Vegetarianism Vegetarian, Nature Food, arguments for eating meat

[faund 0]

I have some questions:1.Can veggie contrbut to our world? what' s that? People do something and for something. people will not do something for nothing. I mean what we can get on earth: animal rights. for mercy or something else. However ,what about human being' right. Human bing have ringt to choose their lifestyle ,diet-style and so on.2.For what do we eat on earth? Only for living , I am sure more than that. 3.why can't we kill the animal for living?why can animal kill human bing, maybe not for living?We are all equal.

[Liam_CF 0]

As usual, the infantile attacks against this progressive lifestyle fly in the face of all logic and reason. Having grown up strict vegetarian, Ive heard every idiotic anti-veg argument you can think of, and over time, each and every one of them have been proven false by the scientific community. But it appears some folks are still motivated by the guilt-ridden rancor that often accompanies feeding on animal corpses in an age when such barbarism is completely unecessary. How else can one explain the moronic: But plants have feelings too rant still being hurled around as if it actually had any relevance to this debate. Flesh eaters: If you truly care as much about plants as you claim to, then you MUST go vegetarian as you consume (and thereby kill) infinitely more plants via eating a cow than going directly to the source. Or better yet starve yourself and rid us of your juvenile excuses to continue killing animals to satisfy your selfish lust for flesh! Yes, you can debate all you want, but in the end it all comes down to your personal lust and inability to control it. And be careful: Pointing the finger at those who have a handle on their base appetites is a dead caveman giveaway.

 

All satire aside, I hope you see my point that nothing in life is black and white. Yes we are all involved on some level with the taking of life to sustain our own, and I dont know a vegetarian whos hypocritical enough to argue otherwise. By the same token I doubt anyone would argue that our fellow mammals, unlike plants, have central nervous systems that respond to pain stimuli. But we, unlike other life forms, have the capacity to choose how much of an impact we leave in our wake, and ultimately how much pain inflicted. Does that make us superior to the other beasts? Thats debatable. Does it make us more accountable? Most definitely. So, as reasoning beings fully capable of moral judgement, do we contribute (indirectly or otherwise) to the senseless, cruel slaughter of sentient creatures who clearly feel pain, who cry out in mournful agony when the butchers knife spills their essence on the blood-soaked concrete, and who cling to the life force as we do? Or do we choose the path that humane men have consistently chosen through the ages? The choice is yours; choose it wisely.

Finally someone who sees in the way that I do. This is what I've been trying to get at, I'm just not so good at wording it.

 

You've actually made a very good point about the 'harming plants' and the nervous systems of animals.

 

And also about the cow eating grass bit.

[Liam_CF 0]

I have absolutely no problem with vegetarianism is a theory, but the way it is practiced is an abomination.

 

I'm not too familiar with your reasoning for being a vegetarian, but all of the ones I know use the most ridiculous and twisted reasoning I've seen (combine that with disputing facts about vegetarianism and PETA) and it's annoying.

 

I'd like to see your take on this article: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

The guy that wrote that article truly is an arrogant prick.

 

He made that article to try to clear his concience, to try to make it okay for himself to eat meat. As PETA have stated, there are millions more times of animals killed every day than to worry about the few killed by harvesters. Also, his SOURCE page doesn't work, so I can't check it's validality.

[Mailoreothoriel 0]

As usual, the infantile attacks against this progressive lifestyle fly in the face of all logic and reason. Having grown up strict vegetarian, I’ve heard every idiotic anti-veg argument you can think of, and over time, each and every one of them have been proven false by the scientific community. But it appears some folks are still motivated by the guilt-ridden rancor that often accompanies feeding on animal corpses in an age when such barbarism is completely unecessary. How else can one explain the moronic: “But plants have feelings too” rant still being hurled around as if it actually had any relevance to this debate. Flesh eaters: If you truly care as much about plants as you claim to, then you MUST go vegetarian as you consume (and thereby kill) infinitely more plants via eating a cow than going directly to the source. Or better yet – starve yourself and rid us of your juvenile excuses to continue killing animals to satisfy your selfish lust for flesh! Yes, you can debate all you want, but in the end it all comes down to your personal lust and inability to control it. And be careful: Pointing the finger at those who have a handle on their base appetites is a dead caveman giveaway.

 

All satire aside, I hope you see my point that nothing in life is black and white. Yes – we are all involved on some level with the taking of life to sustain our own, and I don’t know a vegetarian who’s hypocritical enough to argue otherwise. By the same token I doubt anyone would argue that our fellow mammals, unlike plants, have central nervous systems that respond to pain stimuli. But we, unlike other life forms, have the capacity to choose how much of an impact we leave in our wake, and ultimately how much pain inflicted. Does that make us superior to the other beasts? That’s debatable. Does it make us more accountable? Most definitely. So, as reasoning beings fully capable of moral judgement, do we contribute (indirectly or otherwise) to the senseless, cruel slaughter of sentient creatures who clearly feel pain, who cry out in mournful agony when the butcher’s knife spills their essence on the blood-soaked concrete, and who cling to the life force as we do? Or do we choose the path that humane men have consistently chosen through the ages? The choice is yours; choose it wisely.

REMEMBER TO HAVE RESPECT DUDE, R-E-S-P-E-C-T TO EACH OTHER'S OPPINIONS, YOUR ARGUMENTS AREN'T THE DEFINITIVE ARGUMENTS... LIAM_CF AND I WERE HAVING A NICE BUT SHORT DEBATE ABOUT VEGETARIANISM.

 

And we aren't the most accountable beings in the world, we are, definitely, the most hideous. If we didn't exist, the world, for the animals, would be definitely a better place. And to all nature. And we are the ones who slaughter. Not dogs or palm trees.

 

Please refrain from attacking other people as morons and idiotics just because they like yummy meat. And please don't consider yourself more HUMAN and just because you eat only weed.

 

Sorry mods for this mad reply but I hope you do understand, I want to defend my pride honorably.

 

I choose to eat meat because meat is neat, if you don't feel happy being a veg yourself. Please don't come insulting others just because they like to eat meat.

 

As I said before, I don't see anything to be PROUD about only eating weed, and going around saying that eating weed is the best and makes me superior to all hideous flesh eaters, please know your place >_<, and have respect, that's what I want to say. Respect.

 

I respect all vegs. I DO. Why can't you respect meat eaters? Because you consider yourself morally superior? And capable of insulting others tastes? That's what I don't like

 

People recluse themselves on a hard belief because their soul is weak, I don't care about what people do eat, but in what they believe. and that's all I have to say..... Man, I can't believe you

Edited November 11, 2007 by Mailoreothoriel (see edit history)

[sonesay 7]

well as much as i respect all views on this, saying Im to blame for all the suffering to animals because I eat meat is not on. What about what that guy talked about with the harvesting? If you really cared about preventing suffering to animals stop buying produce and grown and pick your own that way no animals will get kill. Like he said theres a double standard and you seem to draw a line for yourself when it becomes inconvient. It was nice to hear the other views but when fingers start pointing to blame you gotta point back.This reminds me of those annoying church people trying to preach to you. They come around to your house telling you you are not whorshiping a true god. Who are they to say my god is not real. The point is everyone is entitled to their own opinions but the ones who believe they are right and dont respect others views tend to try and shove their ideas down your throat and change you. I heard your ideas but I still believe mine isnt that enough? You want to change me? Come to my house show me how to live on beans, show me how I can feed my family on weed then maybe I'll change my mind about not eating meat. Even then I may not like it and still eat meat.one last thing I eat both veggies and meat but I cant imagine eatting only veggies. They are too light and I'd have to eat so much just to get full. Event then i would probably get sick before i get full. IMO you need a balance.

Edited November 11, 2007 by sonesay (see edit history)

[Above The Rest 0]

The guy that wrote that article truly is an arrogant prick.
He made that article to try to clear his concience, to try to make it okay for himself to eat meat. As PETA have stated, there are millions more times of animals killed every day than to worry about the few killed by harvesters. Also, his SOURCE page doesn't work, so I can't check it's validality.

I asked your opinion on the article, not the guy.

If you're going to argue, insulting the person who wrote the article isn't the way to do it. If you can back up your claims (I don't believe a word that PETA says, so quotes from them are useless) then I will listen and perhaps agree with your argument (although I probably won't become a vegetarian). You made one comment on the article, and the rest of your comments were about the author.

[Misanthrope 0]

CF AND I WERE HAVING A NICE BUT SHORT DEBATE ABOUT VEGETARIANISM

Last I checked, this forum is open to input from all members, even those who vehemently disagree with the unsound logic put forth here. The author may want to consider conducting a closed conversation via IM or email if he wishes to exclude those who hold diverse opinions or otherwise threaten an established worldview. Otherwise, free speech reigns.

Please refrain from attacking other people as morons and idiotics just because they like yummy meat.

Oh my! I highly suggest the author learn the difference between an attack on an individual verses an opinion of an idea. Do I disrespect ideologies based more on subjective guilt and lust for flesh than sound reason and scientific fact? You bet I do! But I do not participate in, nor approve of personal attacks (otherwise referred to as ?flaming?) such as the ones exhibited in this author?s post. Furthermore, I will not dumb-down my language for fear of coming off sounding ?superior? to those somehow threatened by intellect and proper use of the English language. How far, I wonder, must the common denominator be lowered before everyone is ?comfortable.? If some had their way our conversations would be reduced to the occasional grunt or groan, as we make our way through the filth on all fours.

 

By the way, if vegetarians often come off sounding smarter than their beef-eating brethren, it?s because they are - some five IQ points to be exact. This is a generalization of course, but the facts are conclusive per a British study carried out over the course of 20 years. Here is evidence for those who remain skeptical: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[Above The Rest 0]

Last I checked, this forum is open to input from all members, even those who vehemently disagree with the unsound logic put forth here. The author may want to consider conducting a closed conversation via IM or email if he wishes to exclude those who hold diverse opinions or otherwise threaten an established worldview. Otherwise, free speech reigns.

 

Oh my! I highly suggest the author learn the difference between an attack on an individual verses an opinion of an idea. Do I disrespect ideologies based more on subjective guilt and lust for flesh than sound reason and scientific fact? You bet I do! But I do not participate in, nor approve of personal attacks (otherwise referred to as "flaming") such as the ones exhibited in this author's post. Furthermore, I will not dumb-down my language for fear of coming off sounding "superior" to those somehow threatened by intellect and proper use of the English language. How far, I wonder, must the common denominator be lowered before everyone is "comfortable." If some had their way our conversations would be reduced to the occasional grunt or groan, as we make our way through the filth on all fours.

 

By the way, if vegetarians often come off sounding smarter than their beef-eating brethren, it's because they are - some five IQ points to be exact. This is a generalization of course, but the facts are conclusive per a British study carried out over the course of 20 years. Here is evidence for those who remain skeptical: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Five I.Q. points are negligible in most cases. And I.Q. does not nescessarily reflect the intelligence of an individual.

 

I would argue that there is no TRUE correlation between not eating meat and increased intelligence.

 

I would also argue that the reason for the average of 5 less I.Q. points is due to the fact that there are WAAAAAAAAAAAY more meat eaters on this planet, which means that there is more room for stupid people to be in that vategory.

 

If you're going to make a statement like "Vegetarians are smarter than meat-eaters" you're going to have to back it up with something more than that FUD bullcrap.

[Mailoreothoriel 0]

Last I checked, this forum is open to input from all members, even those who vehemently disagree with the unsound logic put forth here. The author may want to consider conducting a closed conversation via IM or email if he wishes to exclude those who hold diverse opinions or otherwise threaten an established worldview. Otherwise, free speech reigns.

 

Oh my! I highly suggest the author learn the difference between an attack on an individual verses an opinion of an idea. Do I disrespect ideologies based more on subjective guilt and lust for flesh than sound reason and scientific fact? You bet I do! But I do not participate in, nor approve of personal attacks (otherwise referred to as “flaming”) such as the ones exhibited in this author’s post. Furthermore, I will not dumb-down my language for fear of coming off sounding “superior” to those somehow threatened by intellect and proper use of the English language. How far, I wonder, must the common denominator be lowered before everyone is “comfortable.” If some had their way our conversations would be reduced to the occasional grunt or groan, as we make our way through the filth on all fours.

 

By the way, if vegetarians often come off sounding smarter than their beef-eating brethren, it’s because they are - some five IQ points to be exact. This is a generalization of course, but the facts are conclusive per a British study carried out over the course of 20 years. Here is evidence for those who remain skeptical: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

OK, eat all the weed you want. Debates are about exchanging ideas, not IMPOSING ideas. And this is a debate zone, my friend. You are trying to prove all who don't believe as you wrong, that level of fanatism is blinding dude.

You sorround yourself with facts and all that nice stuff. But you lack what's important: Moral

Edited November 12, 2007 by Mailoreothoriel (see edit history)

[Above The Rest 0]

Listen.There's nothing wrong with vegetarians.There's nothing wrong with carnivores. No one group is more stupid, and no wrong group is more intelligent.They're just two different groups, with different beliefs or ideals. Is that so bad?Why can we all just get along regardless of belief, race, sex, morals, or ideas?

[Andrius 0]

(Most of the) people only go vegetarian, support GreanPeace, and try to be "green" for their own purposes.When you are a really vegetarian, you DON'T NEED to attack others, or to be witting in the forums "hey, look me, I ONLY eat weed, nothing else, I HATE EATING COWS". If you are really worried about the global ecosystem, you should preach with the example, not impose your beliefs.I eat meat, as lots of other people do, there are vegetarians too, and I don't criticize them for eating plants, I only let them be.Hope this enters in your head.

[Mailoreothoriel 0]

Listen.
There's nothing wrong with vegetarians.

There's nothing wrong with carnivores. No one group is more stupid, and no wrong group is more intelligent.

They're just two different groups, with different beliefs or ideals. Is that so bad?

Why can we all just get along regardless of belief, race, sex, morals, or ideas?

I totally agree with that!
I absolutelytotallyabsolutelyreallydoagree with that!
Eating weed it's OK!
I'm with peace with Above the Rest and Liam_CF xD

(Most of the) people only go vegetarian, support GreanPeace, and try to be "green" for their own purposes.
When you are a really vegetarian, you DON'T NEED to attack others, or to be witting in the forums "hey, look me, I ONLY eat weed, nothing else, I HATE EATING COWS". If you are really worried about the global ecosystem, you should preach with the example, not impose your beliefs.

I eat meat, as lots of other people do, there are vegetarians too, and I don't criticize them for eating plants, I only let them be.

Hope this enters in your head.

Andrius couldn't have said it better.
Edited November 12, 2007 by Mailoreothoriel (see edit history)

[Liam_CF 0]

What's with this 'eating weed' thing that everybody's talking about.I haven't got anyone to quote and debate with, so I'll just tell you what I found out today. Recently, two of my friends have gone vegeatarian. Both have agreed that veggie bacon, sausages, burgers, fillets etcetera taste nicer than the meat versions. Also, it is healthier for you. If anyone says that 'all vegetarians are thin and pasty' then they've got to do some reasearch. I'm quite stocky and I'm in no way pasty. I'm about average weight, infact a bit over.

[Above The Rest 0]

What's with this 'eating weed' thing that everybody's talking about.
I haven't got anyone to quote and debate with, so I'll just tell you what I found out today.

Recently, two of my friends have gone vegeatarian. Both have agreed that veggie bacon, sausages, burgers, fillets etcetera taste nicer than the meat versions. Also, it is healthier for you. If anyone says that 'all vegetarians are thin and pasty' then they've got to do some reasearch. I'm quite stocky and I'm in no way pasty. I'm about average weight, infact a bit over.

Taste is an opinion, and thus has no place in a debate.

Furthermore, I don't know anybody who says "all vegetarians are thin and pasty", simply because there are many vegetables which provide the nutrients needed to maintin an average body weight. Vegans are far more likely to be "thin and pasty" than vegetarians.

Whether or not the vegetable counter-parts of meat dishes are more healthy (which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, in the way you stated it at least) isn't that important.

[Misanthrope 0]

OK, eat all the weed you want.

Debates are about exchanging ideas.

Eat weed? Doesn't sound very appetizing. Besides, I thought people usually smoked that stuff.

 

Let?s briefly set the record straight on what constitutes a debate, shall we? For starters, a debate is more than a casual ?exchange of ideas.? We could theoretically have a friendly exchange regarding most anything on the countless non-debate venues of this forum, but a debate differs primarily on two fronts:

 

1) The first party (the affirmative) presents a topic of debate (proposition) for competitive argument. Sure, you can maintain a more lighthearted approach if that's your preference, but don't chastise folks who actually enjoy exercising their brain in the form of true debate.

2) The opposing party (the negative) presents reasonable arguments attacking the proposition for the purpose of winning the argument.

 

So as you see, debate is cerebral competition. Debates run the gamut of parliamentary to the more casual approach found here at Trap 17. But in either case, the goal is not to reach consensus, but about winning the debate. Obviously, providing reasonable proof and playing fair put you in a better position of winning. A good debater can argue either side and win while keeping emotion at bay ? just watch a trial lawyer! Admittedly there are no ?judges? awarding prizes here (sadly), but the satisfaction that comes from honing your reasoning skills is reward enough....don't ya think?

 

You sorround yourself with facts and all that nice stuff. But you lack what's important: Moral?

Providing facts and evidence is a primary manner of presenting an argument Here again, the rebutting side attacks an individual for following one of the key principals of debate. If this were a formal venue, a judge would have penalized the negative by now.

 

Attack the argument, not the person.