention. With all that's going on with the world right now, its hard for me to believe that even a staged attempt to convert me to a vegan would fly. I don't think that vegan's are necessarily associated with Democrats or even liberals though you seem to assume they are.

Like the type of assumption a conservative might make pretending to be a Vegan on an anonymous forum. . . .like Marden or perhaps Spliffdaddy.

[Spliffdaddy]

You can't save the whales *and* be conservative.

At least not in America.

I reckon pretty much anything goes if you're one of those Europeans, however.

*rolls his eyes in Doofy's direction*

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Left 

I think some view free range as acceptable as a short term propaganda to get people used to understanding ethics and what is best for them...but in the long run it is so ethically compromised.

Acceptable short term propaganda? Boy, leftists are so weird. Do you have any idea how creepy and insidious that sounds? (Whoa, were those jackboots I just heard?)

So much for your alleged concern for "ethics."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

You can't save the whales *and* be conservative.

At least not in America.

Didn't Bush just sign on to some fishing restrictions to save the whales? Oh yeah, here it is: Bush Seeks Ban on Bottom-trawling.

Whales aren't specifically mentioned, but sponges and corals are.

Originally Posted by George W Bush

Save the sponges!

[smacintush]

I don't think…"ethics" have a place when it comes to eating. Well, to be clear, I think that really there are mainly TWO ethical concerns that we should have when it comes to out diets: gluttony and waste. The idea that I should be concerned about the details of the life of something that died for the purpose of MY survival is a little strange to me. I certainly won't lose any sleep over whether my food has suffered or not.

It seems to me that it is gluttony and wastefulness is one of the things that has lead to the problems of factory farms in the first place. If we weren't such selfish pigs then the demand would never have skyrocketed like it has.

[smacintush]

Why does anyone have serious discussions with "The Left"? He is nothing but a caricature of the real left that is trolling.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Why does anyone have serious discussions with "The Left"? He is nothing but a caricature of the real left that is trolling.

I wonder about him as well.

If I may ask, "The Left" how old are you?

I have read more statements here than I care to agree or disagree with.

I have read passages in the old and new testament regarding eating meat. Humans were intended to eat meat, just not to be cruel to animals, and regard them commodities. At least, that is what I got out of, whether interpreted literally or not.

Being a vegetarian is not, by nature, unhealthy. It requires a level of planning that is greater than not eating meat. There is iron in spinach, as much as I hate it. B12 can be supplemented, many things can. Amino acids can be synthesized. Vitamin D can be had through sunlight or supplements. It is not unworkable to be healthy and vegetarian., Far from it. Protein can be had without ever eating meat.

Also, I don't think that it is the right decision to simply allow humans to become extinct because of practices that are harmful for the envirnment. It is worth it to try to save the world from the damage that is being done.

Slaughterhouses aren't all that terrible to animals. Animals are usually killed relatively humanely in the US. I do think that more monitoring should be done to eliminate the exceptions.

PETA, IMHO, is a well-meaning organization that is waaay out of the mainstream and is also full of crap, not unlike the NRA or any other lobby.

Personally, I think it is perfectly ethical to eat an animal. However, I think that it is unethical to pay into a system that tortures animals unneccessarily. You can cut corners and choose to define torture in your own way. I define the de facto standards of factory farming to be torture.

[The Left]

I'm 28, factory farming is torture, just like eating a free range hen is torture. no difference.

[The Left]

do you think the free range hen enjoys being eaten any more than a factory farm hen?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

I'm 28, factory farming is torture, just like eating a free range hen is torture. no difference.

You really haven't sen the difference, have you? Killing != torture.

Originally Posted by The Left 

do you think the free range hen enjoys being eaten any more than a factory farm hen?

I think it enjoys its life quite a bit more. That is the difference. It feels no pain after it is dead.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

You really haven't sen the difference, have you? Killing != torture.



I think it enjoys its life quite a bit more. That is the difference. It feels no pain after it is dead.

well then why don't we just raise free range people and slaughter them to eat after all there is no pain after being dead.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

well then why don't we just raise free range people and slaughter them to eat after all there is no pain after being dead.

If you can't tell the difference between eating animals and eating people then you are a moron.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

If you can't tell the difference between eating animals and eating people then you are a moron.

refrain from breaking the forum rules or I will have to report you....that is a violation of rules.

do you think a animal feels any differently about being eaten than a human would?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

refrain from breaking the forum rules or I will have to report you....that is a violation of rules.

do you think a animal feels any differently about being eaten than a human would?

Yes.I don't think that animals know they are going to be eaten. If they are killed properly, they don't even feel pain.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Yes.I don't think that animals know they are going to be eaten. If they are killed properly, they don't even feel pain.

you could raise humans in a similar fashion, and as noted, if killed properly they would not feel any pain. does that make it all right?

[mac128k-1984]

I prefer eating organic, but organic animals

I'm one of those people who believe that God gave us these animals to eat.

What I don't like is what the huge farms now do, growth hormones, antbiotics, steriods. They pump a lot of these things into the animals and that ends up in their bodies which we eat. While I'm sure there's little scientific proof to prove this, I believe a lot of our health issues cropping up may be tied somehow with all of the chemicals used in growing vegitibles and the stuff I mentioned being pumped into the animals.

Just my $.02.

[- - e r i k - -]

It's official: "The Left" is the anti-marden.

A plant by the "right" to make "the left" seem retarded.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It's official: "The Left" is the anti-marden.

A plant by the "right" to make "the left" seem retarded.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Left 

well then why don't we just raise free range people and slaughter them to eat after all there is no pain after being dead.

I'm not laughing at you. We're all laughing at you.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm not laughing at you. We're all laughing at you.

Be that as it may, the guy has a point (although not one that I agree with). Tuoder's assertion that "I don't think that animals know they are going to be eaten. If they are killed properly, they don't even feel pain" is fairly naive IMO. Whether the animal knows that its going to be eaten or not is irrelevant, but animals certainly feel pain (from a physiological point of view) and sense danger (as anyone who has killed an animal before knows).

So, yes, you are hurting an animal when you kill it to eat. The question is of course whether that is a bad thing or not. The Left seems to think it is a bad thing. Most of us seem to think that it's okay. Of course, IMO the Left also ignores the fact that 65% of the world's current agriculture land shows soil degradation, and soil scientists also don't believe a much-larger-than-today's agriculture effort would be sustainable. But that's besides the point....

greg

[- - e r i k - -]

Won't somebody THINK OF THE PLANTS?!?!

[Spliffdaddy]

man o man I am STUFFED.

Sat down to Thanksgiving dinner and decided to eat twice as much turkey - just to make up for what Doofy didn't eat.

What's that you say? Thanksgiving is an American celebration of getting away from Europe?

oh. damn.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by The Left 

you could raise humans in a similar fashion, and as noted, if killed properly they would not feel any pain. does that make it all right?

I would never kill a human being nor deliberately inflict pain on someone because they are human beings. However, your analogy between a human being and an animal is false. They are unlike one another and food animals do not possess any rights.

Inflicting pain on a food animal does not cause me to feel bad at all. I would not torture a food animal needlessly-just whatever was necessary and efficient to slaughter it.

The bird tasted yummy in my mouth today. That is its purpose in life, to feed me and I will not feel guilty for being at the top of the food chain. If the stupid turkey I ate wants rights, why didn't it go out and get a job?

[mac128k-1984]

Same here the bird I ate today was probably the juiciest and tastiest I've had. Kudos to my wife, I suppose some of the vegetarian types had their tofu thanksgiving meal but that just sounds gross.

[lpkmckenna]

I had pork for dinner, 'cause I'm in Canada.

[The Left]

some cannibal somewhere is remarking to his wife about now..... honey..you did a great job cooking Frank. he tasted great.

<corrected>

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Left 

some pygmy somewhere is remarking to his wife about now..... honey..you did a great job cooking Frank. he tasted great.

Pygmies have never practiced cannibalism.

I would expect such a remark out of a reactionary, but not a "leftist." Especially since pygmy societies are renown for their egalitarianism.

Got any more ethnic groups you'd like to slag?

[The Left]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Pygmies have never practiced cannibalism.

I would expect such a remark out of a reactionary, but not a "leftist." Especially since pygmy societies are renown for their egalitarianism.

Got any more ethnic groups you'd like to slag?

oops, fixed

[stevesnj]

If I had the room I would keep some cows,chickens, pigs and slaughter them myself for the ultimate in freshness.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

I prefer eating organic, but organic animals

I'm one of those people who believe that God gave us these animals to eat.

What I don't like is what the huge farms now do, growth hormones, antbiotics, steriods. They pump a lot of these things into the animals and that ends up in their bodies which we eat. While I'm sure there's little scientific proof to prove this, I believe a lot of our health issues cropping up may be tied somehow with all of the chemicals used in growing vegitibles and the stuff I mentioned being pumped into the animals.

Just my $.02.

I have heard it said on Bill Nye the Science Guy that the hormones and antibiotics quantities were significant. I really don't know for sure.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It's official: "The Left" is the anti-marden.

A plant by the "right" to make "the left" seem retarded.

You might be right.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Be that as it may, the guy has a point (although not one that I agree with). Tuoder's assertion that "I don't think that animals know they are going to be eaten. If they are killed properly, they don't even feel pain" is fairly naive IMO. Whether the animal knows that its going to be eaten or not is irrelevant, but animals certainly feel pain (from a physiological point of view) and sense danger (as anyone who has killed an animal before knows).

So, yes, you are hurting an animal when you kill it to eat. The question is of course whether that is a bad thing or not. The Left seems to think it is a bad thing. Most of us seem to think that it's okay. Of course, IMO the Left also ignores the fact that 65% of the world's current agriculture land shows soil degradation, and soil scientists also don't believe a much-larger-than-today's agriculture effort would be sustainable. But that's besides the point....

greg

If an animal is killed properly, it is stunned before it is killed. This means, in theory, that it would not be able to sense the danger of impending death or the pain of being killed. In practice, sometimes this fails, resulting in a terrible situation.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Won't somebody THINK OF THE PLANTS?!?!

Some people do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

If I had the room I would keep some cows,chickens, pigs and slaughter them myself for the ultimate in freshness.

If I could raise my own animals, I would too.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I have heard it said on Bill Nye the Science Guy that the hormones and antibiotics quantities were significant. I really don't know for sure.

I don't know for sure either that's why I don't want to take chances.

[SSharon]

The Left: if there was a major plant shortage, what would it take to get you to eat meat? If your survival depended on it do you value your life as equal to a cow? would you die rather than eat it?

Every species has evolved for survival, the humans that are willing to eat everything are simply more adapted. I know many people that after not eating meat for years tried to again and couldn't stomach it.

On another note the iron in spinach is absorbed at maybe 2-10% compared to heme based iron (in meat) that is absorbed at 25-35%. Just because the biodegradable label on the package says it has iron doesn't mean it is making it into your body (and staying there).

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

On another note the iron in spinach is absorbed at maybe 2-10% compared to heme based iron (in meat) that is absorbed at 25-35%. Just because the biodegradable label on the package says it has iron doesn't mean it is making it into your body (and staying there).

I am not going to debate the numbers, simply because I just don't know what they are. But, what I do kow is that it is certainly possible to be a healthy vegetarian. It may be a good idea to go to a dietician for some advice on a diet. Something similar is true about the protein in soybeans, or so I have heard.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

The Left: if there was a major plant shortage, what would it take to get you to eat meat? If your survival depended on it do you value your life as equal to a cow? would you die rather than eat it?

Every species has evolved for survival, the humans that are willing to eat everything are simply more adapted. I know many people that after not eating meat for years tried to again and couldn't stomach it.

On another note the iron in spinach is absorbed at maybe 2-10% compared to heme based iron (in meat) that is absorbed at 25-35%. Just because the biodegradable label on the package says it has iron doesn't mean it is making it into your body (and staying there).

It is not ethical to eat meat or animal products. Fortunately there is no need to eat a cow so the issue won't come up in terms of "survival".

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

The Left: if there was a major plant shortage, what would it take to get you to eat meat? If your survival depended on it do you value your life as equal to a cow? would you die rather than eat it?

Originally Posted by The Left 

It is not ethical to eat meat or animal products. Fortunately there is no need to eat a cow so the issue won't come up in terms of "survival".

It is a fundamentally flawed hypothetical situation, given that it is more efficient to just eat the plants that the animals would have eaten than to actually eat the animals, but why not actually answer it, "The Left"?

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

It is a fundamentally flawed hypothetical situation, given that it is more efficient to just eat the plants that the animals would have eaten than to actually eat the animals, but why not actually answer it, "The Left"?

It is obviously a hypothetical question but consider it in light of the recent ecoli problem where we may have a few weeks of certain foods off the market.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

It is a fundamentally flawed hypothetical situation, given that it is more efficient to just eat the plants that the animals would have eaten than to actually eat the animals, but why not actually answer it, "The Left"?

it's absurd, that is why.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

it's absurd, that is why.

If you try to evade a hypothetical situation, you will. Ask George Bush. He does it constantly.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Something similar is true about the protein in soybeans, or so I have heard.

In other news, today a guest lecturer from Brasil told us that soybeans are actually as great, or a greater cause of Amazon deforestation than agriculture purposes.

Take that for what you will.

greg

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

In other news, today a guest lecturer from Brasil told us that soybeans are actually as great, or a greater cause of Amazon deforestation than agriculture purposes.

Take that for what you will.

greg

Perhaps we should stop farming the animals that eat the majority of those soybeans, eh?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

THIS is the crowd I want to see someone extol the virtues of a "cruelty free diet" to. Convince them to go veg, and I'll wear a 'meat is murder' t-shirt myself.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

http://www.hoothollow.com/Portfolios-AfricaImages/0011Lion-Buff%20Kill%20CUp.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/ngwenyaeco/images/openup2.JPG
THIS is the crowd I want to see someone extol the virtues of a "cruelty free diet" to. Convince them to go veg, and I'll wear a 'meat is murder' t-shirt myself.

The animals require meat to survive. Humans do not. At any rate, a lion treats it's food in a far less cruel manner than humans do. Lions don't torture and rape their food before they eat it.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

The animals require meat to survive. Humans do not. At any rate, a lion treats it's food in a far less cruel manner than humans do. Lions don't torture and rape their food before they eat it.

exactly, or cause global warming/planet distruction in the process!!!

[ebuddy]

So... the consensus is eating meat is perfectly acceptable.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

The animals require meat to survive. Humans do not.

Sure we do. Right now alternatives to meat do not completely provide the same amount of nutrients, at least enough to feed the population. That is the types of vegitables that can provide similar nutrients aren't in sufficient quantities.

At any rate, a lion treats it's food in a far less cruel manner than humans do. Lions don't torture and rape their food before they eat it.

I've seen enough nature shows and having a lion rip the flesh off of a screaming zebra didn't seem too humane and when was the last time we heard of humans raping their food? We generally dispatch animals very humanely.

There is a huge difference between humans and lions. Humans show compassion, self awareness. intelligence. So while we may have many imperfections we are self aware, we have charities to help for the disadvantaged. What do the lions do to the weak and sick - eat them.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by The Left 

well then why don't we just raise free range people and slaughter them to eat after all there is no pain after being dead.

Animals are not moral agents. They do not consider the moral implications of what they do, whereas people are capable of making moral abstractions.

Personally, I think you should go hiking in bear country, and see if any grizzlies you come across will respect your right to life, and instead decide to eat cruelty-free™ diet of twigs and bark.

And as for the scientific perspective, if you believe in evolution (as any right thinking leftist is obliged to do), it's hard to think that hundreds of millions of years of survival-of-the-fittest evolution in which only the strongest and most able survive HASN'T conditioned us to eat meat.

[The Left]

correct, we have evolved and thus no longer have the need to eat animals and haven't for quite some time.

-evolution is a Good Thing™

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Left 

correct, we have evolved and thus no longer have the need to eat animals and haven't for quite some time.

-evolution is a Good Thing™

Who said anything about "need"? Damn, wouldn't this world suck if we could only do the things we "need" to do?

Now, if you all willl excuse me, I WANT to eat some more turkey.

Mmmmm, yummy!