Question for all: If technology allowed for modified foods that provided the same protein benefits, would you stop supporting animal slaughter?

What the hell is it with you and ridiculous comparisons to *TRY* and prove your point?

Rapists should not continue raping, but they will.



It's not about comfort, it's about survival. We're built to eat meat and required to eat meat to stay healthy. We're claiming our superiority by eating meat, among the health benefits.



Yes we do. Meat contains vitamins and nutrients not available in plants. That's why vegetarians have to take an enormous amount of vitamins and supplements to sustain their lifestyle, which is expensive and unnecessary if they would just eat meat.



There are no corrupt politicians in Canada's government. And even if there were, laws are passed with the consent of a majority of the Members of Parliament, meaning one corrupt politician would do nothing in comparison to the other 154 members of the majority.

+ 1

Meat is the greatest thing that ever happened. I don't think I could go more than a couple days without eating some form of meat. I hated that when I got my wisdom teeth out, and was only supposed to drink fluids or eat soft foods. But the next day, I started eating softer meats and the day after had some chicken.

I was trying to point out the fallacy in his argument.



I agree. But that doesn't mean we should support it.



We aren't required to eat meat. Just have a look at the millions of healthy vegetarians, some of which are bodybuilder and wrestlers who would be required to stay healthier than the average individual. I haven't done enough research to prepare an appropriate argument, but I do have a friend (athletic, lifts weight, healthy, etc...) that doesn't take an enormous amount of vitamins. He simply makes some protein shakes (hemp/rice) and eats healthy. His grocery bill isn't more expensive than the typical household either.



I was merely pointing out the stupidity of his argument. No corrupt politician would remain in power for long, but that doesn't mean that the Canadian Laws = Morality. If a law was passed that allowed for capital punishment, does that mean all Canadians accept it to be morally correct?

http://www.vegsoc.org/page.aspx?pid=600


What led you to that conclusion? I know I can easily get enough protein without meat. A lot of people actually consume more protein than they need. Meat protein isn't superior to protein from plants. Peanut butter doesn't even have that much protein.


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. I don't take tons of supplements. I take vitamin D sometimes because I don't get enough sun. I also take flax-based omega-3 pills just in case, but walnuts, seeds, various seeds, tofu, and some plants are some good sources of it. I've always been a bit of a nutrition freak, and I wouldn't go vegetarian if it was unhealthy.

Thanks for the info. However, I'd still argue that a vegetarian diet is not healthier than a non-vegetarian diet. There are both healthy and unhealthy options in both.



Also, another question: Since we do not need meat to survive, and personal comfort does not define morality, does personal comfort supersede morality?

This argument assumes that human survival is more important than anything else. Although I like the idea, it cannot be justified.



You're falling for the naturalistic fallacy. It doesn't matter what's natural when it comes to ethics. Hurricanes are natural too. That doesn't make them ethical. You need justification outside of that.

"Improving" murder does not make it ethical. Read my Nazi analogy earlier. It's still murder.



How can you not see how weak an argument this is? So if you were born in Australia your morals would be equivalent to Australian laws? Don't you think something as important as morality needs greater justification than the accident of where you were born?

The ONLY reason you oppose honour killing is because it's not tolerated in Canada? Are you kidding me?! My morals, for one thing, are partly based on the question of suffering vs. happiness. I don't need religion or politicians to tell me so, and if they say different, whether in my country or in a different one, I'll oppose them.



That's my whole point with comfort. If we question the ethics of eating meat, we have to question the justification for doing anything on Earth at all (e.g. what gives one the right to build a house on land? It's not your land). We can't justify it. We just do it because trying to question this would lead to too many changes in how we're supposed to do things, and no one wants that, so we choose to be (philosophically, as in not caring to justify everything we do) comfortable.

Exactly. Why take supplements when you can eat food with the original thing right in it?

Sure it can. The Bible, among other religious texts, says humans are the masters of the Earth and that we can do whatever we want with it.

You're aren't a very good troll...