Do you consider eating meat wrong?

[hv/2π]

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

Definitions are arbitrary, especially when they come from other people. We can easily tack on things as we move along in time to "definitions" and change the criteria on the drop of a dime. And that is a recipe for disaster. There was a time (that still may exist) when black people were considered animals (specifically apes,) with "scientific proof" to back up the claims. So, one cannot go on definitions alone, otherwise you would have about 30,000,000 black people believing they were apes.

The implications of grouping things where they do not belong are dangerous socially and even economically.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There was a time (that still may exist) when black people were considered animals (specifically apes,) with "scientific proof" to back up the claims.

That wasn't a problem with definitions (although I will note that it is your definition of animal above), but with prejudices and poor science.

So, one cannot go on definitions alone, otherwise you would have about 30,000,000 black people believing they were apes.

Not unless the definition was truly arbitrary, such as "black people are defined as apes". But scientific definitions tend to be much more rigorous than this. Also, the science on the subject is far better today.

The implications of grouping things where they do not belong are dangerous socially and even economically.

That's the importance of good definitions. It is poor definitions that are dangerous. The scientific definition of animal is not dangerous to human beings socially or economically.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[hv/2π]

That wasn't a problem with definitions (although I will note that it is your definition of animal above), but with prejudices and poor science.



Not unless the definition was truly arbitrary, such as "black people are defined as apes". But scientific definitions tend to be much more rigorous than this. Also, the science on the subject is far better today.



That's the importance of good definitions. It is poor definitions that are dangerous. The scientific definition of animal is not dangerous to human beings socially or economically.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I see. So no matter what I say you are right?

I will end it right here because I see that this will go on for pages if I allow it.

Good luck finding whatever you are looking for.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Definitions are arbitrary, especially when they come from other people. We can easily tack on things as we move along in time to "definitions" and change the criteria on the drop of a dime. And that is a recipe for disaster. There was a time (that still may exist) when black people were considered animals (specifically apes,) with "scientific proof" to back up the claims. So, one cannot go on definitions alone, otherwise you would have about 30,000,000 black people believing they were apes.

To be fair, black people are apes.

The implications of grouping things where they do not belong are dangerous socially and even economically.

Only if those groupings allow for discrimination; blacks, Jews, gays, all have been seen as 'sub-human', and have suffered because of it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I see. So no matter what I say you are right?

No. I had disagreed with the arguments you had presented in your post, and I had expressed my reasons for disagreeing. Precisely what is wrong with that?

Are you thinking that I must assume that your post is beyond criticism?

Good luck finding whatever you are looking for.

Found it! Thanks.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

To be fair, black people are apes.

According to scientific classifications, this is true. Of course, all human beings are apes in this way.

Only if those groupings allow for discrimination; blacks, Jews, gays, all have been seen as 'sub-human', and have suffered because of it.

Yup.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OdwinOddball]

We can not escape the simple fact that being alive comes at the cost of other living organisms. Plants are no less alive than animals, they just do not trigger our mirror neurons in the same way that an animal, particularly mammals do.

To me whether you are eating a spinach plant, or a chicken is fairly immaterial, something is dying either way.

 

[Wirraway]

According to scientific classifications, this is true. Of course, all human beings are apes in this way.



Yup.


eudaimonia,

Mark

To be fair, black people are apes.


Only if those groupings allow for discrimination; blacks, Jews, gays, all have been seen as 'sub-human', and have suffered because of it.

this is where wrong terminology gets people in trouble. technically all humans are "great apes", or in the family hominidae. identifying "black" or "white" or "Jew" humans is a misuse of evolutionary classification exploited by racists and creationists; "ape" has a connotation that doesn't apply here.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

Heaven is within you according to your scriptures attributed to Luke. Why wait?

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?

We can not escape the simple fact that being alive comes at the cost of other living organisms. Plants are no less alive than animals, they just do not trigger our mirror neurons in the same way that an animal, particularly mammals do.

To me whether you are eating a spinach plant, or a chicken is fairly immaterial, something is dying either way.

There is no single worldview. Vegetarians and vegans have a variety of reasons. Some reasons will overlap while others may not.

-I do not wish to be the cause of needless suffering if I can avoid it, and I do not want to contribute to the slaughter industry if possible.
-Vegetarians are often healthier, as most people in developed countries eat far more meat than what is healthy.
-According to several sources, the beef industry causes significant environmental damage. There is some controversy here.
-The concept of eating animal muscle, skin, and fat grosses me out. The idea of drinking white fatty liquid meant for calves that comes out of the nipple of a cow does not appeal to me. Allowing said white fatty liquid to develop bacteria cultures or to coagulate to form yogurt or cheese and then eating it does not appeal to me. Eating unfertilized eggs that come out of a chicken is not appetizing to me.
-We all can define ourselves how we wish. I try to make my actions to be in alignment with my feelings as much as possible. I do not view myself as a predator, as a being that consumes animal flesh, and so I am not.

Others may have different views. For example, Hindus believe that God does not want them to eat flesh- it's not natural and it's sinful in their view. They try to be consistent in their nonviolent worldview.

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.

We can not escape the simple fact that being alive comes at the cost of other living organisms. Plants are no less alive than animals, they just do not trigger our mirror neurons in the same way that an animal, particularly mammals do.

To me whether you are eating a spinach plant, or a chicken is fairly immaterial, something is dying either way.

Life does indeed necessarily kill other life, but not all life can suffer in the same way. Animals, especially mammals and birds, have highly developed central nervous systems.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

We can not escape the simple fact that being alive comes at the cost of other living organisms. Plants are no less alive than animals, they just do not trigger our mirror neurons in the same way that an animal, particularly mammals do.

To me whether you are eating a spinach plant, or a chicken is fairly immaterial, something is dying either way.

Cells are dying either way, but the entity as a whole is very different. Cows, pigs, birds, etc. can feel pain, can suffer, bleed, be forced in small cages to wallow in their own filth, whereas plants don't have elaborate sensory organs for pain perception.

-Lyn

 

[wanderingone]

I know there must be some vegetarians in this forum, and plenty of others like me who eat meat. Do you consider eating meat wrong, why or why not?

I don't consider eating meat in itself wrong. I don't eat meat because I don't have the guts to hunt it myself and I do consider the consumption of factory farmed meat and poultry to be wrong. I think the meat itself ends up being of poor quality and the treatment of the animals is disgusting.

I opt for being a lacto-ovo vegetarian who gets dairy products from a local resource where I know how the animals are cared for and what's in my food.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't consider eating meat in itself wrong. I don't eat meat because I don't have the guts to hunt it myself and I do consider the consumption of factory farmed meat and poultry to be wrong. I think the meat itself ends up being of poor quality and the treatment of the animals is disgusting.

I opt for being a lacto-ovo vegetarian who gets dairy products from a local resource where I know how the animals are cared for and what's in my food.

If you're willing to eat dairy products for those reasons, why not meat?

 

[wanderingone]

If you're willing to eat dairy products for those reasons, why not meat?

Umm.. you don't have to kill the chicken to get the egg and you don't have to kill the goat or cow to get the milk provided you don't put animal rennet in your cheese. So as long as the cheese, milk, cream, egg producing farmer is feeding their animals healthy, not keeping them squashed in pens that don't even allow them to turn around then we don't have animals living miserable lives simply to provide me with something I like to eat.

I have not found any producer of meat who raises and slaughters their meat in a way that I can accept so I don't eat meat. In addition to the issue of animal care I mention again the issue of what is fed to animals, and the poor use of resources - meat protein is simply too expensive and wasteful when produced the way we do here.