You Forgave Jesus Please Forgive Us!!!

[lnathan]

Okay Anne, I've been over this before but here goes.

I post on this site because I enjoy reading the hilarious answers that I get to my posts about how it's better to be a seal than a human, it's easier to be a heart surgeon than an undiscovered poet and it's better for the global-eco system for man not to eat meat. Seriously, that shit cracks me up, that they're are so niaive that they will believe EVERY SINGLE WORD, that comes out of someone's mouth, just because they like their songs. Really, think about that for a second. It's MINDBLOWING.

I was a vegetarian before I was a Morrissey fan and my views on animal rights has nothing to do with him. I actually think that his views are mostly based on intuition and he doesnt't appear to me to have studied the philosophy behind it much. Nothing wrong with that but what I am trying to do is to base my views on logic.
Why don't you make a proper argument instead of just saying that mine are "bollocks"? Until you do I can't really take your comments seriousely.

 

[CharethCutestory]

I was a vegetarian before I was a Morrissey fan and my views on animal rights has nothing to do with him. I actually think that his views are mostly based on intuition and he doesnt't appear to me to have studied the philosophy behind it much. Nothing wrong with that but what I am trying to do is to base my views on logic.
Why don't you make a proper argument instead of just saying that mine are "bollocks"? Until you do I can't really take your comments seriousely.

I don't want to argue or upset anybody, I came up with a measured and reasonable discussion point, at that stage, you said "It would be better for the global eco-system if humans didn't eat meat". That is one of the most nonsensical, wrong -headed things that has ever been said. It doesn't mean ANYTHING.

What you are basically saying is "Evolution got it wrong", and that my friend, is balls.

Like I say, I'll agree to disagree, but I will not concur with something that is quite clearly made up.

 

[CharethCutestory]

In fact, here we go, in summation - PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE GLOBAL ECO SYSTEM FOR HUMAN BEINGS NOT TO EAT ANIMALS.

 

[lnathan]

There are plenty of possible answers in the above posts. Instead of keep saying it's bollocks try to actually consider the arguments that are being presented to you and tell me exactly why it is bollocks.

 

[lnathan]

...and you also keep avoiding my main question (again, see above posts)

 

[Puddle]

^^as far as animals are concerned, i don't think humans are meant to eat anything more than fish. the rest you can not kill with bare hands or eat raw (the risk of getting sick is too high...the food stays in our stomachs/intestines too long, as opposed to true carnivores/omnivores). however that's just based on what our bodies are able to handle raw...i don't eat fish because my morals get in my way.

as far as the ecosystem...well, the industrial feedlots are f***ed up...they contribute to a lot of air and water pollution...also rainforests are being cut down for grazing. some believe too much land is being used for grains going to fattening animals for meat instead of being used to feed the hungry/world.

and of course we all know vegetarians are more peaceful and thus we would have less wars and destruction on the planet... well, except for Hitler

 

[Inttenssity]

as far as the ecosystem...well, the industrial feedlots are f***ed up...they contribute to a lot of air and water pollution...also rainforests are being cut down for grazing. some believe too much land is being used for grains going to fattening animals for meat instead of being used to feed the hungry/world.

^ and much of the animal - for which this grain was produced - gets wasted as fat/carcass/innards/excrement, and is not viable food

Yeah, your unreferenced summary here reinforces what I posted above as evidence for Chare about how cattle production for global human consumption obliterates intact eco-systems at a much faster rate than growing other types of food, ie vegetarian food, (for humans) does. (since he asked for proof of this)

It seems though, that if you give a well-referenced, thoroughly justified answer to his own request for evidence to an inquiry, it is simply over his head. So, he just reasks the same question, presumably until someone answers with something along the lines of "it just does" (since he can relate to crude answers of that nature, along the lines of "bollocks") and then maybe he is satisfied with this as proof?

 

[lnathan]

^ and much of the animal - for which this grain was produced - gets wasted as fat/carcass/innards/excrement, and is not viable food

Yeah, your unreferenced summary here reinforces what I posted above as evidence for Chare about how cattle production for global human consumption obliterates intact eco-systems at a much faster rate than growing other types of food, ie vegetarian food, (for humans) does. (since he asked for proof of this)

It seems though, that if you give a well-referenced, thoroughly justified answer to his own request for evidence to an inquiry, it is simply over his head. So, he just reasks the same question, presumably until someone answers with something along the lines of "it just does" (since he can relate to crude answers of that nature, along the lines of "bollocks") and then maybe he is satisfied with this as proof?

It is very common for people to behave like that when they know they have run out of real arguments and therefore are losing the debate. It always annoys me that people refuse to admit that maybe they don't know enough about the subject or that they are simply not right, instead of just disengaging or avoiding the main issue by turning to silly and crude answers.
But then again it just, once again, confirms that the arguments on which I base my views on animals rights can not be defeated.

 

[starry night]

Hey,
He "forgave" Jesus so, why can't he forgive US (the US) and just tour here, damnit....oh I forgot...look who's in office ruining the place...

 

[CharethCutestory]

It is very common for people to behave like that when they know they have run out of real arguments and therefore are losing the debate. It always annoys me that people refuse to admit that maybe they don't know enough about the subject or that they are simply not right, instead of just disengaging or avoiding the main issue by turning to silly and crude answers.
But then again it just, once again, confirms that the arguments on which I base my views on animals rights can not be defeated.

Ok, in answer to your main question about why it is bollocks - here goes -

1. Your arguements about the deforestation of parts of Argentina and the waste of grain produced as food for farmed animals are all well and good, however, what you seem to be missing the point on there is that your arguement revolves around farming practices being cruel and bad for the enviroment. I agree with you that the impact certain modern farming procedures has on the enviroment is unacceptable BUT, that does not mean that if people stopped eating meat it would be better for the enviroment, it means that if people changed their farming processes it would be better for the enviroment.

2. I think you misunderstand the reasons for meat not being eaten raw (it makes it darn tasty for a start) but the main reason people get ill now is down to the evolution of bacteria within the meat and the weakening of the human stomach due to several hundred years of having food cooked. It's like people living in a sterile enviroment become more susceptable to illness as they have not immune system built up to it. Cave men didn't barbecue all that much, they just ate whatever they could find.

3. Not sure if it was you who said it but the arguement that we should only eat fish because we can't catch and kill anything else made very little sense. I know a few people who could kill a cow with their bare hands, but I don't think either point is relevant to the discussion.

So to sum up, you're arguement isn't really about what would happen to the eco-system if humans stop eating animals, it's about how it's bad for the enviroment to chop down forests (which is true). I think you've just got yourself a bit mixed up, that's all. There is no evidence what so ever to support the idea that if humans stopped eating meat it would have a positive impact on the eco-system. Think it through, where would the cows go for a start? Wild cows would not be a good idea.

 

[lnathan]

Ok, in answer to your main question about why it is bollocks - here goes -

1. Your arguements about the deforestation of parts of Argentina and the waste of grain produced as food for farmed animals are all well and good, however, what you seem to be missing the point on there is that your arguement revolves around farming practices being cruel and bad for the enviroment. I agree with you that the impact certain modern farming procedures has on the enviroment is unacceptable BUT, that does not mean that if people stopped eating meat it would be better for the enviroment, it means that if people changed their farming processes it would be better for the enviroment.

2. I think you misunderstand the reasons for meat not being eaten raw (it makes it darn tasty for a start) but the main reason people get ill now is down to the evolution of bacteria within the meat and the weakening of the human stomach due to several hundred years of having food cooked. It's like people living in a sterile enviroment become more susceptable to illness as they have not immune system built up to it. Cave men didn't barbecue all that much, they just ate whatever they could find.

3. Not sure if it was you who said it but the arguement that we should only eat fish because we can't catch and kill anything else made very little sense. I know a few people who could kill a cow with their bare hands, but I don't think either point is relevant to the discussion.

So to sum up, you're arguement isn't really about what would happen to the eco-system if humans stop eating animals, it's about how it's bad for the enviroment to chop down forests (which is true). I think you've just got yourself a bit mixed up, that's all. There is no evidence what so ever to support the idea that if humans stopped eating meat it would have a positive impact on the eco-system. Think it through, where would the cows go for a start? Wild cows would not be a good idea.

I appreciate you reeingaging in the discussion, but these arguments that you are referring to are actually not mine but inttenssity's (I believe).

My approach to this issue is a philosophical one, so my main question is not about the eco-system. It is, and have been from the beginning of this discussion, the ethical question: why do we draw a line between human and non-human life? What is the logical basis for doing that?
I have so far found that the is none.

As for the eco-system, I did actually reply to your first protest by simply pointing out that there is a lot more energy waste in feeding animals for meat consumption than to eat vegetation directly, therefore we'de be able to feed the world better that way (according to my personal logic). As for wild cows, why is that a bad idea? They have them in India. Also it is unlikely that everybody on earth will become vegetarian over night. It will be a gradual process where we of course will stop breeding animals for food.
Inttenssity seems to know more about hose things, so if you really want to have the eco-system discussion, I'll leave it to her to answer the more complicated questions.

But the way I see it, all that is irrelevant as soon as you realize that animals should have the same right to live as we do. We would never consider killing people because it would be better for the eco-system. When there was still slavery in America peolpe said, "it will never work without slavery. The cotton industry will collapse and what about all the negros that will suddenly be running about?" But you would never say that was reason enough for keeping people trapped in slavery would you?

 

[lnathan]

Why's that? I'm a bit of a 'wild cow' myself, ha ha!

I actually can't wait to see his reply to that. Not you being a wild cow, but why it shouldn't be a good idea.

 

[CharethCutestory]

Why's that? I'm a bit of a 'wild cow' myself, ha ha!

I definately think the world is a better place with you running about in it.

 

[lilikoi]

Think it through, where would the cows go for a start? Wild cows would not be a good idea.

You do realize that the cows are only there because humans breed them for consumption, do you? You do realize that these cows (as well as all the other millions of animals raised and slaughtered for food) simply would NOT be there at all. And if you start thinking then it should be obvious to you that if humans would eat the grains they feed to these animals to make them grow in order to eat them directly then logically less grains would have to be cultivated. Or is that too complicated to graps? You don't even have to have any compassion at all with animals to be able to make this elementary school type calculation. It's a known - very logical fact and it's not up for debate.

 

[Jaguar Rose]

Ok, in answer to your main question about why it is bollocks - here goes -

1. Your arguements about the deforestation of parts of Argentina and the waste of grain produced as food for farmed animals are all well and good, however, what you seem to be missing the point on there is that your arguement revolves around farming practices being cruel and bad for the enviroment. I agree with you that the impact certain modern farming procedures has on the enviroment is unacceptable BUT, that does not mean that if people stopped eating meat it would be better for the enviroment, it means that if people changed their farming processes it would be better for the enviroment.

But, surely if there was no further demand for the product, there would be no reason to produce it, and said practices would cease? That's what i understood to be the logic behind his/her argument.

I could be wrong! Shockingly, it's happened before.

 

[CharethCutestory]

But, surely if there was no further demand for the product, there would be no reason to produce it, and said practices would cease? That's what i understood to be the logic behind his/her argument.

I could be wrong! Shockingly, it's happened before.

Still, the fact remains that it's the procedure of meat manufacture that is the problem, not the fact that humans are omnivores.

What about all the cows and chickens, where would they go?

 

[lilikoi]

What about all the cows and chickens, where would they go?

are you really that stupid or are you just trying to be total kook? hello - wake up - they wouldn't be there at all.
you're not doing yourself a favour by persistently writing rubbish. we are all very unimpressed you know...


I think we should all ignore this Chareth character. why waste time with people who can't count to three but know it all. yaaaawn.
good bye.

 

[Puddle]

i think chareth has been composing himself decently on the thread. i don't agree with him and i think he is missing the point. I jsut want to add, in another way of looking at it, mroe energy is required to feed animals that will then be used for food, as compared to that food for animals going directly to humans (and not to mention less land use)...so the point here is...more energy=more polution...it's more strain on the ecosystem. This is very logical. There is no 100% efficient system...but the meat based diet is the least efficient and thus most polluting. period.

whether humans are meant to be herbivores or omnivores...i guess the verdict is out for some. though in my opinion, since if you look at the layout and size of certain organs, and the teeth, and the lack of enzymes to digest raw meat (and i don't blame evolution...the matter of fact I am pretty sure humans didn't really start eating animals until they invented weapons and fire. before then they survived on vegetation unless if forced to eat meat due to the threat of starvation. we see this currently at times with herbivores in nautre. Not to mention in feedlots when industrial farmers feed herbivore animals meat on purpose in order to give them more protein (reason why mad cow came to be).

so that's that.

 

[CharethCutestory]

are you really that stupid or are you just trying to be total kook? hello - wake up - they wouldn't be there at all.
you're not doing yourself a favour by persistently writing rubbish. we are all very unimpressed you know...


I think we should all ignore this Chareth character. why waste time with people who can't count to three but know it all. yaaaawn.
good bye.

Ok then tons of fun. What do you propose we do with all the farmed animals when we stop eating them? Cull them? Give them their own pad? Just eat what we've got, but don't breed anymore and when we've finished them that's our lot?

Somebody was trying to put forward a serious arguement for stopping eating meat. I was merely illustrating the flaws in that plan.

I think you should be careful when speaking for other people, who is the "we" that is unimpressed? As far as I was aware most people involved in the discussion were enjoying the exchange of ideas.

I no claim to know it all G. I just try to share my forts.

Reroys,

Chareth

 

[lilikoi]

yeah, chareth is the one who hates most morrissey songs, hates morrissey and hates animal rights. I've seen these kind of posers lurking around vegan forums aparently getting off on causing a stir by posting rubbish. what a bore. some people must have pretty empty lives or a lot of anger to offload (hidden behind an avatar and a computer...) - and defintely too much free time.

next thing you know he'll come up with the 'oh but plants feel pain too, I've seen it on TV' argument. double yaaawn.