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

there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#121
Report 7 years ago
#121
(Original post by CurlyBen)
So why are so many of the farms in this country, in almost all areas other than the south/mid east either livestock only or mixed? If they could be used for arable they would be - a lot of them aren't profitable for livestock in any case. The fact is they're just not suitable.
If you want to continue arguing your position perhaps you'd care to share a source which supports it.
You've only put posts up relating to the UK economy, your sources haven't actually shown ANYTHING.

Things aren't as simple as you're making out.

Firstly farming organic will mean that a much greater price and be fetched.
The same is true of 'free range'.
The application of these weak regulations however is generally a load of bull****.

Factory farming is dependent on a few things. If you can't efficiently pack enough animals up into a tight space, then no, you won't make that much money. And plenty of land may have more profitable uses.
It does not follow from anything I've said that all land will be most efficiently used from a profit point of view by farming meat.
Nor does it follow from what you've said that all land will not be most profitable by farming meat.

My whole point is there is a lot of land world wide, that is used to grow animal feed, that is then imported into this country, and others.

You're restricting things to the UK when I am not, and mis-representing my posts as if I am just talking about the UK. But due to imports and exports things can't be reduced in that fashion.
0
reply
hypocriticaljap
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#122
Report 7 years ago
#122
(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/
You are a 14 year old girl right?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#123
Report 7 years ago
#123
(Original post by Lewroll)
It can't all be down to social constructions. The fact that nearly every human society on Earth eats meat suggests something biological. If you went to a tribe somewhere in south america or africa which hadn't been touched by western society, they will most likely be eating meat as well. You cannot deny a biological element to meat eating.
Of course there could be other factors that aren't biological, no tribe is without outside influence. And correlation does not mean causation.

Read what Foucault says about power/knowledge regimes. What his arguments were. They're presented in a much more detailed and clear manner. Even if you don't agree with them, they will challenge the idea that eating meat contains elements of biological essentialism.
0
reply
Architecture-er
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#124
Report 7 years ago
#124
That video shows factory farming and insane cruelty to animals, which is abhorrent.

I oppose it, but not by boycotting meat, I just want the technology to artificially grow meat - so it's just as tasty, can be produced more efficiently, and doesn't have nerve endings
0
reply
Grund
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#125
Report 7 years ago
#125
(Original post by there's too much love)
:facepalm2:

So, let me get this straight, if humans rape other humans all the time, and no-one stops them, that means I get to do it as well?

If something is natural that makes it good? (see the naturalist fallacy)

And we're the same as other animals, yet obviously different as we're a different species to dogs, which are different in turn to us and pigs etc. But we're not the same because we're more rational and intelligent. Apart from it's just we're generally that and not all of us are.

I'm very confused!:rolleyes:
What I said was sepcifically with the OP in mind. Some species kill other species far more brutally than we do, but no one tries to stop them doing it, so why should we be encouraged not to. We've always ate meat because it's naturally what we do. If you stuck a group of people on an island, then they'd more than likely eat kill and eat surrounding wildlife. Not eating meat can be unhealthy unless you take the man made pills which are designed as a substitute.

Rape would be a completely different matter because that's acting towards your own species. It's just my opinion, I can understand why people would be vegetarians; alot of my friends are vegeterians and vegans and I respect their view.
0
reply
Grund
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#126
Report 7 years ago
#126
(Original post by hypocriticaljap)
You are a 14 year old girl right?
How on earth does her age at all come into this..?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#127
Report 7 years ago
#127
(Original post by Grund)
What I said was sepcifically with the OP in mind. Some species kill other species far more brutally than we do, but no one tries to stop them doing it, so why should we be encouraged not to. We've always ate meat because it's naturally what we do. If you stuck a group of people on an island, then they'd more than likely eat kill and eat surrounding wildlife. Not eating meat can be unhealthy unless you take the man made pills which are designed as a substitute.

Rape would be a completely different matter because that's acting towards your own species. It's just my opinion, I can understand why people would be vegetarians; alot of my friends are vegeterians and vegans and I respect their view.
****s sakes.

You've not addressed any of the issues or applied any critical thinking to your posts. I've already done through the idiocitc comments and you've just gone and restated them. GTFO.
0
reply
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#128
Report 7 years ago
#128
(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:
Meat is key to our diet because people want it to be. You can be just as healthy without meat as with meat. Vegetarians actually have a higher life expectancy than those who eat meat (I'm not saying it's proof that it's healthier - there are other factors in play - just it's not unhealthier).

Well meat is more expensive than other sources of protein (unless you get the cheap, unhealthy stuff) so it's not really wasting your money. Nor does it take much time to cook vegetables and other sources of protein.
0
reply
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#129
Report 7 years ago
#129
(Original post by Trigger)
Chimps, monkeys and dolphins all do that too.
Hence why I didn't say "the only". It's not representative of "general" animal behaviour though. My point was just you can't pick and choose bits of animal behaviour to idealise - it's just like the people who pick and choose bits of the bible then call themselves Christian.
0
reply
Grund
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#130
Report 7 years ago
#130
(Original post by there's too much love)
****s sakes.

You've not addressed any of the issues or applied any critical thinking to your posts. I've already done through the idiocitc comments and you've just gone and restated them. GTFO.
I developed my points with your comments in mind. I'm not on some mission to please you, so don't expect my comments to, I just gave my personal opinion. But okay then, I'll directly face each of your statements.

"So, let me get this straight, if humans rape other humans all the time, and no-one stops them, that means I get to do it as well?"
No, because that's within species. I'm talking in terms of between species.

"If something is natural that makes it good? (see the naturalist fallacy)"
I never said all natural things are good, so that's completely irrelevant.

"And we're the same as other animals, yet obviously different as we're a different species to dogs, which are different in turn to us and pigs etc. But we're not the same because we're more rational and intelligent. Apart from it's just we're generally that and not all of us are."
We are a different speices, yes... And yes, we are different on those grounds as well as other grounds, just as every species is different. And as a whole we are a more intelligent species. But this has nothing to do with my comment or view as a whole, I only added that in so people wouldn't be like "but we are different".

Sorry if my views don't correspond with the way you think, but there's no need to be rude about it, everyone is entitled to their own.
0
reply
Cybele
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#131
Report 7 years ago
#131
It's horrible to watch, but it certainly doesn't make me want to go veggie.
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#132
Report 7 years ago
#132
(Original post by there's too much love)
You've only put posts up relating to the UK economy, your sources haven't actually shown ANYTHING.

Things aren't as simple as you're making out.

Firstly farming organic will mean that a much greater price and be fetched.
The same is true of 'free range'.
The application of these weak regulations however is generally a load of bull****.

Factory farming is dependent on a few things. If you can't efficiently pack enough animals up into a tight space, then no, you won't make that much money. And plenty of land may have more profitable uses.
It does not follow from anything I've said that all land will be most efficiently used from a profit point of view by farming meat.
Nor does it follow from what you've said that all land will not be most profitable by farming meat.

My whole point is there is a lot of land world wide, that is used to grow animal feed, that is then imported into this country, and others.

You're restricting things to the UK when I am not, and mis-representing my posts as if I am just talking about the UK. But due to imports and exports things can't be reduced in that fashion.
You know, I was going to write a comprehensive reply, but it's painfully obvious you're pretty ignorant about agriculture so I won't bother. As I've mentioned, a lot of food sold for animal feed is grown for human consumption but, when harvested, the quality is found to be too low to be sold as such. I've loaded 30 tons of organic wheat into a lorry for an animal feed merchant - my boss didn't go to all the bother and cost of growing it organically to sell it for feed prices.
I do quite like the way you've proved my point with these lines though:
"It does not follow from anything I've said that all land will be most efficiently used from a profit point of view by farming meat." - agreed, because arable is generally more profitable (though you did say "animals are generally more profitable than vegetables")
"Nor does it follow from what you've said that all land will not be most profitable by farming meat." - agreed, because livestock farming on land unsuitable for arable is more profitable than not farming it all.

Oh, and I take it you've no view on all the unpleasant things that mechanised crop growing does to animals, or whether it's better they simply don't live at all?
0
reply
Kaykiie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#133
Report 7 years ago
#133
Watching the first 10 minutes of that film was just plain animal abuse. Why would seeing people illogically killing dogs and cats make me not want to eat chicken?

I turned it off, watching people kill dogs is not a favourite pastime of mine.
1
reply
Boom.Squish
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#134
Report 7 years ago
#134
(Original post by there's too much love)
You've missed the points in my post, where I essentially took a dump over the 'points' you made and explained they fell down.

Now you're getting defensive and trying to draw attention away from what we had been discussing.
Um, not really.


"Putting a creature ahead of another creature does not mean harming either creature."
Not always, it does in this case.

"You know eating meat is unnecessary, you are putting human values randomly in front of other animal interests, and then trying to make it look as if animal interests hold all this weight for you."

Yes, so? And it's hardly random. No, I'm not. They clearly don't hold much weight for me at all. Just enough for me to be disgusted by animal abuse, which is hardly unreasonable.

"are causing the unnecessary suffering of animals, then back tracking and saying "I care enough for amount X of suffering to be avoided". "

Well, I just don't see the point in making them suffer more than they have to for me to eat them. And yeah...that's what I'm saying. So?


"You're trying to ease your conscience but have you even looked into the standards of care for the animals you do eat?"

I don't feel guilty, so there's no need for me to ease my conscience. I buy free-range eggs and organic meat. I don't look any further than that.

"ARGS, people like you make me so ****ing angry."

Ah, well. Can't please everyone.

"http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=208

Should help clarify at least one of the points I've made in this post for you."


I don't really need them clarified, but thanks.
1
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#135
Report 7 years ago
#135
(Original post by Grund)
I developed my points with your comments in mind. I'm not on some mission to please you, so don't expect my comments to, I just gave my personal opinion. But okay then, I'll directly face each of your statements.

"So, let me get this straight, if humans rape other humans all the time, and no-one stops them, that means I get to do it as well?"
No, because that's within species. I'm talking in terms of between species.

"If something is natural that makes it good? (see the naturalist fallacy)"
I never said all natural things are good, so that's completely irrelevant.

"And we're the same as other animals, yet obviously different as we're a different species to dogs, which are different in turn to us and pigs etc. But we're not the same because we're more rational and intelligent. Apart from it's just we're generally that and not all of us are."
We are a different speices, yes... And yes, we are different on those grounds as well as other grounds, just as every species is different. And as a whole we are a more intelligent species. But this has nothing to do with my comment or view as a whole, I only added that in so people wouldn't be like "but we are different".

Sorry if my views don't correspond with the way you think, but there's no need to be rude about it, everyone is entitled to their own.
You didn't develop any points.

"No, because that's within species. I'm talking in terms of between species."
Why is the species divide important in either of these instances?



"If something is natural that makes it good? (see the naturalist fallacy)"
I never said all natural things are good, so that's completely irrelevant.

What you were claiming is that because something happens 'naturally' that means we ought to not interfere, as if it makes it necessarily not bad for example. You've just stated because something is natural we ought not to interfere without explaining why.

It's a very similar statement to the one I contrasted it to "that natural things are good".
Being natural =/= containing some form of authority.




Look at what you've posted:

"Some species kill other species far more brutally than we do, but no one tries to stop them doing it, so why should we be encouraged not to. We've always ate meat because it's naturally what we do"

Because some species do it in a brutal way that means we ought to be allowed to do so? So you don't believe in many humans having moral agency? And most animals not having that?

We've always eaten meat =/= we ought to continue eating meat.

It's natural =/= we ought to continue eating meat.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#136
Report 7 years ago
#136
(Original post by Boom.Squish)
Um, not really.


"Putting a creature ahead of another creature does not mean harming either creature."
Not always, it does in this case.

"You know eating meat is unnecessary, you are putting human values randomly in front of other animal interests, and then trying to make it look as if animal interests hold all this weight for you."

Yes, so? And it's hardly random. No, I'm not. They clearly don't hold much weight for me at all.

"are causing the unnecessary suffering of animals, then back tracking and saying "I care enough for amount X of suffering to be avoided". "

Well, I just don't see the point in making them suffer more than they have to for me to eat them. And yeah...that's what I'm saying. So?


"You're trying to ease your conscience but have you even looked into the standards of care for the animals you do eat?"

I don't feel guilty, so there's no need for me to ease my conscience. I buy free-range eggs and organic meat. I don't look any further than that.

"ARGS, people like you make me so ****ing angry."

Ah, well. Can't please everyone.

"http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=208

Should help clarify at least one of the points I've made in this post for you."


I don't really need them clarified, but thanks.
Let me get this straight, you're putting human animal interests ahead of animal interests randomly, because you've decided that when you want to eat them certain standards ought to apply, but only very weak standards. These standards being things you don't research, so you don't even know what they mean. And you're open statement of humans>animals that doesn't entail the behaviour you're advocating (and so that behaviour needs more qualification than that) is simply all you're going to state. Despite the fact that the statement a)makes no sense, as it ignores the argument from marginal cases and b) doesn't show what you claimed it showed (which was humans>animals means we can treat animals like ****).
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#137
Report 7 years ago
#137
(Original post by there's too much love)
So to translate:


I see you trollin'. I hate it.
You're condemned to the power of the ignore list.
Classic example of someone on TSR calling a person a troll because they have lost the argument and are to insecure to admit it. :rolleyes:

We are animals, animals eat other animals, what is the problem with that? :confused:

(Original post by callum9999)
Meat is key to our diet because people want it to be. You can be just as healthy without meat as with meat. Vegetarians actually have a higher life expectancy than those who eat meat (I'm not saying it's proof that it's healthier - there are other factors in play - just it's not unhealthier).

Well meat is more expensive than other sources of protein (unless you get the cheap, unhealthy stuff) so it's not really wasting your money. Nor does it take much time to cook vegetables and other sources of protein.
I beg to differ, and using vegetarian lifespan as an example is a terrible example because the majority of people eat meat, and the majority of people don't look after their health or control their diet.
To get as much protein from meat using vegetables etc means you have to go through a ludicrous amount - just look at the packets next time you go shopping.
0
reply
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#138
Report 7 years ago
#138
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Classic example of someone on TSR calling a person a troll because they have lost the argument and are to insecure to admit it. :rolleyes:

We are animals, animals eat other animals, what is the problem with that? :confused:



I beg to differ, and using vegetarian lifespan as an example is a terrible example because the majority of people eat meat, and the majority of people don't look after their health or control their diet.
To get as much protein from meat using vegetables etc means you have to go through a ludicrous amount - just look at the packets next time you go shopping.
I acknowledged it doesn't mean a huge amount, but the statistics saying vegetarians live longer does suggest it isn't an unhealthy diet. What statistics are there that show the opposite? At least there is some evidence for my claim - and it makes sense.

Hence why very few people get all their protein from vegetables. For a start, the amount of protein people think you need is often wildly wrong - meat eaters have too much protein (I'm not saying too much is bad, just more than you need). And just eating a balanced vegetarian diet gives you all the protein you need. Vegetables are a good source, along with dairy, pulses, grains etc.
0
reply
Kaykiie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#139
Report 7 years ago
#139
(Original post by Grund)
Animals kill other animals brutally all the time, but you aren't going to stop them from killing each other because it's naturally what they do and what's good for them. And we're animals just the same, we're just generally more rational and intelligent.
I'm not vegetarian but this is such an overused argument.

It is natural for animals to kill other animals but when you look at a pig, cow or chicken do you feel the uncontrollable urge to rip it to pieces?

I'm betting a lion would look at you and immediately think "dinner" but when you look at a pig do you think "mmm dinner" ?

I realise this is hypocritical, I eat meat too, but I don't use ^ excuse.
0
reply
GlibByNature
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#140
Report 7 years ago
#140
Not sure if anyone's said this but I stopped as soon as the narrator said "Glaowster".
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! (236)
39.14%
No - but I will (41)
6.8%
No - I don't want to (45)
7.46%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (281)
46.6%

Watched Threads

View All