Non vegetarians does this film not have and impact upon you? Watch

TulipFields
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
Or they would breed less, down size and eventually go out of business? They're not just going to let the animals **** until they are chest deep in chickens.




I have already covered medical testing, both in this thread and elsewhere on TSR.

I never claimed being vegan was easy or that it meant no animals got harmed. It's about doing what you can, as far as possible and practical. There are many places where I am inadvertently involved in harming animals. This is unavoidable unless I become a hermit and only eat what I can grow. Even then, I may accidentally harm animals just by existing. This is something I have to live with. What I can do is minimise the harm to animals as much as I can. What is worse, doing nothing or less than I could because I can't do everything, or doing what is within my power despite not being perfect?

I'd like to know why so many people are keen to point out the small inconsistencies despite doing far less themselves. And why do flesh eaters and other non-vegans become terribly concerned with insects and wildlife once they hear someone doesn't eat flesh or intentionally exploit animals?
Thats what I am talking about. We should strive to minimize suffering, but thats where responsible farming comes into. Yes, we exploit animals to make ourselves comfortable, but as long as their living standards are good, I don't see a point in crying over a burger or a woolen dress.
Again, its not the issue. I recognize that we all harm nature in one way or another- we should work on reducing that. But its best done one step at a time, rather than a knee-jerk reaction of "meat is abomination". Like you said, we can do little even thought we won't achieve much, or we can do nothing, or we can become hermits. For you a small step is not eating meat, for someone else its ensuring that its comes from a free range source. But comparing meat eaters to rapists is neither helpful to the message you are trying to portray nor is true
I also think that more should be done into environmental side of things, so we don't screw our planet entirely, but its a different issue (it is related, yes)
1
reply
taliman
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
If meat eating dinosaurs still roamed the Earth would you let them eat you to avoid catching feelings?
2
reply
TulipFields
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by callum9999)
Well partially. Not because we are more intelligent, but because we are sufficiently more intelligent to understand the full gravity of what we are doing, and what we can do to change it.

If everyone suddenly turned vegetarian then yes it would be a strain, but that's never going to happen. It would be completely feasible to do though - you would have lots more land to grow it on because instead of feeding the animals (highly wasteful as the animal will be using a large amount of the energy for it's own needs) with it, it would go straight to human consumption. I'm not sure this aspect of your argument has really been identified as a problem.

What clothing issue? Silk and wool production is perfectly fine under vegetarian values.

You can't make the connection between vegetarian and animal testing. It makes me uneasy, but I'm not fully against it (well, for medicine). To me, being vegetarian is about taking away unnecessary abuse (i.e. food production) of animals but still living a practical, healthy life.

For the same reason you'll happily trample on grass, but wouldn't do so on pigs? Plants, while living, aren't sentient beings. No-one said anything about being "kind to nature". Neither did I say the land isn't ours to use (yes it could have been kept wild, but then why can other animals use it and we can't?).

It's not impossible, but regardless, vegetarianism doesn't mean you can't "use" other species. It simply means you can't kill them.
Hmm, I was talking more about veganism, which I believe (correct me if I am wrong) considers it immoral to take anything from the animals, even by-products.
Eve if animals are sentient beings- why would that mean that we can't grow them for food? I don't see it as immoral - why should I apply the same rules to a cow as I would to a living person? Of course if I had one (as my great gran did, I would care for it, and make sure it was comfortable), but that wouldn't stop me from eating beef.
0
reply
orca92
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
I've said it before and i'll say it again, the best possible thing for this planet is for the human species to go extinct tomorrow.
1
reply
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
(Original post by TulipFields)
Hmm, I was talking more about veganism, which I believe (correct me if I am wrong) considers it immoral to take anything from the animals, even by-products.
Eve if animals are sentient beings- why would that mean that we can't grow them for food? I don't see it as immoral - why should I apply the same rules to a cow as I would to a living person? Of course if I had one (as my great gran did, I would care for it, and make sure it was comfortable), but that wouldn't stop me from eating beef.
No you are right. But you are in a discussion about vegetarianism, not about being vegan.

No-one said you had to treat it like a human. Find me a vegetarian who advocates rounding up women, putting them in barns, impregnating them yearly and milking them daily?

I can't tell you why you have to - it just comes down to your ethics. I don't think it's a good thing to kill animals who have feelings and are aware of their existence for pleasure, you do. Nothing I say will change that.
0
reply
scotttb
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by Inspired12)
I was a non veg before watching this
nice to know that you didnt use to be a vegetable
0
reply
orca92
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by kopite493)
supply and demand doesn't really count for farms they 'harvest' and sell whatever is there saving some for breeding purposes if they started killing less they'd very soon have over populated farms
Wow your stupid, the London Met sub thread is there to keep you lot off the main site.

If 3 billion people are meat eaters, then the suppliers will produce the meat for 3 billion people.

If 1 billion people then become vegetarian, then that leaves 2 billion people eating meat; therefore the suppliers will produce meat for 2 billion people.

Do you understand how 2 billion is less than 3 billion, and how 3 billion will eat more than 2 billion?

This will mean that by laws of economics demand is less than it used to be; supply cannot stay the same as it isn't as economically viable; a third of those meat producers will close and there will be a lower number of animals being inhumanely murdered for our own gain.

EDIT: Mods i know you're going to give me warning points and i don't care; i'm just spreading the truth and don't care for people who are too deluded to understand.
2
reply
Young Spade
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Inspired12)
The documentary Earthlings.
After watching this it really made me feel as though animals have every right to be here as we do. Just because they cannot talk, are different from us and are not as intelligent as us does not mean we should abuse the power we have over them and take advantage of them by killing them and eating them.

I was a non veg before watching this but it has made me reflects upon my views. I'm debating now whether to be a veggie or not.

http://www.earthlings.com/
This is the way of life, if things weren't like this then you wouldn't be here. I do agree that animal cruelty is wrong and all of that, however you have to rationally think about why we do the things we do. We eat mea for various reasons and "nothing" is going to change that.

However that's cool that you're deciding to change for the benefit of other animals.
0
reply
orca92
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by canimakeit)
If you were on an Island with no meat whatsoever you will find your health would deteriorate over time. Vegetarians can only exist in an advanced civilization as you have access to processed food to suit your biological needs foods which would not exist if you were dumped on a random Island.

There is also a difference between cannibalism and eating other animals, most mammal predator species do not eat their own. There will never be a change people like meat way to much your dreaming.
Yes, because we live on an island and not in an advanced civilization; right?
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
(Original post by callum9999)
We weren't "made to eat meat", we just have structural adaptations to allow us to eat meat should we choose to. Meat may be good for you, but it doesn't therefore follow that not eating meat is bad for you. Vegetables are good for you - does that mean you need to eat every single variety or your diet will be bad?

Again, as I just said, I won't try and convince anyone not to eat meat. But if you are confident it's ethical to do so, why try and make up random excuses for your behaviour? Just eat it.
No no, humans are predators and looking at our digestive system, we were designed to eat meat. Yes we can eat other things and should for a balanced diet, but meat is something that is key to our diet, hence the lack of appendix.

(Original post by Smitherers)
Bit of creationism seeping in there?

I eat tofu, lentils, beans and nuts to get my protein. They're very good for me too.

The simple fact is, you don't need meat to survive. Nor cheese/milk/eggs, but thats for another day...
Meat is the highest source of protein going. Why waste your time and money on other things when you can just eat meat? :rolleyes:
1
reply
canimakeit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
(Original post by orca92)
Yes, because we live on an island and not in an advanced civilization; right?
If you saw who I was quoting you would see that he said what would happen if you was on an Island and I responded to that.

Anyway it just won't work, if the masses suddenly all became vegans or vegetarians (which won't happen) where do you think all the food is going to come from the land. More land will be required for farms, greater destruction of natural habitats will be needed in order to make room for those farms destroying environments of other animals in the end increasing the number of animals going extinct due to lack of space and resources.

All these vegans should just let themselves waste away if they truly worry about the effect of their diet on other animals because either way they are contributing to their death.

Humans have always ate meat the only difference is that we did not eat meat in the same quantity as we do now but it has always been part of our diet. Yes plants etc made a substantial amount of our diet but it was always supplemented with meat.
0
reply
speedbird
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
Have what?
0
reply
Trigger
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
(Original post by callum9999)
Being at the top of the food chain is one of the worst reasons I've heard for eating meat. It in no way means "it's our place" to eat any animal we want on the planet just because we can... Humans are also one of the only species who systematically attack and kill each other. Does that mean war is good?

You eat meat because it tastes nice - not because you feel you should because of your place in the food chain. I'm not going to try and convince anyone to stop eating meat (mainly because it's futile), but don't make up excuses for why you do it.
Chimps, monkeys and dolphins all do that too.
0
reply
rlw31
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
No.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
There are lots of cases of people saying "eating meat is biological" etc.

This is probably the biggest issue I have with this thread [at least from the first two pages]. That statement means nothing.

One could claim any of the following are 'biological':

Breathing.
Raping.
Rapping.
Walking.
Using a wheel chair.
Sleeping on a bed.
Sleeping on a TV.
Sleeping on the dirt.

What I'm guessing these people want to say is "because of biological essentialism we must eat meat".

However this statement holds little weight. Moves towards biological essentialism tend to be moves towards attempts to make something look grounded in science, this is commonly done with gender and sexuality, and it commonly fails when looked at in any depth.

If you put me in a room with raw or cooked, dead or alive animals it does not follow that I will have an instinctual urge to eat them. Whether human, pig, whatever.
If you stop feeding me animal products it does not follow that I will have health problems as a result.


There is no evidence to support claims that we need to eat meat, or must eat meat, or even through instincts that we have urges to eat meat.

Now one might say "but my mouth waters at the smell" "When I see a burger on a plate I just want to devour it" "I miss meat if I don't eat it".

All of these things can be explained through positive re-enforcements, habits, what we're used to.


(Original post by Marshyy)
Don't be a ****ing idiot, ones illegal and ones not only legal, but part of us biologically too.

(Original post by Lewroll)
It is not just a social norm. It is biological. If a human grows up alone on an island with other animals on it, he will probably eat them.
An ability to do anything, whether it be eating, sleeping, breathing, doing math etc. can be said to be "biological".
To say that something is unavoidable or involves urges based in instinct and can be seen in our behaviour can be seen on an empirical level.
However, such statements lose all their grounding when one finds that their urges can come from what they're used to within a society, that you don't need to eat meat, and that one can be around such materials without the urge to eat those things.

With a different explanation of the same behaviour, and with there being clear examples contrary to what would be the case if biological essentiallism was true in this case, such claims are neutralised. Now if either of you, or anyone else, wishes to make more specific claims that the vague, and to be quite honest with you senseless claims of "it's biological" I'm willing to listen. But claims like that come off as an appeal to scientific authority, claims that cannot generally be met.
0
reply
Iorek
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
If animals were not meant to be eaten, they won't be made of meat
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
(Original post by TulipFields)
Hmm, I was talking more about veganism, which I believe (correct me if I am wrong) considers it immoral to take anything from the animals, even by-products.
Eve if animals are sentient beings- why would that mean that we can't grow them for food? I don't see it as immoral - why should I apply the same rules to a cow as I would to a living person? Of course if I had one (as my great gran did, I would care for it, and make sure it was comfortable), but that wouldn't stop me from eating beef.
This is interesting...
...the person comment that is.
You imply firstly that there is a sharp division between 'person' and 'non-person'. The only sharp divide there actually is is a species one, so if we're talking about it like that you just mean human. If you mean the other meaning then it's a case of sentience it would seem, but we can't measure it in simple terms, there is no sharp division between human animals and non-human animals.

You also implied that cows aren't living...I'll let that slide, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that.

However, you should look at the argument from marginal cases.
You should also check out speciesism.
You seem to just take for granted a species divide or ignore the argument from marginal cases, but whichever way your statement is taken, at least one of those are applicable and neutralise what you've put.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
No no, humans are predators and looking at our digestive system, we were designed to eat meat. Yes we can eat other things and should for a balanced diet, but meat is something that is key to our diet, hence the lack of appendix.



Meat is the highest source of protein going. Why waste your time and money on other things when you can just eat meat? :rolleyes:
Are you a creationist by any chance?
Or have you not been taught about the theory of evolution yet?

Where is the evidence that meat is key to our diet, and the lack of an appendix (although, that's debatable, are we talking about the organ or function etc.) is not evidence in itself to say that meat is necessarily key to our diet.

Taking money or relative % of protein as what ought to quantify what the best sources of nutrients for our bodies is stupid, mainly because things are NEVER that simple, and social constructs get in the way.

You can get plenty of protein without animal products, which begs the question why does it matter if a more intense source of protein is available? In short it doesn't.





Are you trolling?
0
reply
SchadenfreudeDude
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
I'd gladly stop raping children if they'd just stop making me feel so damn good.
Thanks for sharing that.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
(Original post by canimakeit)
If you saw who I was quoting you would see that he said what would happen if you was on an Island and I responded to that.

Anyway it just won't work, if the masses suddenly all became vegans or vegetarians (which won't happen) where do you think all the food is going to come from the land. More land will be required for farms, greater destruction of natural habitats will be needed in order to make room for those farms destroying environments of other animals in the end increasing the number of animals going extinct due to lack of space and resources.

All these vegans should just let themselves waste away if they truly worry about the effect of their diet on other animals because either way they are contributing to their death.

Humans have always ate meat the only difference is that we did not eat meat in the same quantity as we do now but it has always been part of our diet. Yes plants etc made a substantial amount of our diet but it was always supplemented with meat.
Currently only a very limited amount of land that can't be used to farm plant life is used to farm animals.
But a hell of a lot of farm land that can be used to grow vegetables and the like is used to farm animals.
Land is used inefficiently to grow animal feed instead of food straight off to feed the humans the farms we made for. We could decrease things like deforestation by being vegan. Moreover the argument that there would be a sudden surge of people converting to veganism all at once is groundless. It's much more likely that if the majority of people turned vegan it would be over a longer period of time than a decade.
Which is no reason to not be vegan.

Just because we always have consumed meat does not mean that we ought to consume meat; see the naturalism fallacy/ is ought gap.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (264)
39.11%
No - but I will (46)
6.81%
No - I don't want to (50)
7.41%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (315)
46.67%

Watched Threads

View All