Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I don't know how anyone can eat meat :-( watch

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by 0range;[url="tel:67251742")
    67251742[/url]]Honestly if you've read any of my posts in this thread you'll see that I've not had a dig at anyone. Just don't believe that's the way to go. Instead you'll see a lot of people who eat meat take the piss out of the OP. It's funny when people talk about militant vegans being horrible and trying to convert them but I see a lot more of people who eat meat criticising the vegan lifestyle, and just taking the piss.

    I'm getting a bit off track though, I was simply replying to someone who was outraged by the idea that the meat industry is comparable to slavery. If you cannot come to this conclusion by simply comparing the two, then why not listen to Peter Singer? He's arguably the world greatest living moral philosopher. He completely agrees with the idea that the meat industry is comparable to slavery.
    There is ridicule on both sides, it is a highly contentious issue.

    As long as people don't tell me after 0.3 seconds of meeting them that they are vegan/vegetarian then that's fine.

    We didn't breed humans with the sole intention of enslaving them (some will claim it did happen but it is not comparable to the meat industry in that sense).

    Again, it boils down to your view of anthropocentrism.

    (Original post by dairychocolate;[url="tel:67251954")
    67251954[/url]]Hypothetical question: if it became viable to quit meat consumption while still easily meeting even the most demanding nutritional requirements (ie. due to fungal proteins and decent meat substitutes with the appropriate amounts of macro and micronutrients), would you keep eating meat? At that point, producing a bunch of sentient creatures for the sole purpose of slaughtering them wouldn't be necessary for anything more than enjoyment.

    Yeah, it seems that any such discussion brings up passive-aggressive contributions from some edgy meat eaters. I struggle to find like-minded, level-headed meat eaters who are willing to look at the situation without bias.

    If the substitute food was also nice to eat then yes.

    If not, then i'd probably eat less meat.
    I'm envisaging a Whey protein shakes type scenario but scaled up to 'real food'. Vegans wouldn't like that though.

    I love milk, like 2 pints+ a day. Frequently more but as an average or even minimum, i'd say 2 pints.
    Just love the taste of whole milk. So i'd never be vegan as i really like the taste of milk so replacing a substiture for me would be almost impossible.


    As much as you pose and interesting question to me, i don't really like to deal in hypotheticals/fantasyland.

    I'd rather we use science to fight disease and look for cures etc.

    Creating a proper meat substitute is miles away.


    Nobody can look at situation without bias, particularly if one is in one camp or another.
    I am biased but i try to be as neutral as possible
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beccac94)
    I'm sorry but you cant say that fish don't suffer. Most fish are gutted alive or suffocate to death. Fishing also has massive environmental impacts whether through farming, netting etc. But as I said in a previous post no industry perfect and improvements could be made everywhere. For example the rainforest is being cut down to grow oil for Galaxy chocolate.
    Also research into whether vegetarians live longer is currently uncertain and shows more research is definitely needed.



    Okay, so slitting the throat of animals is the most effective way of killing sheep, this cannot be denied as I said in my other post the blood vessels in sheep means its rendered dead almost instantly. This is not the most effective way of killing cattle and cattle killed in this way have a slow and painful death and their vessels run differently to a sheep. Stunning is used because the animal is rendered unconcious instantly so the animal cannot feel any pain what so ever and doesn't know what is happening, you question why its legal. Its legal because its the least cruel method of killing the animal as they cannot feel anything. I refuse to buy non-stunned meat because of this.
    Yes but what I mean is that they aren't intelligable creatures, they can't feel pain so if you compare a fish to a pig- which one is most likely to suffer? Obviously a pig- which are highly intelligable animals. Don't you think the ways on-land animals are raised and then killed, are much more extreme. Wow, you're comparing a fish- which cannot recognise pain- against animals like pigs which are highly intelligable creatures and are more likely to sense that they are going to die..well done you!

    If you checked the Rainforest Alliance website then you would notice that they have ethical values...so which is better:
    MacDonalds who say they care about the environment but are continuing to cut down the rainforest to make way for cattle farming or..
    Rainforest Alliance who not only help their farmers to understand about climate change but also:
    -support farmers and communities (alot better than MacDonalds minimum wage)
    -protect land and waterways
    -improve incomes

    Now here are the benefits of becoming a vegetarian- this relates to health:
    -Low Blood Pressure
    -Lower Risk of Death -"a 2013 study of more than 70,000 people found that vegetarians had a 12% lower risk of death compared with non-vegetarians".
    -Better Moods
    -Less chance of heart disease - Another 2013 study of 44,000 people reported that vegetarians were 32% less likely to develop ischemic heart disease.
    -Less likely to be overweight -Research shows that vegetarians tend to be leaner than their meat-eating counterparts, and that they also tend to have lower cholesterol and body mass index (BMI). Some data suggests that a vegetarian diet can help with weight loss and be better for maintaining a healthy weight over time.
    -Lower risk of diabetes.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 0range)
    Meat*

    Why do you think that? I'm just curious, but wouldn't taking the life of something that didn't want to die go against your morals?
    It's totally fine if it doesn't, which is understandable because everyone has their own moral values
    No. I don't place the same value on an animal's life as I do on a human's life, due to moral agency and personhood. That's the line I draw.

    There's the argument to be made that this is speciesist. But those who make the speciesist argument don't tend to place the same value on the life of fish, or insects, or bacteria, that they do on the lives of farm animals. So that's not internally consistent from the get-go.

    (Original post by 9091student)
    wtf thats like saying murder is justifiable just as long as you do it in a 'humane' way, never knew killing someone nicely makes all the difference
    Yeah. It does. If I kill an animal in a way that it inflicts excess suffering, that's immoral. If I quickly kill an animal in a painless, minimally distressing way, that's different.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Prince_fancybum;[url="tel:67259948")
    67259948[/url]]Male calves are slaughtered extremely young as they don't produce milk, the females then are milked up to 70 litres a day, often having infected udders that go untreated. Egg production is much worse, at 1 day old all the male chicks are crushed alive as it's the cheapest way to kill them. Battery farming is illegal in EU but caged hens aren't, and I can tell you that the state they're kept in is almost as terrible, I've got a few ex-caged hens and when they arrived they were all bald and dehydrated, with absolutely no muscle mass whatsoever. They're kept for 18 months whilst they're at peak laying ability and then go for slaughter. Free range hens aren't roaming merely in fields either but are kept in slightly better conditions, but are still subject to torture like beak cutting and are still killed at 18 months. So you most definitely are supporting their killing by consuming eggs and diary.
    None of the cows around hear are treated like that.
    We have great grazing and cows roam the fields with 2 milkings a day (4am and 4pm). They are in great condition.

    I've known of farmers getting reported if they keep their cattle in a poor state.

    Hens are free range around here too (local honesty boxes etc) admittedly i can't totally speak for the supermarket ones but i don't like eggs (very mildly allergic) but i eat chocolate etc so yeah i do eat eggs.

    Your post describes Spanish or Eastern European animal conditions.

    It does not resemble the farms i've seen and worked on around these parts.

    Scaremongering.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Moira O' Hara1)
    Yes but what I mean is that they aren't intelligable creatures, they can't feel pain so if you compare a fish to a pig- which one is most likely to suffer? Obviously a pig- which are highly intelligable animals. Don't you think the ways on-land animals are raised and then killed, are much more extreme. Wow, you're comparing a fish- which cannot recognise pain- against animals like pigs which are highly intelligable creatures and are more likely to sense that they are going to die..well done you!

    If you checked the Rainforest Alliance website then you would notice that they have ethical values...so which is better:
    MacDonalds who say they care about the environment but are continuing to cut down the rainforest to make way for cattle farming or..
    Rainforest Alliance who not only help their farmers to understand about climate change but also:
    -support farmers and communities (alot better than MacDonalds minimum wage)
    -protect land and waterways
    -improve incomes

    Now here are the benefits of becoming a vegetarian- this relates to health:
    -Low Blood Pressure
    -Lower Risk of Death -"a 2013 study of more than 70,000 people found that vegetarians had a 12% lower risk of death compared with non-vegetarians".
    -Better Moods
    -Less chance of heart disease - Another 2013 study of 44,000 people reported that vegetarians were 32% less likely to develop ischemic heart disease.
    -Less likely to be overweight -Research shows that vegetarians tend to be leaner than their meat-eating counterparts, and that they also tend to have lower cholesterol and body mass index (BMI). Some data suggests that a vegetarian diet can help with weight loss and be better for maintaining a healthy weight over time.
    -Lower risk of diabetes.

    Top paragraph - Goes back to views on anthropocentrism.
    See Hype en Ecosse's post. He makes the point well.

    2nd para - Lower weight does all of those things.

    So if vegitarians are slimmer then they get all of those health benefits.

    Meat eaters can also be slim.

    Secondly, cancer is going to come along and probably take me out or have a good crack before i'm 60 so whatever.

    I'll workout, i'll run/cycle all my life and get bloods checked regularly. I'll eat meat
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Thanks!

    It is. Worse was the stench of burning flesh...

    Ultimately, we would not get sufficient protein to be strong and fully functioning 'naturally'.

    Yes, nowadays you can get some protein in through Whey and nuts (other pulses etc) but it is pretty tough work.
    Easier just eating meat and downing milk (if you are going to be very against meat and all about 'ethics' then really you should be vegan as milking cows is 'unethical'

    Probs should never take your pets to the vet as they'll be all scared and upset...


    This 'natural' chat really just can't be applied to modern life.

    I think it boils down to your views on anthropocentrism.

    Each to their own. Meat eating will never end, we are in huge majority but i respect those who do not eat meat.

    Although, if i were being cynical then i'd suggest that those who are vegitarian/vegan have less first hand experience with animals than those who do eat meat (excluding those who live in India and due to religious reasons are vegitarian - they view the cow as sacred etc)
    Lambs are so fluffy too. Horrible way to go..

    *Vegetarian And yes I'd rather starve and eat vegemite (which I hate) than eat beef because cows are sacred and I'm against meat consumption anyway. But it's irritating that you get militant veggies who make meat eaters feel guilty about eating meat. I went out with an vegan mate a while back and I ordered a veggie burger with mayo. She kept telling me that milk was murder. I can't tell you how annoying it was.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    Lambs are so fluffy too. Horrible way to go..

    *Vegetarian And yes I'd rather starve and eat vegemite (which I hate) than eat beef because cows are sacred and I'm against meat consumption anyway. But it's irritating that you get militant veggies who make meat eaters feel guilty about eating meat. I went out with an vegan mate a while back and I ordered a veggie burger with mayo. She kept telling me that milk was murder. I can't tell you how annoying it was.
    Yeah but honestly, she isn't wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    So because you don't like the reality you'll cut off your nose to spite your face? The cows have already been bred to produce more milk and are and will continue to be treatedas such. Throwing a tantrum over it will hardly help.
    It's not a tantrum

    (Original post by Tabstercat)
    Is an insect's life as valuable as a human?

    I don't think life is innately valuable, speciesism is definitely the solution to the ethical dilemma of eating meat.
    I don't kill insects because I consider their lives valuable.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Tea and coffee are not vegan?
    With milk.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    If the substitute food was also nice to eat then yes.

    If not, then i'd probably eat less meat.
    I'm envisaging a Whey protein shakes type scenario but scaled up to 'real food'. Vegans wouldn't like that though.

    I love milk, like 2 pints+ a day. Frequently more but as an average or even minimum, i'd say 2 pints.
    Just love the taste of whole milk. So i'd never be vegan as i really like the taste of milk so replacing a substiture for me would be almost impossible.


    As much as you pose and interesting question to me, i don't really like to deal in hypotheticals/fantasyland.

    I'd rather we use science to fight disease and look for cures etc.

    Creating a proper meat substitute is miles away.


    Nobody can look at situation without bias, particularly if one is in one camp or another.
    I am biased but i try to be as neutral as possible
    I don't think food substitutes are that far off. We've had Quorn for ages and, with time, I expect more advancement. Protein isn't the issue I was thinking about in terms of nutrition. As someone who eats loads of protein, I know I would be able to get that without meat. It's about the micronutrients and the financial cost.

    Oh yeah, I don't see free range milk as an issue.

    My hypothetical wasn't really far-fetched and, due to the contents of your original argument, I thought it was worthwhile to find out if you would still eat meat if there was little reason to do so.

    I'm not sure what you mean about finding cures etc.

    I wasn't accusing you of bias, I was talking about some of the immature idiots who have posted. I think you can look at the issue without bias. I don't care who 'wins' this debate, I just want to know the strongest arguments.

    Edit: Hopefully lab-grown meat properly takes off and this argument becomes meaningless, lol!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabstercat)
    Is an insect's life as valuable as a human?

    I don't think life is innately valuable, speciesism is definitely the solution to the ethical dilemma of eating meat.

    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    No. I don't place the same value on an animal's life as I do on a human's life, due to moral agency and personhood. That's the line I draw.

    There's the argument to be made that this is speciesist. But those who make the speciesist argument don't tend to place the same value on the life of fish, or insects, or bacteria, that they do on the lives of farm animals. So that's not internally consistent from the get-go.
    "All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals." ( P.Singer).

    What you are describing is speciest, and you're argument against it doesn't really work. If you can prove to me that insects or bacteria have a consciousness, have the capacity to feel fear, pain and suffering then fair enough, but you won't be able to.

    Animals feel fear, pain and suffering on a similar level that we do, there's no doubt about that.


    EDIT:

    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)

    Yeah. It does. If I kill an animal in a way that it inflicts excess suffering, that's immoral. If I quickly kill an animal in a painless, minimally distressing way, that's different.
    Nope, murder is categorically immoral. There is no way to kill someone or something morally. There is no humane way to take a life. If you can accept that then it's fair game. However please don't try and trick yourself into thinking that just because it's a quick and painless death means it's ok.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moira O' Hara1)
    Yes but what I mean is that they aren't intelligable creatures, they can't feel pain so if you compare a fish to a pig- which one is most likely to suffer? Obviously a pig- which are highly intelligable animals. Don't you think the ways on-land animals are raised and then killed, are much more extreme. Wow, you're comparing a fish- which cannot recognise pain- against animals like pigs which are highly intelligable creatures and are more likely to sense that they are going to die..well done you!

    If you checked the Rainforest Alliance website then you would notice that they have ethical values...so which is better:
    MacDonalds who say they care about the environment but are continuing to cut down the rainforest to make way for cattle farming or..
    Rainforest Alliance who not only help their farmers to understand about climate change but also:
    -support farmers and communities (alot better than MacDonalds minimum wage)
    -protect land and waterways
    -improve incomes

    Now here are the benefits of becoming a vegetarian- this relates to health:
    -Low Blood Pressure
    -Lower Risk of Death -"a 2013 study of more than 70,000 people found that vegetarians had a 12% lower risk of death compared with non-vegetarians".
    -Better Moods
    -Less chance of heart disease - Another 2013 study of 44,000 people reported that vegetarians were 32% less likely to develop ischemic heart disease.
    -Less likely to be overweight -Research shows that vegetarians tend to be leaner than their meat-eating counterparts, and that they also tend to have lower cholesterol and body mass index (BMI). Some data suggests that a vegetarian diet can help with weight loss and be better for maintaining a healthy weight over time.
    -Lower risk of diabetes.
    Fish can feel pain. Fish have nociception and free nerve endings so research hints that they can feel pain. Current studies show that fish do have some pain sensation.

    I'm very aware of McDonalds actions in rainforest regions. Any major corporation has a significant effect on indigenous populations, local environment etc. Its not just "meat eaters" who are causing this damage, everyone in the western world is through their diet.

    Quinoa which is now become a staple in many vegans diets is pushing up the price so Bolivians can no longer afford their major food source. You're not telling me that this example isn't having environmental effects through transportation? And most likely deforestation.

    Can you give me a source for that information please? I find the "better mood" one a bit dubious as its impossible to judge. Yes I do agree that eating meat has been linked with heart disease, some form of cancers etc but again these are also linked to a sedentary lifestyle.
    I personally believe that meat can be incorporated into a healthy lifestyle, I only eat meat once or twice a week when I'm at uni and would say I'm healthier than a lot of vegans/vegetarians I know who do little exercise or to quote one I know "I've had my 5 a day because I've eaten 5 grapes" That wasn't even a joke that person thought that was real and live off supernoodles and chips. You can find bad examples of everyone and everything.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Posted from TSR Mobile


    I like how people try and respond to this by saying that animals lives don't really matter. When in actual fact, animal products are the leading cause of climate change issues. Climate change kills humans too.

    I still don't see how animals lives don't matter just because they are less intelligent. That's some Nazi Esq logic IG you ask me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If we aren't suppose to eat animals, why are they made out of meat? 1-0 vegetableists
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper;[url="tel:67262422")
    67262422[/url]]Lambs are so fluffy too. Horrible way to go..

    *Vegetarian And yes I'd rather starve and eat vegemite (which I hate) than eat beef because cows are sacred and I'm against meat consumption anyway. But it's irritating that you get militant veggies who make meat eaters feel guilty about eating meat. I went out with an vegan mate a while back and I ordered a veggie burger with mayo. She kept telling me that milk was murder. I can't tell you how annoying it was.
    Fair enough, you're free to do what you want to

    Sounds incredibly annoying, i'd probably not be friends with some like that

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes;[url="tel:67262482")
    67262482[/url]]Yeah but honestly, she isn't wrong.
    She is.

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes;[url="tel:67262542")
    67262542[/url]]
    I don't kill insects because I consider their lives valuable.
    You've never killed an insect?

    (Original post by dairychocolate;[url="tel:67263082")
    67263082[/url]]I don't think food substitutes are that far off. We've had Quorn for ages and, with time, I expect more advancement. Protein isn't the issue I was thinking about in terms of nutrition. As someone who eats loads of protein, I know I would be able to get that without meat. It's about the micronutrients and the financial cost.

    Oh yeah, I don't see free range milk as an issue.

    My hypothetical wasn't really far-fetched and, due to the contents of your original argument, I thought it was worthwhile to find out if you would still eat meat if there was little reason to do so.

    I'm not sure what you mean about finding cures etc.

    I wasn't accusing you of bias, I was talking about some of the immature idiots who have posted. I think you can look at the issue without bias. I don't care who 'wins' this debate, I just want to know the strongest arguments.

    Edit: Hopefully lab-grown meat properly takes off and this argument becomes meaningless, lol!
    I'm not sure you can replace meat yet, when talking about protein.

    Chicken is a major one you'd lose.
    Fish is lost.
    Ok, Quorn can replace some stuff but you'd be heavily reliant on whey.


    Financial cost, more effort needed to hit macro and micro nutrient targets, less variety to eat and i'd lose the taste of meat. I enjoy eating meat.


    If there was no reason to and it wasn't so ingrained then yes, i'd certainly reduce my intake. Idk about totally stop.

    V hypothetical though for reasons already outlined.

    I meant, sciences focus should be on fighting major diseases etc not on developing this vegetarian alternative to meat.

    We are miles away from replacing meat.
    You can live without it but that isn't the ideal situation.

    Fair enough. I think some of the criticism of the meat industry is valid but i like meat and do not view it as morally wrong to eat it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I honestly think that in 100 years we'll look back on meat-eaters the same way we look back on slave-owners now. It's a subject that completely doesn't resolve morally if you think that causing suffering is bad. And y'know, most people do.
    You are brainwashed, unfortunately.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)

    We didn't breed humans with the sole intention of enslaving them (some will claim it did happen but it is not comparable to the meat industry in that sense).

    Are you trying to imply that breeding animals for the sole intention of enslaving and murdering them is morally acceptable? Cause that is sure what it sounds like. Surely you can see how absurd that is.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Lmao m80, so by the sounds of it you care about the lives of humans. By that logic would it not be ethical to be vegan? Keep in kind in the future climate change is going to be impacting humans greatly, humans are going to be dead because of meat consumption.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by 0range;[url="tel:67267204")
    67267204[/url]]Are you trying to imply that breeding animals for the sole intention of enslaving and murdering them is morally acceptable? Cause that is sure what it sounds like. Surely you can see how absurd that is.
    No. I'm saying why the meat industry =/ slavery.

    Animals are not 'enslaved'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm slowly trying to become vegetarian but will never go vegan because I'm a very picky eater and dislike a lot of things that vegans eat.

    But if someone wants to eat meat, why do you people try to make them feel bad? I mean many of you if not all have eaten meat since you were babies and suddenly you've realised that you are doing wrong, well it's a bit late, don't you think?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    No. I'm saying why the meat industry =/ slavery.

    Animals are not 'enslaved'.
    Or murdered. Since they're not people.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.