Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: I just can't justify eating meat anymore
  • Subject: I just can't justify eating meat anymore
Subject: I just can't justify eating meat anymore


Posted by: jondoe4362

Posted by: Dookums46
To all of those people who say that we ARE designed to eat meat because of our canines and other stuff, one thing.

Try eating raw meat.

...that is all.

Its still edible, just tougher. And certain prehumans used fire to cook their meat also.

And do lions cook their meat?

  • 12.26.2010 6:25 PM PDT

Calculus calms my troubled mind


Posted by: Dookums46
To G O R E25:
Watch "Earthlings". Seriously. It's about factory farms, and all of that good stuff. I couldn't last half an hour. (They de-beak chickens.)

(so they don't kill eachother)

  • 12.26.2010 6:26 PM PDT

Banned and proud of it.

If you can't justify eating meat then what are you going to do instead of being butthurt?

I keep asking this guy that question but he never answers it....

  • 12.26.2010 6:26 PM PDT


Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
Posted by: Dookums46
To G O R E25:
Watch "Earthlings". Seriously. It's about factory farms, and all of that good stuff. I couldn't last half an hour. (They de-beak chickens.)


Wow, I don't know how people can justify this.

"Survival"? Jesus christ. Watch the -blam!- movie, then come back to me.

  • 12.26.2010 6:26 PM PDT

Calculus calms my troubled mind


Posted by: Dookums46

Posted by: jondoe4362

Posted by: Dookums46
To all of those people who say that we ARE designed to eat meat because of our canines and other stuff, one thing.

Try eating raw meat.

...that is all.

Its still edible, just tougher. And certain prehumans used fire to cook their meat also.

And do lions cook their meat?

Are humans lions?

  • 12.26.2010 6:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Enlightened Ones. Join.

e^ix = cos(x) + isin(x)
Such that e is Euler's number, and i^2 = -1.

If you want help with homework: tell me what math class it is for, the name of the chapter you are on, and what specifically is difficult for you. Remember, I'm always glad to help :).

Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
No, just no.

My argument is that it's wrong to eat meat. People have told me that it's ok to eat meat, because we do it for our health and survival.
Because you totally don't get significant protein, B12, and others from eating meat.

Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition.
If I did not know better, Clutch, I would think you were ignoring me.

  • 12.26.2010 6:27 PM PDT

Posted by: seanthemonster34
article is fake. you can't possess a firearm, firearms don't have souls. not to mention that most people don't have fireresistant skin so a firearm would be pretty useless after a few minutes

Posted by: Scary BIack Man
For years I thought there was a rapper named feat that appeared in a lot of songs.

OP is surely the greatest toll in the history of trolls.

  • 12.26.2010 6:28 PM PDT

I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. ~ Mark Twain

Posted by: PwnaFide
WARNING: ULTRA WALL OF TEXT. CHINA CALLED, WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION, AND THEY FINALLY AGREED TO LET ME KEEP IT FOR A SHORT WHILE.
After 63 pages, I assume this thread has veered off-course to an extent. So I'd just like to address some things pertinent to the subject that are often stated in these kinds of threads. Good luck, by the way.

For your consideration...

To begin with, a couple of claims I'd like to make:
1. Becoming a vegetarian is one of the most economically-beneficial decisions you can ever make.
2. Becoming a vegetarian is one of the most environmentally-beneficial decisions you can ever make.
3. Becoming a vegetarian is one of the most beneficial decisions to your health that you can ever make.
4. The statement "eating meat is natural" is the one of the stupidest justifications in the history of... history.
5. People will never stop eating meat.
6. Meat is tasty.
7. TacBac is awesome.

Time for justifications!
1. Raising an animal, giving it food and shelter, pumping it full of your favorite growth hormones, and then killing the damn thing after all that effort thing is an act of sheer economic stupidity. It doesn't matter how you spin it, livestock slaughter is just dumb. And here's the real kicker: the alternative, growing vegetables, costs a ridiculously smaller sum of money. Keep in mind that we're talking total costs here: "creating" the product, transporting it, and putting it on shelves. Plants get the win in every category.

2. This is all old news. Sustainable agriculture is more environmentally-sound and it works freaking everywhere, from third-world countries to the highest-tech farms in the States. One thing that's oft-ignored is transportation: you can locally-produce produce (CWUTIDIDTHAR???), meaning you cut down on transportation costs, and thusly the dreaded carbon footprint.

3. "BUT THINK OF THE PROTEIN PWNAFIDE! THE PROTIENZ! TEH PRAWTEEENZZZ!!!" There are 20 amino acids the human body needs. 11 can be produced by the human body. 9 essential AA's must be "gotten" (wording fail) from external sources, complete sources. There is no one vegetable or bean or grain source that is a complete source of protein. Checkmate vegetarians, right? Due to the power of "eating more than one thing per meal", I think not. Beans and rice are a complete source of protein. Any freakin' dairy is complete. Protein shakes and soy are complete. Pick one. Pick all of 'em. Be happy. Now as far as the health benefits of vegetables, I don't actually have to tell you do I? No saturated/trans fats (unsaturated fat is good for you), no refined sugars, etc.

4. We do 5 kafillion things every goddamn day that aren't natural. There're even more studies than that show that most of the other stuff we do isn't even natural. Seriously. Running? It's out. Eating too much of anything? Bye. Obviously, nobody takes this stuff seriously. Your body will be just fine without it. But how can I be sure? Because, apart from all the scientific studies, I know plenty of people who are vegetarians, and they aren't just healthy. They play contact sports, work out, etc. and they're good.

5. It's true, kids. Perhaps one day, the meat we eat will be replaced with some "fake" meat, but eating meat is where our roots lie. We're not about to forget it.

6. Steak. Bacon. Chicken. Turkey... nope I hate turkey. But still, meat is tasty.

7. Tactical Bacon. Too awesome for words. Well, almost too awesome for words.


So beautiful.

  • 12.26.2010 6:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Enlightened Ones. Join.

e^ix = cos(x) + isin(x)
Such that e is Euler's number, and i^2 = -1.

If you want help with homework: tell me what math class it is for, the name of the chapter you are on, and what specifically is difficult for you. Remember, I'm always glad to help :).

Posted by: tacosaladman
And I get little to no feed back on my link.
Same with my comment.

  • 12.26.2010 6:29 PM PDT


Posted by: Dookums46
To all of those people who say that we ARE designed to eat meat because of our canines and other stuff, one thing.

Try eating raw meat.

...that is all.


Ever heard of sushi?

  • 12.26.2010 6:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

But from my head to my toes
From my knees to my eyes
Everytime I watch the sky
For these last few days leave me alone
But for these last few days leave me alone
Leave me alone
Leave me alone

Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
No, just no.

My argument is that it's wrong to eat meat. People have told me that it's ok to eat meat, because we do it for our health and survival.
Because you totally don't get significant protein, B12, and others from eating meat.

Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition.
If I did not know better, Clutch, I would think you were ignoring me.
He doesn't reply to anything thought out or threatening to his position.

Except of course where he quotes things people say and then replies with "Ha ha, this proves me right!" without any basis.

  • 12.26.2010 6:30 PM PDT


Posted by: jondoe4362

Posted by: Dookums46
To G O R E25:
Watch "Earthlings". Seriously. It's about factory farms, and all of that good stuff. I couldn't last half an hour. (They de-beak chickens.)

(so they don't kill eachother)

I can't tell if you disagree with me or not. If so: they only kill each other because of insanity. And they're only insane because they stuff -blam!- 3 or more chickens to a tiny cage. Read up on it. They're also pumped with drugs just to keep them alive.

I'm not some anti-meat nut, who makes up -blam!-, I'm just stating the facts.

  • 12.26.2010 6:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Enlightened Ones. Join.

e^ix = cos(x) + isin(x)
Such that e is Euler's number, and i^2 = -1.

If you want help with homework: tell me what math class it is for, the name of the chapter you are on, and what specifically is difficult for you. Remember, I'm always glad to help :).

Posted by: tacosaladman
Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: tacosaladman
And I get little to no feed back on my link.
Same with my comment.
But I had proof that fish gave us huge brains.
I had proof that eating meat is ethically consistent.

  • 12.26.2010 6:30 PM PDT

I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. ~ Mark Twain

Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
No, just no.

My argument is that it's wrong to eat meat. People have told me that it's ok to eat meat, because we do it for our health and survival.
Because you totally don't get significant protein, B12, and others from eating meat.

Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition.
If I did not know better, Clutch, I would think you were ignoring me.


Sorry.

You address a number of points here, which have been answered. B-12? You can find in dairy.

Morals? There's been a large discussion on it, I would be saying the same things.

  • 12.26.2010 6:30 PM PDT

Calculus calms my troubled mind


Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
No, just no.

My argument is that it's wrong to eat meat. People have told me that it's ok to eat meat, because we do it for our health and survival.
Because you totally don't get significant protein, B12, and others from eating meat.

Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition.


Sums up everything I am thinking and puts it into words perfectly.

  • 12.26.2010 6:31 PM PDT

I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. ~ Mark Twain

Posted by: diadex
Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
No, just no.

My argument is that it's wrong to eat meat. People have told me that it's ok to eat meat, because we do it for our health and survival.
Because you totally don't get significant protein, B12, and others from eating meat.

Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition.
If I did not know better, Clutch, I would think you were ignoring me.
He doesn't reply to anything thought out or threatening to his position.

Except of course where he quotes things people say and then replies with "Ha ha, this proves me right!" without any basis.


I've replied to everything that hasn't been asked and answered. Everything.

  • 12.26.2010 6:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: Mickey1980
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
No, just no.

My argument is that it's wrong to eat meat. People have told me that it's ok to eat meat, because we do it for our health and survival.
Because you totally don't get significant protein, B12, and others from eating meat.

Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition.
If I did not know better, Clutch, I would think you were ignoring me.

Don't fret, he'll skirt your point with some irrelevant emotional appeal soon enough.

  • 12.26.2010 6:31 PM PDT


Posted by: Serpent of Fire

Posted by: Dookums46
To all of those people who say that we ARE designed to eat meat because of our canines and other stuff, one thing.

Try eating raw meat.

...that is all.


Ever heard of sushi?

Those are bite-sized pieces. Here's what I mean:
1. Go out into a forest
2. Kill a deer.
3.Go home.
4. Cut off it's leg.
5. ...Now try eating it.

  • 12.26.2010 6:32 PM PDT

PwnaFide: I'm not quoting you.

I'm not sure what side you're on. You present pro-vegan arguments and claim to be a meat eater. So I'll coment on all your points.

1. One of the things about economics is that it is subjective, both to a person and a society. Something is economically worthwhile if the public benefit is worth the cost. In this case, the benefits of tasty food outweigh the costs of raising it. And believe me, companies work to keep costs down. Nother thing to consider: It makes no logical sense to mine diamonds just to give to our females, but we all do it. I'm sure that you will to when you finally pop the question.

2. Don't tell me you can farm everywhere, and that's literally my name. Some places aren't suitable for farming. For example, Northern Canada, where the permafrost reaches the surface and nothing can grow. Don't tell me that's an extreme example either, there are plenty of places and reasons where farming doesn't always work.

3. You can't get B12 from anything besides animal products. The body can't make it even if it has the 20 acids because it requires colbalt and can only be produced by bacteria that live in the guts of herbavores.

4. Everything we do is natural, since we are a part of nature. Don't tell me we aren't. And running isn't natural, even before the modern age? Really?

5. True

6. True

7. DOn't know what TacBac is.

  • 12.26.2010 6:33 PM PDT