Yeah, sorry. English as a second language and being tiered doesn't mix well.
You didn't cite your source.
I will try to find a better source, I just don't have the time right now. Give me a day.
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.
Regulation would be a far better solution, yes. Still, you can regulate and eat less meat.
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.
I believe the technical term for it is "a poor understanding of survival of the fittest."
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.
I am built on the genetic level to consume both animals and plants. I am a predator. I was made such by the ebb and flow of four billion years of the most powerful force in biology. I am genetically predestined to kill, and to eat, and to enjoy and be sated and nourished by what feeds me. And who am I to question time and my nature?
It's that easy. There are moral dilemmas, and I have many qualms about agriculture, but meat eating is not an issue. You want to talk about fucked up? Let's talk about how runoff from crop fields causes fish dieoffs so thick it makes clear rivers look like tarmac. Let's talk about how the organic industry manipulates regulations and then uses feedlot practices to harvest organic milk. Citation for that one is The Omnivore's Dilemma.
Regulation would be a far better solution, yes. Still, you can regulate and eat less meat.
But if the increased regulation solves the problem more optimally than eating less meat does, Then what, if you will ever so pardon my usual bluntness, is your fucking point?
It solves what you are supposedly trying to solve, better than the way you're proposing, yet you propose we do it your way either concurrently or instead of the optimal solution.
So, What's your real motivation? What's the real point here? Why are you pushing for a solution which is sub-optimal for your proclaimed goals, if they are actually your goals?
I understand that there are a lot of bad things going on in the world and a lot of bad things going on in agriculture, some of which may be far worse than what is happening to the animals in meat factories, but I still believe that it is better to eat less animal products than more, to eat as many as necessary. I don't see how this has very much to do with any of your arguments.
So, What's your real motivation? What's the real point here? Why are you pushing for a solution which is sub-optimal for your proclaimed goals, if they are actually your goals?
I personally can do very little to change regulation. I am already politically active in my country and am trying my best to change a few things I believe in strongly. My fucking point is that one should just eat fucking less meat. Starting to eat less meat now is a good start before any proper regulation is in place and eating less meat while meat factories are well regulated also reduces the amount of animal suffering, even if only by a tiny bit. I would probably eat meat if all the farms were regulated properly.
I personally can do very little to change regulation. I am already politically active in my country and am trying my best to change a few things I believe in strongly. My fucking point is that one should just eat fucking less meat. Starting to eat less meat now is a good start before any proper regulation is in place and eating less meat while meat factories are well regulated also reduces the amount of animal suffering, even if only by a tiny bit. I would probably eat meat if all the farms were regulated properly.
Well, then Don't get people to eat less meat - It will always be much, much harder to get people to give up something than it is to get them to support a cause that doesn't cost them any effort or enjoyment. You personally cannot enact change on the regulatory or legislative level - but you can gather a group with enough mass and momentum behind it to get things done - Sure, PETA hasn't done much but for annoy people and be assholes, but that's because we all know they're crazy, hypocritical wankers.
If you come to people with a reasonable argument, that doesn't involve them spending a super large amount of effort right off the bat, and doesn't involve them giving anything up, then you are way more likely to achieve anything - not just from your own efforts, but from the ripple effect - they are more likely to get their friends and families to support a worthy cause such as increased regulation, compared to trying to get their friends and family to give up meat. You need to play a long game if you want to actually do anything about more than your own diet, which is, let's be honest, little more than depriving yourself of one small thing so that you feel better, rather than causing change.
Also, You need to work on your swearing. It seems a little forced and overwrought. Just let it flow, it'll come to you.
Wow pretty crazy thread here! I guess I am on the side of the meat eaters.
Our evolution dictates what diet works for us. Our population dictates that we farm on an industrial scale.
As far as cruelty goes, I'm pretty meh about that. Humans slaughter and mutilate each other with far more cruelty and vigor than the industrial way we slaughter animals for food and by products.
If you really want to take the cruelty of murdering farm animals you could do what I saw on an episode of Horizon (Called How to Kill a Human Being) where they cover death by hypoxia and interview a gentleman who is trying to market a device that blasts a cow with enough nitrogen where they die from the lack of oxygen with in 6 seconds. They also simulate altitude induced hypoxia in the host of the program and it looks to be a pretty fan-fucking-tastic way to die. Try to get this to be standard and then you could work on their living conditions.
As far as cruelty goes, I'm pretty meh about that. Humans slaughter and mutilate each other with far more cruelty and vigor than the industrial way we slaughter animals for food and by products.
So? Are we eating those humans we slaughter and mutilate? This has nothing to do with the subject.
Also I live in a town with a large pig slaughterhouse, I've done work there but never on the kill floor. I've seen the tool of the trade and while the bolt gun is deadly, it's as humanely deadly as possible. While the pigs are alive while they are being bled out, they are brain dead.
So? Are we eating those humans we slaughter and mutilate? This has nothing to do with the subject.
Why not? I have no objections to it. Many ancient cultures had rituals to consume their enemies in order to completely destroy them. If I recall correctly there are still some south east asian island cultures still have the remains of such behaviors.
Whats more terrifying then murdering your enemies and then eating his still beating heart?
So? Are we eating those humans we slaughter and mutilate? This has nothing to do with the subject.
Why not? I have no objections to it. Many ancient cultures had rituals to consume their enemies in order to completely destroy them. If I recall correctly there are still some south east asian island cultures still have the remains of such behaviors.
Whats more terrifying then murdering your enemies and then eating his still beating heart?
So, you are seriously advocating the consumption of human flesh?
So, you are seriously advocating the consumption of human flesh?
Other than any ethical dilemmas I have about murdering a fellow sentient being I have no problem with the consumption of flesh, human or otherwise. Many people here have couched it in terms of "If it was the difference between living and dying i'd eat another human". Under certain conditions everyone here is able to, and maybe willingly, to do most anything. After enough torture or even just being put into the right situation many of us would be willing to abandon our humanity to survive. If this is the case why should have I have an issue with someone who eats another human? So long as it is not me, I'm okay.
There is something in the back of my head that tells me that this is not a socially acceptable position to have; I should be vehemently against cannibalism. However when I look at all the animals in the world that cannibalize their children and fellow members and apply that to us the socially acceptable position becomes quite trite.
Don't get me wrong there are other reason not to just go out and find out what a man-burger tastes like. Disease is a great one.
On cannibalism, meat is meat. Killing someone is definitely out of the question (unless it's euthanasia, but that's another thread), but a corpse is just a corpse. I think it's kinda stupid to use a corpse as food when it could be used for scientific purposes which are far more beneficial. Though, that doesn't mean it is wrong to eat a corpse, just not optimal. The main reason I would personally refrain from eating a corpse, even though I don't think it's morally wrong, is because there is a relatively high risk of getting some nasty disease. Also, I don't imagine that human tastes very good. It would have to be cooked very thoroughly for safety's sake, and that would make it taste less good. I might just throw up due to psychological factors if I knew that I was eating human. That's the reasons I would only eat human flesh if it was a do or die survival necessity.
I noticed many of you don't eat veal. I'm sorry, but veal is tastes too good for me to not eat it if I can. I was really put out when Olive Garden took Veal Parmesan off their menu.
I love meat because it fucking tastes great, it does offer some great, nutritional value, and it comes in so many lovely varieties of awesomeness. (Beef, Lamb, Chicken, Pork, Fish, etc)
I will say this, if technology comes to a point where they can replace meat with an actual substitute that looks attractive, tastes just like meat, and has the same amount or even more vitamins/minerals, then I'll be all for that. We just haven't hit that level yet, and I can't stand our current protein substitutes such as mushrooms or soy.
And I would also debate you can't necessarily take out the process of eating and tasting food out of the equation either. We eat food because it makes us feel good, not just for nourishment, that why so much junk food exists. It just relies on what foods really make us salivate, just nowadays, we have so much selection and possibilities of what to eat and how to handle it, it's become it's own culture now.
Olive Garden is in the same class as TGI Fridays, Ruby Tuesday, and all of those other freezer-to-fryer chains. Mediocre food at average prices. I generally avoid them.
Comments
It's that easy. There are moral dilemmas, and I have many qualms about agriculture, but meat eating is not an issue. You want to talk about fucked up? Let's talk about how runoff from crop fields causes fish dieoffs so thick it makes clear rivers look like tarmac. Let's talk about how the organic industry manipulates regulations and then uses feedlot practices to harvest organic milk. Citation for that one is The Omnivore's Dilemma.
It solves what you are supposedly trying to solve, better than the way you're proposing, yet you propose we do it your way either concurrently or instead of the optimal solution.
So, What's your real motivation? What's the real point here? Why are you pushing for a solution which is sub-optimal for your proclaimed goals, if they are actually your goals?
You personally cannot enact change on the regulatory or legislative level - but you can gather a group with enough mass and momentum behind it to get things done - Sure, PETA hasn't done much but for annoy people and be assholes, but that's because we all know they're crazy, hypocritical wankers.
If you come to people with a reasonable argument, that doesn't involve them spending a super large amount of effort right off the bat, and doesn't involve them giving anything up, then you are way more likely to achieve anything - not just from your own efforts, but from the ripple effect - they are more likely to get their friends and families to support a worthy cause such as increased regulation, compared to trying to get their friends and family to give up meat. You need to play a long game if you want to actually do anything about more than your own diet, which is, let's be honest, little more than depriving yourself of one small thing so that you feel better, rather than causing change.
Also, You need to work on your swearing. It seems a little forced and overwrought. Just let it flow, it'll come to you.
Our evolution dictates what diet works for us.
Our population dictates that we farm on an industrial scale.
As far as cruelty goes, I'm pretty meh about that. Humans slaughter and mutilate each other with far more cruelty and vigor than the industrial way we slaughter animals for food and by products.
If you really want to take the cruelty of murdering farm animals you could do what I saw on an episode of Horizon (Called How to Kill a Human Being) where they cover death by hypoxia and interview a gentleman who is trying to market a device that blasts a cow with enough nitrogen where they die from the lack of oxygen with in 6 seconds. They also simulate altitude induced hypoxia in the host of the program and it looks to be a pretty fan-fucking-tastic way to die. Try to get this to be standard and then you could work on their living conditions.
Also I live in a town with a large pig slaughterhouse, I've done work there but never on the kill floor. I've seen the tool of the trade and while the bolt gun is deadly, it's as humanely deadly as possible. While the pigs are alive while they are being bled out, they are brain dead.
Whats more terrifying then murdering your enemies and then eating his still beating heart?
There is something in the back of my head that tells me that this is not a socially acceptable position to have; I should be vehemently against cannibalism. However when I look at all the animals in the world that cannibalize their children and fellow members and apply that to us the socially acceptable position becomes quite trite.
Don't get me wrong there are other reason not to just go out and find out what a man-burger tastes like. Disease is a great one.
Also, add another vote to meat on tap.
What's really weird is that the Capital Grille, which is amazing, is owned by the same company that owns Olive Garden. Good with the bad.
I will say this, if technology comes to a point where they can replace meat with an actual substitute that looks attractive, tastes just like meat, and has the same amount or even more vitamins/minerals, then I'll be all for that. We just haven't hit that level yet, and I can't stand our current protein substitutes such as mushrooms or soy.
And I would also debate you can't necessarily take out the process of eating and tasting food out of the equation either. We eat food because it makes us feel good, not just for nourishment, that why so much junk food exists. It just relies on what foods really make us salivate, just nowadays, we have so much selection and possibilities of what to eat and how to handle it, it's become it's own culture now.