|
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Joined: 1/15/2011
Posts: 2
|
Here is the only justification I have for eating meat. nothing ethical.
I can and want to. That's all.
Also, for vegetarians who eat fish... fish suffer even more than animals..... it's absolutely disgusting to watch...
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President  Joined: 12/20/2010 Posts: 1,288
|
I could really do without the people who claim to be vegetarian but still eat fish or chicken.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 12/20/2010
Posts: 597
|
safarhealthsci1 wrote:Use some common sense people. Bears eat deer, sharks eat other fish, tigers and lion, all these animals are carnivores. We are just part of the food chain. If we left cows and pigs alone in the wild from the start they would have been part of this food chain. Humans are just another part of the food chain, except our brains are so developed that we can actually protect ourselves from animals... I'm done trying to show how this argument fails. If you'd like to read a response to your post, google "Naturalistic Fallacy." ARMY101 wrote:mynameismattgotmlgo wrote:Army, you've stooped to a new low in posting that. Are you incapable of critically analyzing research? It seems you just accept whatever you read and whatever agrees with your opinion as fact, without putting any thought in. First of all, you're citing research done by L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, winner of the Ig Nobel Prize (for the research you cited), and certainly not a qualified biologist. Secondly, the research you cited was not peer-reviewed. And finally, you got that picture from Life magazine's "30 Dumb Inventions." Way to be. I didn't say I believed it, but that study obviously said plants can feel pain. ARMY101, you're studying law, aren't you? If so, I'd suspect that you'd know that when one presents evidence to defend their case, they should present valid, defensible evidence, not just anything that can fill in the space. Zion wrote:I could really do without the people who claim to be vegetarian but still eat fish or chicken. I'm irked by this hypocrisy too, but technically, isn't it only hypocritical if we assume they're vegetarian because they care for other animals? Or is it the term "vegetarian," when use in this context, that bothers you?
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President  Joined: 12/20/2010 Posts: 2,900
|
littleroom wrote:safarhealthsci1 wrote:Use some common sense people. Bears eat deer, sharks eat other fish, tigers and lion, all these animals are carnivores. We are just part of the food chain. If we left cows and pigs alone in the wild from the start they would have been part of this food chain. Humans are just another part of the food chain, except our brains are so developed that we can actually protect ourselves from animals... I'm done trying to show how this argument fails. If you'd like to read a response to your post, google "Naturalistic Fallacy." Who is to say it fails? Who is to say it is a fallacy? There is really no right and wrong here.
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian  Joined: 12/21/2010 Posts: 549
|
Taking a break from last minute assignments to... g93 wrote:littleroom wrote:safarhealthsci1 wrote:Use some common sense people. Bears eat deer, sharks eat other fish, tigers and lion, all these animals are carnivores. We are just part of the food chain. If we left cows and pigs alone in the wild from the start they would have been part of this food chain. Humans are just another part of the food chain, except our brains are so developed that we can actually protect ourselves from animals... I'm done trying to show how this argument fails. If you'd like to read a response to your post, google "Naturalistic Fallacy." Who is to say it fails? Who is to say it is a fallacy? There is really no right and wrong here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Example: "It is natural to desire sex, therefore rape is justifiable." Schulich School of Business
York University
|
|
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Joined: 1/15/2011
Posts: 7
|
If you believe in human evolution then you would know that when the first traces of humans started to eat meat their brain sign grew a significant percentage. Meat isn't essential to one's diet, but I think the protein found in meat really benefits us. To those who are vegetarians and vegans, you are all troopers. I've always wanted to be a person who only consumed sea food but that would clog my arteries. If you aren't looking to completely eliminate meat from your diet..I suggest eating less of it to reduce the demand of meat.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Joined: 1/16/2011
Posts: 5
|
There's always a religious answer to this...
God made man and woman in the garden of eden where they were to eat of fruit.
then the serpent came, the two were kicked out of the garden, etc, you know the story, if not or if you're curious about the details, read this: http://whatthebiblesays.info/AdamandEve.html
So sin happened and animals ate other animals. Now we eat animals too. (in the garden of eden, no one killed anyone or animal)
But it takes more energy and resources to feed animals through crops and they need somewhere to keep warm for the winter, where as trees and fruit/veggies don't.
the more veggies you eat and the less meat you eat... i think its easier for the environment... unless if you live in an area where there are tons of caribou and moose/deer that will starve themselves because they eat all of their grass and we help them out by cutting their population down a little...
It's possible to survive off of only veggies and fruits and non meat stuff. But I'm not so sure if its possible to survive with only meats. Your body would probably shut down on you due to lack of nutrition after a while.
These are my thoughts.
(btw, im not a vegan or a person who is a nutritionist.)
|
|
|
Rank: Student Council  Joined: 1/9/2011 Posts: 470
|
I guess I'll repeat myself... Vegetarians don't need to load up on supplements. Can you list those vitamins and nutrients? Plants are missing vitamin B12, but I can't think of anything else. B12 can be found in dairy and eggs anyway. Humans don't need meat to survive, and I'm living proof of that. Really, there isn't a right or a wrong here (in a moral sense)... And so what if humans are more intelligent than animals? Animals can feel pain too. Why should we care for the suffering of other animals? There isn't an objective answer. Some people care; some people don't. I don't think it helps to shove personal preferences down other people's throats. However, I have nothing against the providing of information to people who are ignorant of whatever. They may change their views once better informed... What bugs me is how some people seem to be making up facts. Vegetarians can't be healthy? Come on. Obviously an assumption that was probably made without actual research. Yes, I just copied and pasted from my previous posts. I want some counterarguments this time though. Waterloo - Computer Science (co-op) 2017
|
|
|
Rank: Student Council Joined: 1/9/2011 Posts: 470
|
g93 wrote:BUT, probably the biggest problem that everyone is ignoring.... What would happen to farm animals? Would they go extinct (nearly)? Just be in zoos and a couple other places? If nobody was to eat meat, they would be useless. And farmers would not let cows graze if they can't sell them for meat. Would that be fair? I doubt cows would go extinct. If everyone were to stop eating meat, it doesn't mean they would stop drinking milk. Waterloo - Computer Science (co-op) 2017
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President Joined: 12/20/2010 Posts: 2,900
|
Stranger wrote:g93 wrote:BUT, probably the biggest problem that everyone is ignoring.... What would happen to farm animals? Would they go extinct (nearly)? Just be in zoos and a couple other places? If nobody was to eat meat, they would be useless. And farmers would not let cows graze if they can't sell them for meat. Would that be fair? I doubt cows would go extinct. If everyone were to stop eating meat, it doesn't mean they would stop drinking milk. Beef cattle would partly though (milk cattle could be bred to be beef cattle again though). And what if the vegetarians won the first battle and got rid of us eating meat and after that the vegans won the next battle and we no longer had dairy or egg products, etc?
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President Joined: 12/20/2010 Posts: 1,288
|
littleroom wrote:Zion wrote:I could really do without the people who claim to be vegetarian but still eat fish or chicken. I'm irked by this hypocrisy too, but technically, isn't it only hypocritical if we assume they're vegetarian because they care for other animals? Or is it the term "vegetarian," when use in this context, that bothers you? If they simply dislike the taste of other meats, then that's fine. But yes, if they still refer to themselves as "vegetarian", then that's just ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Joined: 12/22/2010
Posts: 1,330
|
IanSharer wrote:"It is natural to desire sex, therefore rape is justifiable." Your logic is terrible. If it is natural to desire sex, then sex is justifiable. <- that is an example of naturalistic reasoning. If it were natural to desire violent, non-consensual sex, then rape would be justifiable using naturalistic reasoning. There is a difference between the consensual sex that is typically desired and rape. BMSc Honours Specialization in Medical Science, Minor in Psychology, UWO '09
Bachelor of Pharmacy, University of Alberta '13 - Drop out as of '11
University Certificate in Finance, Athabasca University '12
Petroleum Engineering Technology diploma, NAIT '13
|
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Joined: 12/22/2010
Posts: 1,330
|
sjanesingh wrote:If you believe in human evolution then you would know that when the first traces of humans started to eat meat their brain sign grew a significant percentage. See, this is the problem with correlations: you can't tell which is cause and which is effect. Is it that eating meat increases brain size OR that a bigger brain confers the ability to hunt, kill, and eat meat? Or some combination in between? BMSc Honours Specialization in Medical Science, Minor in Psychology, UWO '09
Bachelor of Pharmacy, University of Alberta '13 - Drop out as of '11
University Certificate in Finance, Athabasca University '12
Petroleum Engineering Technology diploma, NAIT '13
|
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Joined: 12/22/2010
Posts: 1,330
|
g93 wrote:Beef cattle would partly though (milk cattle could be bred to be beef cattle again though). And what if the vegetarians won the first battle and got rid of us eating meat and after that the vegans won the next battle and we no longer had dairy or egg products, etc? You're not concerned about the slaughter of domesticated food animals, but you would be concerned if they were to naturally die off if humans no longer tended them? BMSc Honours Specialization in Medical Science, Minor in Psychology, UWO '09
Bachelor of Pharmacy, University of Alberta '13 - Drop out as of '11
University Certificate in Finance, Athabasca University '12
Petroleum Engineering Technology diploma, NAIT '13
|
|
|
Rank: Frosh  Joined: 1/1/2011 Posts: 34
|
I haven't read the entire thread (it's a lot :P) but I'd just like to add that I'm vegan. I don't in ANY way want to boast or preach or anything annoying, but I'm very fit and healthy so it is possible to be fine without eating animal products! (I just have to have nutritional yeast to get B12) Yes, humans are omnivores, so we can eat animal products, or we can choose not to. I personally do it because of the ethics, and how it makes me feel physically. I just can't see much of a difference between using my dog for food/milk or whatever, and using other animals. I hope this post doesn't make me sound crazy!
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President Joined: 12/20/2010 Posts: 2,900
|
mynameismattgotmlgo wrote:g93 wrote:Beef cattle would partly though (milk cattle could be bred to be beef cattle again though). And what if the vegetarians won the first battle and got rid of us eating meat and after that the vegans won the next battle and we no longer had dairy or egg products, etc? You're not concerned about the slaughter of domesticated food animals, but you would be concerned if they were to naturally die off if humans no longer tended them? Our mass consumption of meat from domesticated food animals is the only reason these animals still exist on this planet, or at least exist all over and in numbers. I don't wish for any animal to be completely wiped off this planet. Am I okay with them being slaughtered for their meat? Yes. It's sooooo good.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Joined: 12/22/2010
Posts: 1,330
|
Fair enough. BMSc Honours Specialization in Medical Science, Minor in Psychology, UWO '09
Bachelor of Pharmacy, University of Alberta '13 - Drop out as of '11
University Certificate in Finance, Athabasca University '12
Petroleum Engineering Technology diploma, NAIT '13
|
|
|
Rank: Student Council Joined: 1/9/2011 Posts: 470
|
g93 wrote:Stranger wrote:g93 wrote:BUT, probably the biggest problem that everyone is ignoring.... What would happen to farm animals? Would they go extinct (nearly)? Just be in zoos and a couple other places? If nobody was to eat meat, they would be useless. And farmers would not let cows graze if they can't sell them for meat. Would that be fair? I doubt cows would go extinct. If everyone were to stop eating meat, it doesn't mean they would stop drinking milk. Beef cattle would partly though (milk cattle could be bred to be beef cattle again though). And what if the vegetarians won the first battle and got rid of us eating meat and after that the vegans won the next battle and we no longer had dairy or egg products, etc? Eh, you're starting to go down a slippery slope. I really doubt the whole world will go vegan any time soon, but so what if they did? It's not the end of the world. Perhaps some farm animals will go extinct. There are such things as wild pigs and cows though. Cows are considered sacred in some religions and not just bred to be consumed. Also, if the farm animals went extinct, they can't be considered useless as they would not exist. Waterloo - Computer Science (co-op) 2017
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 12/20/2010
Posts: 597
|
mynameismattgotmlgo wrote:IanSharer wrote:"It is natural to desire sex, therefore rape is justifiable." Your logic is terrible. If it is natural to desire sex, then sex is justifiable. <- that is an example of naturalistic reasoning. If it were natural to desire violent, non-consensual sex, then rape would be justifiable using naturalistic reasoning. There is a difference between the consensual sex that is typically desired and rape. The Naturalistic Fallacy is the argument that anything that is natural is ethically justified. Here is an example of how that fails: 1. Anything that is natural is ethically justified 2. Genetic mutation is natural 3. Genetic mutation is ethically justified I'm not saying that genetic mutation is or isn't ethical, what I'm saying is that you need more than it being natural to decide. If you say that there exists no intention behind genetic mutation, then you have added a layer to our judgements on ethics. That layer admits that being natural isn't the key criterion. If rape was natural, it still wouldn't be justified. The entire point of a civilized society is to repress some natural urges in order to live stably with everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Joined: 12/22/2010
Posts: 1,330
|
I really hate having to repeat myself because someone seemingly selectively negated some of what I said to make an argument against me. I said it would be justifiable using naturalistic reasoning, which is true. I didn't say that I agree or disagree with naturalistic reasoning (I disagree with it, FYI) or that rape would be morally justifiable in that case. BMSc Honours Specialization in Medical Science, Minor in Psychology, UWO '09
Bachelor of Pharmacy, University of Alberta '13 - Drop out as of '11
University Certificate in Finance, Athabasca University '12
Petroleum Engineering Technology diploma, NAIT '13
|
|
|