(Original post by curryADD)
get a life. the europeans shouuld not have been there in the first place.
and if you really don't care why we don't eat meat, then why are you on this thread?
and yes, plants are living, but I cannot physically survive without plants, but I can physically survive without meat.
1. just because i think up things faster doesnt' mean i don't have a life but any way...wether or not they should have been there doesn't matter...they were and the africans weren't really prepared to deal with pale skinned people with guns
2. i'm here to say it's up to the person to decide wether it's 'moral' to not eat meat or not, because eventually it boils down to perception not real
application. if you really tried to apply morals to food you'd have to starve.
3. not true, as someone kindly pointed out
"Saying that the same logic implies we shouldn't eat vegetables is rubbish. Vegetarians don't not eat meat because, for example "it is a living thing". Firstly, anyone with an ounce of sense would know that many plants, especially those with fruit, rely on being eaten to reproduce. Ever wondered why they have pips/ seeds in? So birds will carry them and excrete them elsewhere. Plants have no brain and no pain receptors- any scientist would call you absurd to suggest they are in anyway conscious. Which leads me to...
My defiance to anyone who says animals are not conscious. Sure, they may not be self-conscious, but they certainly have awareness, for example they feel pain. Can you dispute this? The only response I can think of is to suggest animals are merely automatons, who act in the same way as a computer would. But then, you could say the same thing about humans. How do you know everyone else aren't just highly developed AI? There is no argument here."
Maybe you should consider applying sense 100%.
Oh kindly tell me of the millions of plants that have been born due to YOUR comsumption of plants...your poop goes down the sewer.
be reasonable...what kinds of animals are normally eaten by humans? cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens and every now and then some wild animal. how long do you think a cow is going to survive in the wild? the wolves would have a feast, the cows would become some endangered.
basically most of the animals eaten by humans are surviving in their numbers because of humans. they are created to be eaten, just like plants. if you expect humanity to stop the consumption of meat you must expect it to destroy what it has kept alive.
just because animals have some sense (were not even sure if they have a real perception of it) of pain while plants lack receptors for sense isn't a reason to eat them instead. they are still alive, and killing them robs them of their life.
"Everyone also seems to ignore my mental-patient argument; if we are to eat animals, what is to stop us eating humans born with mental problems rendering them vegetative? If they "deserve" to live, maybe animals do too. I think that even if my argument is "wrong", you must admit it is reasonable for me to make it, and that what I say constitutes a moral account."
if we eat plants what's stopping us from eating a human without a functioning brain? the vegetative one who needs the heart started by a machine the one who needs to be forced to breath, what keeps us from eating them if we eat plants? why do you need to deserve to live? why can't a plant just live? why should a human decide if it dies? why does it need a brain to be considered deserving of life? it is alive, wether or not it deserves it and at that point you should not be able to eat it.
in that theory you can't eat at all. the theory that plants don't have feelings, is just as shallow as they aren't made up of the 'meat' substance. the bigger picture is that you are consuming life and deciding to hurt on you think can't feel is just as discriminatory. plants are considered 'lesser life', when life is just life, it has no degrees. then there's the theory that says you can eat what you create/keeping in existence only if you have the intention of eating it.
but this theory runs into a problem with cannibalism and other more vulgar aspects of humanity. so in the end the most 'moral' thing to do is not to eat at all, which sucks and that's why morality can't be applied logically to eating