I think veal is delicious, especially parmigiana. I eat it extremely rarely, though. I can't even remember the last time. I never actually had fois gras, and I'm not opposed to trying it. However, the price keeps me very very far away from that. I mean, I can get a filet mignon at a fancy steakhouse, and it doesn't get much better than that. Why pay more for fois gras? How much better can it be?
I mean, I can get a filet mignon at a fancy steakhouse, and it doesn't get much better than that.
There are very many things superior to a fantastic filet mignon. Roquefort cheese, jamon iberico, toro sashimi, a host of fine wines, various lobster preparations, a good deal of truffle preparations, foie gras, and more.
Why pay more for fois gras? How much better can it be?
Imagine we found a way to condense transcendent ecstasy into a food using grain and geese. That is foie gras.
I eat meat because it is tasty, and I don't think the moral concerns outweigh my enjoyment. I consider the cruelty problems to be bad, but nothing to completely avoid eating meat over. The only big issue for me for affecting my food intake is that most fish, particularly tuna and salmon, are poorly fished and our consumption is directly leading to the collapse of fish stocks. Also I'm not a fan of fish as food. Beyond that I'd be rehashing points others have made.
Cows don't have souls under Catholic doctrine; it'd be fine with them. Vats imply scaffold-based tissue growth, so you wouldn't even be growing a complete living being. They'd be even more down with that.
I think it is a pretty safe bet the whole "playing god" thing would come up. People would be grossed out/afraid of the new technology and try to find any excuse for it not to be adopted. They will probably try to bring religion into it as having the perceived moral high ground always helps when duping others into your way of thinking. Whether their argument is or is not supported by science or whatever religion/doctrine they prescribe to doesn't matter. I just hope vat meat comes soon so the loonies will lay off genetically modified crops. Give them a new target.
@Joe Boomer I prefer the Potato Cod, AKA Giant Grouper. If I'm going to eat a motherfucker, I want it to be a CHALLENGE.
What, I didn't say I wanted to eat them.
The groupers I saw, they swim right up to you and you can pet them. They're like little puppies in the ocean waiting to be scratched and rubbed. They are tasty though.
Cows don't have souls under Catholic doctrine; it'd be fine with them. Vats imply scaffold-based tissue growth, so you wouldn't even be growing a complete living being. They'd be even more down with that.
I think it is a pretty safe bet the whole "playing god" thing would come up. People would be grossed out/afraid of the new technology and try to find any excuse for it not to be adopted. They will probably try to bring religion into it as having the perceived moral high ground always helps when duping others into your way of thinking. Whether their argument is or is not supported by science or whatever religion/doctrine they prescribe to doesn't matter. I just hope vat meat comes soon so the loonies will lay off genetically modified crops. Give them a new target.
Maybe, but not by catholics. I know a shitton of batshit catholic hardliners, and none of them have issues with cloned sheep or GMO crops or pets.
Roquefort cheese, jamon iberico, toro sashimi, a host of fine wines, various lobster preparations, a good deal of truffle preparations, foie gras, and more.
Not a fan of roquefort cheese, wine, or lobster. I don't know what jamon iberico is, but I can Google it. I do want to try the toro sashimi, and I'm sure it's awesome, but I doubt it is as good as a great filet mignon. Also, I gotta get me some truffles.
You're no gourmand, Scott. Toro is at least as good as a good filet. You'll probably like truffles. Get some white truffle cream and spread it on Urban Square crackers.
I've heard Balut is actually pretty tasty. Don't know what Balut is? Remember in Fable where you could buy young chickens to eat? Yeah that, except it's an egg with a partially developed fetus in it.
You're no gourmand, Scott. Toro is at least as good as a good filet.
I know it's good, but I just can't imagine it being THAT good. I've been on the lookout for it for awhile, just haven't happened into a restaurant that had it.
I've heard Balut is actually pretty tasty. Don't know what Balut is? Remember in Fable where you could buy young chickens to eat? Yeah that, except it's an egg with a partially developed fetus in it.
I've heard Balut is actually pretty tasty. Don't know what Balut is? Remember in Fable where you could buy young chickens to eat? Yeah that, except it's an egg with a partially developed fetus in it.
I eat meat because it gives valuable nutrition that is hard to come bye otherwise, because it is delicious, and because there is no real reason not to eat meat considering that humans are omnivores and carnivore behavior is common and normal in nature. I do agree that the suffering of animals should be minimized. For such reasons I'm also against animal cruelty, or hunting with lethal force for sport. However, if you think that the best way to minimize animal cruelty is to just stop eating animals you need to do a cost-benefit analysis, and it will become readily apparent that it is virtually impossible to keep humanity fed, and people properly fed (i.e. not causing malnutrition), without the use of animals.
Vegetarianism, and veganism, is entirely a philosophical and ideological debate as the only proper argument they can hold up is "we think it's not right to use animals for nutrition". That is fine and dandy for them. They can believe whatever they want. But if they want to change the mind of other people, they need to have something more persuasive than their personal opinion of it.
Moral concerns about not eating meat are a moot point when factoring in animal products used constantly in daily life. Gel caplets, insulin, pig heart valves, adhesives, pet food, and the list goes on and on. It's nearly impossible to go through day to day life without relying on some product that has some sort of animal byproduct incorporated into it.
That's not to say we should ignore moral concerns, but that we should be better at making use of animals without having to resort to crude and cruel methods to raise and kill them.
Personally I have no reservations about eating meat, as everyone has pointed out, it tastes good; and the inedible portions of the animals do get used. A handful of people choosing not to eat meat isn't going to affect the established industry based around meat production. If someone wants to change it, the best way would be to get into the industry and proactively change things from the inside.
We could always take David Hume's approach to justice, which is to say that things that are just only if they benefit society as a whole. Because cost-effective, nutritious food is a benefit to society, eating animals is just.
The groupers I saw, they swim right up to you and you can pet them. They're like little puppies in the ocean waiting to be scratched and rubbed. They are tasty though.
So are the Giant Groupers. The difference is, they can fit your head in their mouth.
Also - Quite a lot of them - predictably - live in the waters just off Australian shores, and around the barrier reef.
It's amusing how when I go to sleep you guys talk about how delicious meat is.
However, I have no moral problem consuming dairy products or free-range eggs, because those cows and hens were treated incredibly well. There was an Angus beef farm down the road that I was familiar with as well, and again, I have no qualms about eating beef after seeing how well those animals were treated and knowing their slaughtering process.
More than half of my meals are vegetarian or vegan (for health concerns and because free range meats and eggs cost a lot), but I eat meat for taste, convenience, and nutrition.
The only reason I wouldn't buy such meat is because I think not eating meat gets other peoples attention. They then ask me why I don't eat meat and I tell them. At the very least they will think about my reasons for a second. Otherwise I would probably also consume meat just as you do.
However, if you think that the best way to minimize animal cruelty is to just stop eating animals you need to do a cost-benefit analysis, and it will become readily apparent that it is virtually impossible to keep humanity fed, and people properly fed (i.e. not causing malnutrition), without the use of animals.
I don't think this is an issue of keeping humanity fed. In the US far more meat is produced and eaten than you would have to eat not to cause malnutrition.
I'm just going to summarize you have brought up against me:
1) Eating meat is necessary, as we need it for a healthy diet.
2) Not eating meat won't change the meat industry.
3) It tastes good.
Before I try to debate against these, I'd just like to say what I noticed during this argument. I think it's pretty sad that a few of you have tried to push me into a certain group which you think you don't have to take seriously, using words like "cute animals" is totally beside the point.
1) Yes, some animal products are necessary, I never said otherwise. But do you really have to eat meat as often as you do or couldn't you switch to animal products which were produced without the needless suffering? If you seriously can't buy any of those animal products because they are far too expensive or you can't even get them where you live, fine. As I said before, I think trying is what is important.
2) I would think that if enough people would eat less meat, less meat would be produced. Saying only because I don't do it won't change anything is just an excuse. Yes, obviously you not eating meat will change very little, but it is a start.
3) Yes, it does. I can't argue against that.
Most of you haven't really addressed the pain part at all, instead you just fired the stereotypical arguments against vegetarianism (though most of you actually addressed veganism). Eating more meat than is necessary from factory farming is cruel. I don't see how one could argue against that.
It is a necessary evil. Is it too bad that animals suffer so we can eat? Yes. Is it a shame millions of people spend their days slowly starving to death? Yes.
Guess which one I want to end first.
If anything, more meat should be produced in areas that need it. Starving families in Africa often get grain rations and nothing else. They NEED what meat provides. And again, some animals don't even suffer during death. Lobster is delicious and is becoming more plentiful daily (like other crustaceans). Lobsters also lack the ability to feel pain.
It is a necessary evil. Is it too bad that animals suffer so we can eat? Yes. Is it a shame millions of people spend their days slowly starving to death? Yes.
I think this logic is flawed. Not as many animals would have to suffer to insure us a healthy diet. Obviously helping starving people is far more important than not eating meat. But again, it is a very different issue. If producing more meat, even under horrible conditions, would save the lives of those starving I'd be all for it. But it has nothing to do with your meat consumption here. The difference is you can start ending animal suffering on such a large scale buy quite simply eating less meat. You don't have to choose between the two, you can try to end both at the same time.
Not as many animals would have to suffer to insureensure us a healthy diet.
I want statistics. Show me something that proves that our present meat production is in excess of the necessary dietary protein requirements for seven billion human beings. The burden of proof is on you.
The difference is you can start ending animal suffering on such a large scale buy quite simply eating less meat.
We could also start ending animal suffering on a very large scale by introducing stricter controls on Cattle farms and Slaughterhouse conditions - in fact, it would be far more effective, as the producers who didn't conform could be easily punished, and it's not something that requires mass participation, which is tricky at best, but rather, once the regulations are in place, is something the producers have to follow, or risk extremely severe punishment, possibly including the shutting down of their business.
On top of that - This is the more logical solution. It's far easier to convince people to reduce cruelty to animals by having someone else do the work for them - in this case, the law - rather than having them give up something. If you get enough of a group behind it that you can get it made into law, then it's better than trying to guilt people and beating them over the head with animal suffering with a mind toward reducing their meat intake, or giving it up entirely - because then it's not something where you can stop eating meat for a while, and then fall off the wagon again, but it's something where most people don't have to do a damned thing, but if these standards are not met, there are severe punishments - a rather extreme personal incentive to the people who really can prevent quite a bit of animal suffering.
Disclaimer - Some of my family own, operate, and work in slaughterhouses, and I have spent time during my school holidays working there, cash in hand, for a bit of extra scratch for drinking and partying - so I'm particularly familiar with the process.
Most of you haven't really addressed the pain part at all
My view: Last time I looked, no other meat-eating animal on this planet ever cared about any pain being inflicted on the prey. Why the hell should I?
On the other hand, the meat industry could do better about how they contain and choose animals, but I also like having access to that meat at a reasonable price. I have too many other things to do than worry about where all my food comes from, or how it was made.
The number of the August 2008 American magazine editors "planet status" published a report of the World Watch Institute (an association observed global organic evolution) on the consequences that excessive consumption of meat has on the environment. The article begins: "Eat less meat and you will save the planet. Whether you like it or not, that eating meat has become a global problem." Consumption of meat and dairy products has quadrupled in the last four decades and the World Bank believes will increase by 50% by 2020. There are already two times more chickens than people on the planet, over 1 billion pigs, 1.4 billion cattle and 1.8 billion sheep to eat more food than they produce. Considering global population growth, global demand for meat has increased fivefold. Thus, increasingly consuming more meat means, by default, to increase more and more number of livestock: 1.4 billion cattle need expanded space, in addition, eat a lot, so to be fed, in some countries began to cut forests. And these are the lungs of the planet, they absorb carbon dioxide, they grow in wild animals, their ecosystems regulate climate. According to statistics, over the past 30 years, our way of life has done more harm to the planet than they did at the beginning of their existence humans on Earth. More damage in 30 years than in tens of thousands of years! We managed to unbreathable air, water and earth that feeds us bite or sup in the increasingly poisoned. And all this is largely due to our food.
This is what I could find on short notice. When I have a bit more time I'll find a more detailed report.
Ever watch a cat play with a wounded mouse before eating it alive? I love cats, but it my opinion, that's vastly more sadistic than ANY of our meat practices--which, despite their admittedly fucked-up nature, are indeed improving.
My view: Last time I looked, no other meat-eating animal on this planet ever cared about any pain being inflicted on the prey. Why the hell should I?
Because you are human. You should have a higher moral standard than a wolf. If you seriously want to compare yourself to other animals on that level than you should be all for making the human race stronger by actively selecting the strongest and smartest of your group and giving them more rights, among a lot of other things.
The grammar on that was horrible. You didn't cite your source. The source from your uncited source is a "An Association Observed Global Organic Evolution," and I'm not even sure what the fuck that means.
Because you are human. You should have a higher moral standard than a wolf. If you seriously want to compare yourself to other animals on that level than you should be all for making the human race stronger by actively selecting the strongest and smartest of your group and giving them more rights, among a lot of other things.
So, Address the point of increased Regulation being a more optimal solution over browbeating a small group of generally intelligent people(or even the public at large) with poorly manufactured guilt, then.
The grammar on that was horrible. You didn't cite your source. The sourcefromyour uncited source is a "An Association Observed Global Organic Evolution," and I'm not even sure what the fuck that means.
If you seriously want to compare yourself to other animals on that level than you should be all for making the human race stronger by actively selecting the strongest and smartest of your group and giving them more rights, among a lot of other things.
I'm confused. Is this supposed to be negative? I am 100% for giving more rights to the strongest and smartest humans. That is how the entire world of business works. You give smart people the freedom and resources, and they make things that advance society.
EDIT: And then, of course, make a lot of money from doing so.
Comments
Beyond that I'd be rehashing points others have made.
I prefer the Potato Cod, AKA Giant Grouper. If I'm going to eat a motherfucker, I want it to be a CHALLENGE.
The groupers I saw, they swim right up to you and you can pet them. They're like little puppies in the ocean waiting to be scratched and rubbed. They are tasty though.
Vegetarianism, and veganism, is entirely a philosophical and ideological debate as the only proper argument they can hold up is "we think it's not right to use animals for nutrition". That is fine and dandy for them. They can believe whatever they want. But if they want to change the mind of other people, they need to have something more persuasive than their personal opinion of it.
That's not to say we should ignore moral concerns, but that we should be better at making use of animals without having to resort to crude and cruel methods to raise and kill them.
Personally I have no reservations about eating meat, as everyone has pointed out, it tastes good; and the inedible portions of the animals do get used. A handful of people choosing not to eat meat isn't going to affect the established industry based around meat production. If someone wants to change it, the best way would be to get into the industry and proactively change things from the inside.
Also - Quite a lot of them - predictably - live in the waters just off Australian shores, and around the barrier reef.
I'm just going to summarize you have brought up against me:
1) Eating meat is necessary, as we need it for a healthy diet.
2) Not eating meat won't change the meat industry.
3) It tastes good.
Before I try to debate against these, I'd just like to say what I noticed during this argument. I think it's pretty sad that a few of you have tried to push me into a certain group which you think you don't have to take seriously, using words like "cute animals" is totally beside the point.
1) Yes, some animal products are necessary, I never said otherwise. But do you really have to eat meat as often as you do or couldn't you switch to animal products which were produced without the needless suffering? If you seriously can't buy any of those animal products because they are far too expensive or you can't even get them where you live, fine. As I said before, I think trying is what is important.
2) I would think that if enough people would eat less meat, less meat would be produced. Saying only because I don't do it won't change anything is just an excuse. Yes, obviously you not eating meat will change very little, but it is a start.
3) Yes, it does. I can't argue against that.
Most of you haven't really addressed the pain part at all, instead you just fired the stereotypical arguments against vegetarianism (though most of you actually addressed veganism). Eating more meat than is necessary from factory farming is cruel. I don't see how one could argue against that.
Guess which one I want to end first.
If anything, more meat should be produced in areas that need it. Starving families in Africa often get grain rations and nothing else. They NEED what meat provides. And again, some animals don't even suffer during death. Lobster is delicious and is becoming more plentiful daily (like other crustaceans). Lobsters also lack the ability to feel pain.
On top of that - This is the more logical solution. It's far easier to convince people to reduce cruelty to animals by having someone else do the work for them - in this case, the law - rather than having them give up something. If you get enough of a group behind it that you can get it made into law, then it's better than trying to guilt people and beating them over the head with animal suffering with a mind toward reducing their meat intake, or giving it up entirely - because then it's not something where you can stop eating meat for a while, and then fall off the wagon again, but it's something where most people don't have to do a damned thing, but if these standards are not met, there are severe punishments - a rather extreme personal incentive to the people who really can prevent quite a bit of animal suffering.
Disclaimer - Some of my family own, operate, and work in slaughterhouses, and I have spent time during my school holidays working there, cash in hand, for a bit of extra scratch for drinking and partying - so I'm particularly familiar with the process.
On the other hand, the meat industry could do better about how they contain and choose animals, but I also like having access to that meat at a reasonable price. I have too many other things to do than worry about where all my food comes from, or how it was made.
Christ, I've read better High School science projects.
EDIT: And then, of course, make a lot of money from doing so.