@Virago: It really is too bad that's happening, but don't you think that's more of a reflection of the people starting the 'is being a vegetarian dumb' threads, rather than of the OP? Most of the people that have been attacking him have already made up their minds on the issue. Either they eat meat or they don't, they don't want someone trying to engage in an intelligent discussion about it. Some people have stated that they will now consider going vegetarian. Doesn't that make it worth it?
@Akrid: If it's not worth reading eight pages so you're well-informed on what has already been discussed, then why is it worth replying at all? Especially since many of your points have already been argued and counter argued?
@Kazona: Yeah, it's so natural to selectively breed millions of animals so they are huge and pump them full of chemicals and raise them in tiny enclosed spaces and then slaughter them in a factory.
If you're out in the wilderness attacking a deer with your bare hands and teeth like some kind of cheetah, then fine. You can compare what you're doing to that of a predator in the wild. Otherwise, it's just too different.
Cheetahs and other predators NEED meat to survive. It is in their nature to hunt. There is nothing in human nature that requires us to factory farm animals. We are lucky enough to have the choice not to kill others.
@MAN_FLANNEL: Sigh. As I stated in an earlier comment, I agree that you 'can't simply put a halt on the meat industry.' That's never going to happen over night. The reasons I listed are reasons I don't want to be a part of the meat industry (in addition to not wanting to harm animals), but there is not going to be a day when one hour everyone's eating hamburgers, and the next everyone has a veggie burger in their hands. There is also not going to be a day (at least any time soon) when there are no cows on earth. We haven't even begun to talk about the dairy industry. Manure will not be hard to come by anytime soon. If people's eating patterns change slowly over time, our practices for harvesting food will evolve as well. I'm new to internet threads, but is it so hard to state your opinion without resorting to calling the other person 'uneducated' and 'inconsiderate'?
Here goes some arguments for not eating meat that only concern people, since many posters seem to have little regard for the lives of cows and chickens. -Switching grazing fields to crop fields would provide more food for the same amount of space. This is a fact, not an opinion. World hunger would decrease. Sounds pretty good, right? -With fewer cows being raised for consumption, much less ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide will be emitted. Also a huge plus. -Most of the food scares (admittedly, not all) concern meat. Mad cow disease, H1N1, and Avian Influenza to name a few. While people who eat meat may indeed live to be 100, the average vegetarian will be healthier than the average omnivore. Add that to helping end global warming, starvation, and disease and it sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
@Supermarius: While cats are fairly intelligent, have the ability to feel love, pain, and fear, they do not have as powerful a moral compass as humans have. It's in their nature, and we can't change that. Humans, on the other hand, can choose not to eat meat. Even if our ancestors were omnivores, technology and our own bodies and minds have given us the ability to have a completely meat-free diet. Just because cats necessarily eat meat doesn't mean we have to. We also don't run around naked and give ourselves baths by licking ourselves. There is nothing natural about raising millions of animals each year for the sole purpose of consuming them. There is nothing natural about slaughterhouses. Do you deny that animals feel pain and fear? Why is it okay to subject them to that when we, unlike cats, do not have to?
@SpiritOf: Well, that is a hypothetical situation that isn't going to happen. The number of vegetarians is increasing, but very, very gradually. The economy and our culture can change with people's changing beliefs. If fewer and fewer people eat meat, fewer and fewer cows will be raised to be slaughtered. I doubt the former will happen too fast for the latter to react.
The land used to graze cattle would provide much more food if used to grow crops. I know I'll get some flak for this, but many southern slave owners used the same argument. If all slaves were freed, the southern economy would take a nosedive. I'm not saying enslaving humans is the same thing, I'm just saying that I don't think you can necessarily use the livelihood of farmers as an excuse to do something morally objectionable. Y'know, does the end really justify the means?
@LaszloKovacs: Well, if you think there is a moral argument for eating meat, then say it. Or, at least, explain why the two opinions are on the same moral ground. If you think that morality doesn't come into play in the issue, then, as he said, he's not directing his argument at you. Unfortunately, instead of rationally arguing their side, many have simply stated that they will eat all the more meat. I'm glad that's not the case for you :)
Here's the thing. If you're going to be changing your mind about eating meat because of the OP's post, then yes, you probably are "compassionate/sympathetic and actually think about the consequences and morality of [your] actions." Because if you decide that eating meat is wrong because it is killing animals, then you are being inherently compassionate/sympathetic. This doesn't mean at all, however, that you can ONLY be compassionate if you are a vegetarian. Of course not.
@SpiritOf: The things is, people who do eat meat don't usually do it for moral reasons, so they aren't going to mind if people choose not to partake of it. I mean, it's no threat to them if a small percentage of the population think it's wrong. People who don't eat meat, on the other hand, don't because they find it morally objectionable (this is, of course, not always the case). While I'm not going to try to compare animal rights movements to human rights movements in content, I don't think it's crazy to compare them in method. In order for people to take a movement seriously, someone has to bring it to their attention. Again, he's not banging on your door, he's just putting the idea and his arguments out there, so you can come to your own conclusion in the privacy of your home at your computer.
@ninjakiller: I'm sorry, but when did he actually say that? Maybe I missed it. It's just that I don't know how anyone can hold an opinion about anything (not including things like music or movies) without feeling that that opinion is morally superior. I don't recall him explicitly stating that, however.
Log in to comment