Do you consider eating meat wrong?

[shinbits]

I don't think eating meat is wrong, as long as the animals are at least treated humanely while they're alive.

 

[Zebra1552]

Since when do claims negate logical discourse?

 

[Zebra1552]

Once again. Claims don't negate a logical argument. If you want me to believe you, you can provide evidence- obvious or not. This really isn't that difficult.

 

[Macx]

Given that I have seen my wife breastfeed today, and being present at the babies birth wherein no hardshelled egg was laid externally, but a living breathing human came out attached in the usual way . .. umbilical and all. . . our abject lack of photosynthesis, I am not sure I understand your argument Jaws13. If we aren't a type of animal, what are we? Not angels, not demons, not gods, not plants, not rocks, not gas (though I have some) . . . . what? Joe Grey has this right.

 

[Penumbra]

I'd prefer not to use the word "wrong", but for a concise answer to your thread, my answer is yes, I view it as "wrong", and I do not eat meat.

More specifically, I think it needlessly causes extra suffering and environmental damage. In some regions of the world people don't have a choice what they eat or not, but in many areas of the world one can easily live without consuming animal flesh.

God gave us the animals. Can't really be against it.

I don't think that's true, but even if it were, I would refuse to eat them out of principle. Whether it's from God or just from nature, if I can survive on something other than animal flesh, I will do so. A god that would put nerves into creatures that I'm "supposed" to kill and eat according to him is not particularly benevolent in my view. The whole predatory/prey system of nature disgusts me and I certainly don't think it was orchestrated by any powerful benevolent being.

 

[Wirraway]

so what? humans are in particular taxonomic ranks. we're different from all the rest of creation because our souls reflect God's image. so what's the bickering really about?

 

[Aianna]

It depends on the position of the individual; more specifically their access to food.

I have access to pretty much anything I wish to eat, so I'd say if I chose food that requires harm to come to sentient beings to be produced, then I'd say my choice was indeed wrong. I do not fault those who don't have the luxury of the choice that I do and are fighting for survival (such as those in the past and those in third-world countries).

 

[Wirraway]

... if I chose food that requires harm to come to sentient beings to be produced, then I'd say my choice was indeed wrong...

you're not actually talking to cows, are you?

 

[Aianna]

you're not actually talking to cows, are you?

About cows, yes. There's no reason to needlessly slaughter them simply because they taste a certain way. Cows especially consume more food while being raised than they produce as well, so it really is about nothing more than taste.

 

[Macx]

I don't think that's true, but even if it were, I would refuse to eat them out of principle. Whether it's from God or just from nature, if I can survive on something other than animal flesh, I will do so. A god that would put nerves into creatures that I'm "supposed" to kill and eat according to him is not particularly benevolent in my view. The whole predatory/prey system of nature disgusts me and I certainly don't think it was orchestrated by any powerful benevolent being.

From a Christian point of view, we know we live in a broken world. The world was broken by sin and the wages of sin is death. The nature of this broken world is pain and death, of course we all seek to avoid it. The world will not be restored until Christ returns. . . thereafter the lion will lay down with the lamb and all that happy clappy stuff, where animals won't eat each other. What I don't understand is jumping the gun, trying to live as if we already lived in that unbroken/ restored world, especially when it means missing out on a bacon cheese burger.

I don't mean to single you out. . so I am going to adress the following question to all ya'll vegetarian folk:

What is the worldview that makes you not want to eat meat?

 

[Wirraway]

About cows, yes. There's no reason to needlessly slaughter them simply because they taste a certain way. Cows especially consume more food while being raised than they produce as well, so it really is about nothing more than taste.

because they taste a certain way cooked, its absolutely necessary to slaughter them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

About cows, yes. There's no reason to needlessly slaughter them simply because they taste a certain way. Cows especially consume more food while being raised than they produce as well, so it really is about nothing more than taste.

Taste is enough justification for me. I don't believe that I have to justify meat consumption based on pure survival needs.

But it is rare that I eat cow meat. Mainly this is for health reasons, although I would also like to see less land used for the raising of cows.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Templedweller]

Not a vegetarian~~~Can see the benefits therein, but have always eaten meat. I would find it unethical morally wrong to eat another human though.

 

[MoonLancer]

microscopic creatures die by the billions so that i may live. All life kills other life to live. It is the way of the world. That said i am sympathetic to vegetarians. I respect those who can give up meat, because i cannot.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

There are actually people willing to argue against the claim 'humans are animals'? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Clearly the education system is a shambles.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Once again. Claims don't negate a logical argument. If you want me to believe you, you can provide evidence- obvious or not. This really isn't that difficult.

The term animal is a word used to refer to those species who are part of the kingdom Animalia. Definitions for the kingdom can vary slightly, but animals are multicellular creatures that have a fixed shape (although some may undergo metamorphosis at some point), can move of their own accord and must consume other organisms to survive. They lack rigid cell walls and most (but not quite all) animal embryos go through a blastula stage. Only animals do this.

Obviously some organisms don't quite fit into any definition and some animals don't perfectly fit the definition, but feel free to demonstrate how this description does not apply to humans. 'Animal' is a term of classification, and we fit the description.

As for the whole 'we are set apart' idea - we're not. We cannot naturally fly like birds, which makes places impassable to us. We cannot breathe water like fish, which makes 70% of the surface of the Earth inhospitable to us. We are not as strong as bears, we are not as fast as cheetahs, we cannot retain water like a camel does, we are not as numerous as insects, we are not the only animals that are capable of understanding language or using tools. Only 2% of the Earth's surface is hospitable to us and only 1% of the Earth's water is drinkable.

You can claim many things about humans but you cannot claim that we are masters of the Earth or of anything else for that matter. We evolved to excel in one area - thinking. Other animals evolved to excel in other areas, for different environments. They are not as intelligent as us because they don't need to be. Sharks haven't evolved for millions of years because they don't need to - they're already so well evolved to be a predator that any other evolution is unnecessary. If you feel like proving the superiority of humans, try going up against a shark without any equipment. After all, the shark doesn't need anything else, so if we are so good, I'm sure you won't either.

 

[hv/2π]

There are actually people willing to argue against the claim 'humans are animals'? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Clearly the education system is a shambles.

I think the argument is spiritual and more of a fundamental definition, rather than scientific.

Just because men in white coats say that its an animal because of certain attributes doesn't mean it necessarily has to be marginalized that way. Science likes to marginalize everything and then put it back together in its own way. Spiritually ALL HUMANS are created in the image of God, which means (like it or not) we are MORE THAN ANIMALS. There are a myriad of traits humans have that other animals do not. At the least, our intellectual curve is MUCH STEEPER than animals, which means we do not use the same collective processes as "animals."

Yes, the educational system is flawed, but for reasons not typical. Science especially is more like religion, especially when you have to hold a teaching position/write scholarly articles, etc. What you say, and who agrees with you matters greatly. Some things are allowed, and some things are "blasphemy."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Personally, I'm just fine with different uses of the word "animal". There is the scientific definition in which we are animals, and the common definition in which human beings are excluded.

Since no argument will be disproven on a definition alone, I think there is little point to discuss this matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[hv/2π]

Personally, I'm just fine with different uses of the word "animal". There is the scientific definition in which we are animals, and the common definition in which human beings are excluded.

Since no argument will be disproven on a definition alone, I think there is little point to discuss this matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, but I am not comfortable being called an animal because I know who I am. If you are fine with that label by all means, we can end this discussion with our said words.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, but I am not comfortable being called an animal because I know who I am. If you are fine with that label by all means, we can end this discussion with our said words.

I know who I am too. I'm a human being. I'm comfortable being called an animal when the word is defined as:

"any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation"
-- Merriam-Webster dictionary

It's the definition that matters, not the letters a-n-i-m-a-l.


eudaimonia,

Mark