(January 26, 2014 at 9:11 pm)StoryBook Wrote: I agree that animals do suffer, and there is research on it. Animal do not have the same rage of emotions that we do and they don't waste time thinking about what happened in the past and don't think about the future. They see the present. They don't feel guilt.

You can cry about every poor hurting animals all you want. You can even protest against that nature of death buy being a vegan. I don't really care.
I do care about animals, that's why I learn about them. Animals die. If you don't eat the meat someone or something else will. It is a fact of life. It is in nature for death to occur. We have been killing animals for food for billions of years. I do not approve of abusing the animal for fun(we are not cats), but I do see it as acceptable to kill an animal with the intention of eating it. It's not enjoyable, death never is, but it is acceptable as a fact of life. Everything dies.

What is the difference from killing an animal and letting that body go to waste,and animal suffering to death and the body going to waste(aside from the scavengers), or killing the animal and using it for nutrients?

The difference would be that in not having billions of livestock, those animals would never exist at all. That degree of suffering wouldn't exist at all, as it exists exclusively through our deliberate actions as a species.

Obviously, I'd prefer animals weren't eaten. However, I think the gluttony of meat-eating, especially in the US, constitutes a disrespect both to the animals and to common sense. If you're underweight and poor, and the best protein source you have access to is a yak you come across in the mountain, then fair game. But how many underweight people have you met in the US? Not too many. And yet 300 lb hippos are scarfing down Big Macs or pork cutlets 3 times a day, becoming a burden to themselves, their families, and the society that has to provide health care to them. And they expect animals to exist, suffer and die to sustain them in this life style.

People talk about how special people are, but you'd have to look hard to find a monkey that dysfunctional.

---

(January 26, 2014 at 8:57 pm)KUSA Wrote: With all that said I still firmly believe it is quite acceptable to cause some unavoidable suffering to animals in order to process them for food purposes. I have been to many food processing plants both for hogs and chickens and I see no problem with what they do to them. It is quick and efficient.

When people want something, they start defining "unavoidable" in ways that mediate the cost of fulfilling those wants. This is clearly the case, since there are millions (maybe over a billion) of perfectly healthy, functional vegetarians in the world. What you really should say is that you like meat so much that you do not WANT to avoid the suffering of the animals. You see the fulfillment of the "yummy meat" instinct as trumping the wellbeing of non-human animals; but there is no logical reason why you should do so-- it is just the desire for pleasure masquerading as logic.

I am a Pescetarian(I am sure I didn't spell that right). This is only because I don't like the taste of meat at all. I do however like seafood.

(January 27, 2014 at 2:46 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 26, 2014 at 9:11 pm)StoryBook Wrote: I agree that animals do suffer, and there is research on it. Animal do not have the same rage of emotions that we do and they don't waste time thinking about what happened in the past and don't think about the future. They see the present. They don't feel guilt.

You can cry about every poor hurting animals all you want. You can even protest against that nature of death buy being a vegan. I don't really care.
I do care about animals, that's why I learn about them. Animals die. If you don't eat the meat someone or something else will. It is a fact of life. It is in nature for death to occur. We have been killing animals for food for billions of years. I do not approve of abusing the animal for fun(we are not cats), but I do see it as acceptable to kill an animal with the intention of eating it. It's not enjoyable, death never is, but it is acceptable as a fact of life. Everything dies.

What is the difference from killing an animal and letting that body go to waste,and animal suffering to death and the body going to waste(aside from the scavengers), or killing the animal and using it for nutrients?

The difference would be that in not having billions of livestock, those animals would never exist at all. That degree of suffering wouldn't exist at all, as it exists exclusively through our deliberate actions as a species.

Obviously, I'd prefer animals weren't eaten. However, I think the gluttony of meat-eating, especially in the US, constitutes a disrespect both to the animals and to common sense. If you're underweight and poor, and the best protein source you have access to is a yak you come across in the mountain, then fair game. But how many underweight people have you met in the US? Not too many. And yet 300 lb hippos are scarfing down Big Macs or pork cutlets 3 times a day, becoming a burden to themselves, their families, and the society that has to provide health care to them. And they expect animals to exist, suffer and die to sustain them in this life style.

People talk about how special people are, but you'd have to look hard to find a monkey that dysfunctional.

You do have a point about the 300 lb "hippos", but I have seen many starving Americans also.

So what do you expect us to do with all the livestock we have now? Send them over sea with the overpopulation of horses, so the other country's can eat them? Or just let them starve to death because farmers won't be able to afford to feed them, let alone able to feed their families?

See, this is one of the vegan problems. If everyone stopped eating meat, they have no plan to deal with it. Its like they don't expect us to stop so they haven't bothered coming up with the rest of the plan!

They would do what PETA does and just kill the animals.

(January 27, 2014 at 10:31 am)StoryBook Wrote: So what do you expect us to do with all the livestock we have now? Send them over sea with the overpopulation of horses, so the other country's can eat them? Or just let them starve to death because farmers won't be able to afford to feed them, let alone able to feed their families?

I would expect any ban on meat eating to be phased in over a ten year period so the answer is that you wouldn't breed any more

(January 27, 2014 at 12:38 pm)là bạn điên Wrote:

(January 27, 2014 at 10:31 am)StoryBook Wrote: So what do you expect us to do with all the livestock we have now? Send them over sea with the overpopulation of horses, so the other country's can eat them? Or just let them starve to death because farmers won't be able to afford to feed them, let alone able to feed their families?

I would expect any ban on meat eating to be phased in over a ten year period so the answer is that you wouldn't breed any more

So is that only in the USA? Would we be also banning breeding other animals such as horses, dogs and cats?

While we are at it why don't we ban drug use, like heroine and pot...

If we all stop eating meat right now and stop breeding the animals, they will STILL be here. Since the farmer can't afford to feed them he can not keep them. So my question still is not answered. WHAT will you do with the starving animals?

(January 27, 2014 at 10:37 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: See, this is one of the vegan problems. If everyone stopped eating meat, they have no plan to deal with it. Its like they don't expect us to stop so they haven't bothered coming up with the rest of the plan!

How do you know or are you just making it up as you go along? No doubt the latter...twat

---

(January 27, 2014 at 12:55 pm)StoryBook Wrote:

(January 27, 2014 at 12:38 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: I would expect any ban on meat eating to be phased in over a ten year period so the answer is that you wouldn't breed any more

So is that only in the USA? Would we be also banning breeding other animals such as horses, dogs and cats?

Why would that only be the USA? I'm not an American. I see no reason to ban Horses dogs or cats or indeed ban ownership of any animal -just the milling of them for meat or sport.

Quote:While we are at it why don't we ban drug use, like heroine and pot...

???? Sine these obviously are banned then what is your point?

Quote:If we all stop eating meat right now and stop breeding the animals, they will STILL be here.

As I said. Such a law would be phased out over 10 years, I realise that this is a little difficult for you to understand but it would mean the current animals would be still eaten and then it would end.

Quote: Since the farmer can't afford to feed them he can not keep them. So my question still is not answered. WHAT will you do with the starving animals?

read above.

(January 27, 2014 at 12:55 pm)StoryBook Wrote: So is that only in the USA? Would we be also banning breeding other animals such as horses, dogs and cats?

(January 27, 2014 at 2:55 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: Why would that only be the USA? I'm not an American. I see no reason to ban Horses dogs or cats or indeed ban ownership of any animal -just the milling of them for meat or sport.

We have an overpopulation of animals here in the US. To prevent many horses from starving to death in a field, they are ship to slaughter houses. Since the USA doesn't really eat horse meat they are ship out of the country.

Quote:While we are at it why don't we ban drug use, like heroine and pot...

Quote:???? Sine these obviously are banned then what is your point?

My point is that people still use these drugs, even though they are banned.

Quote:If we all stop eating meat right now and stop breeding the animals, they will STILL be here.

Quote: As I said. Such a law would be phased out over 10 years, I realise that this is a little difficult for you to understand but it would mean the current animals would be still eaten and then it would end.

Since the farmer can't afford to feed them he can not keep them. So my question still is not answered. WHAT will you do with the starving animals?

It is not difficult for me to understand

If eating meat was banned why would we still be killing the animals? After all the whole point of banning it would be to make you feel better, so now it's ok to kill them? Seems you don't understand.

(January 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm)StoryBook Wrote: If eating meat was banned why would we still be killing the animals? After all the whole point of banning it would be to make you feel better, so now it's ok to kill them? Seems you don't understand.

Obviously ideally the animals would be cared for in animal sanctuaries funded by the government, with the animals being prevented from breeding until either there are none left or we keep some in the animal sanctuaries and breed them so that they can acquire the characteristics to live in the wild. However, it is very unlikely that everyone would turn away from meat eating all at once, and so phasing veganism in could be the more sensible option. Never the less, phasing it in would still induce less suffering than continuing the current cycle of breeding animals for meat eating that currently causes so much suffering.

Personally, I don't want to see meat eating banned. People like it too much, and if the government were to introduce such a thing there would be huge social unrest. No, the most likely thing would be for the number of vegans/vegetarians to increase gradually over say 30 to 100 years. This would reduce the demand for meat, resulting in farmers breeding less animals, until eventually all we would have are a few thousand animals kept in animal sanctuaries, again funded by the government.