(January 31, 2014 at 11:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(January 31, 2014 at 4:26 pm)Raeven Wrote: I just thought it was an interesting article. And I did read all 12 pages of it. I'm sorry if that's 10 more than you're prepared to read.
You didn't link it because you "just thought it was an interesting article," unless you got lost and ended up here by accident. I'm assuming you are arguing that since plants can also feel, vegetarians are hypocritical in refusing to participate in the suffering of animals. If so, you might want to provide a quoted section FROM the link, which you feel supports that position.
(January 31, 2014 at 4:44 pm)KUSA Wrote: I keep shaking my head at the things you say.I have a few things to say about this. First of all, hunting by all other animals is part of the evolutionary process of the prey as well as the hunters. Second, the way in which that hunting is done has a tendency (usually) to arrive at some kind of equilibrium in an ecosystem. Humans, having learned how to manipulate the evolution of livestock, have completely nerfed them, to the point that they are no longer viable organisms. Also, where there are very bad imbalances in natural ecosystems, this is very often due to a human presence: killing of predators like wolves and foxes, or destroying habitat.
I know you realize the predators are just going to eat the animals. I can't understand why you are good with that but are against humans eating them. You make no sense at all. You really don't. You come up with some bullshit concocted explanation that is just down right dumb. Amoral vs moral.
So if I share a meal of meat that my dog and I hunted together I am doing something wrong but my dog is good to go. Stupid!
I'm not actually against hunting, in particular of species that have overrun ecosystems (like deer in the States). Eventually, all imbalances bring suffering-- through starvation, or through the destruction of foliage to the point that OTHER species lose their respective habitats. If so, reducing pests, even if they suffer when they are shot, can arguably reduce the overall suffering, even of the pest species, by ensuring that their ecosystems recover and survive.
But genetically-altered livestock, held in unnatural and unpleasant conditions, and killed to feed people who are overeating just for pleasure, is disrespectful both to the individual animals and to the millions of years of struggle that led to the species' evolution. We are deliberately CREATING a resource-wasting overpopulation of livestock-- which is especially retarded given the millions of pest animals (like deer) who are destroying many parts of the world. Just because there is suffering in the world, and some justified or even necessary, doesn't mean we should raise (and inflict suffering on) millions of cattle to overfeed millions of 300-lb fatasses. There's nothing natural or right about the current state of things. I wouldn't say that eating meat is necessarily immoral, but I would suggest that eating at McDonald's, or any restaurant which purchases meat from these mass-production facilities, IS immoral.
So what we are doing is (gulp) unnatural? Dang I hate it when I do something unnatural.
Thank you for pointing this out with your appeal to nature.
