The more I eat,the hungrier I get?

[KittensCake]

Quit the preaching! That's the one thing I bloody hate about you vegetarians, you're always preaching the moral high-ground. Well here's some news for you, I don't care! Nothing you say, or any of your brethren for that matter, will stop me from enjoying a tasty slice of dead animal flesh.

Well, lets be realistic here, vegetarians DO have the moral high ground. We imprison, cause suffering to and kill animals so we can eat them. Why? Because we're selfish and we don't care about anything else but ourselves. There's no other reason.

And no I'm not a vegetarian by the way.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Quit the preaching! That's the one thing I bloody hate about you vegetarians, you're always preaching the moral high-ground. Well here's some news for you, I don't care! Nothing you say, or any of your brethren for that matter, will stop me from enjoying a tasty slice of dead animal flesh.

All of them? Or is that a horrendous sweeping generalisation with no basis in fact again?

I'll take option two please Bob.

 

[Tefal]

Why do (some) vegetarians eat foods designed to look/taste like meat, after all a lot of animals had to die so they could get the taste right?

What if you discovered humans taste nice .If they had select humans bred just for eating would that be ok

Seriously did that even make a sound argument in your head?

However if humans taste like good bacon, yes i reckon some sort of hunting policy would be acceptable

 

[Dolph]

Well, lets be realistic here, vegetarians DO have the moral high ground. We imprison, cause suffering to and kill animals so we can eat them. Why? Because we're selfish and we don't care about anything else but ourselves. There's no other reason.

And no I'm not a vegetarian by the way.

Well, that depends really, well cared for livestock is better for the animal than the alternative, which is not existing. If we didn't eat meat or use other animal products, huge numbers of animals simply wouldn't exist. No-one would really keep cows, sheep, pigs, chickens etc if they weren't providing useful products, certainly not in the number that are kept now.

So no life versus a good life with a planned death (note I'm not talking about battery or intesive farming processes here)... Which is better?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Why do (some) vegetarians eat foods designed to look/taste like meat, after all a lot of animals had to die so they could get the taste right?

Because some vegetarians like the taste of meat but don't like the idea of killing animals for (usually) moral reasons or they do not like the conditions that many animals are kept in even if they don't have a problem with the inherant idea of killing animals for food. You could also argue from a pragmatic point of view that even if many animals did die to get the taste right initially (and I'm not conceding or denying this point at present) that subsequently there is no requirement to kill more animals to achieve the same taste due to it being part of a recipe as chemical compounds so overall death of animals will be lower.

So no life versus a good life with a planned death (note I'm not talking about battery or intesive farming processes here)... Which is better?

That's a philosophical argument obviously, if you aren't alive to begin with how can you miss a life you never knew existed?

 

[Visionary]

Dolph, you're argument would surely only work with animals who have consciousness and even then it could be argued that semi-pro waster's point still stands.

 

[Tefal]

Because some vegetarians like the taste of meat but don't like the idea of killing animals for (usually) moral reasons or they do not like the conditions that many animals are kept in even if they don't have a problem with the inherant idea of killing animals for food. You could also argue from a pragmatic point of view that even if many animals did die to get the taste right initially (and I'm not conceding or denying this point at present) that subsequently there is no requirement to kill more animals to achieve the same taste due to it being part of a recipe as chemical compounds so overall death of animals will be lower.

But surely it's just hypocritical to kill even a few just for the taste?

 

[Sarduk]

What is all this caring for unconscious animals, or looking after your live stop crap?

Does a lion care for a prey when it kills it by throwing it around to death, or drawing its insides? No! But when we see that, we gasp "at the marvels of nature"

Sheesh kebeesh!

 

[Tefal]

What is all this caring for unconscious animals, or looking after your live stop crap?

Because humanly slaughtered meet tastes nicer.

 

[[TR]SweetSpotOz]

But surely it's just hypocritical to kill even a few just for the taste?

It's already been done.

It's not as if the founders of the product have to be vegetarian. They are just in it for the money.

 

[[TR]SweetSpotOz]

What is all this caring for unconscious animals, or looking after your live stop crap?

Does a lion care for a prey when it kills it by throwing it around to death, or drawing its insides? No! But when we see that, we gasp "at the marvels of nature"

Sheesh kebeesh!

The point is, Jimps, that these animals have been bred purely to be killed.

Although they taste fantastic.

 

[Tefal]

It's already been done.

It's not as if the founders of the product have to be vegetarian. They are just in it for the money.

The meat in the shop has already been killed, it's not like you being vegetarian changes that (might change whether it gets thrown in the bin but not that it dies).

That argument makes no sense.

 

[Angilion]

Eat meat, like our bodies naturally need

You cannot take away your basic, natural bodily requirements and then ask how to fix problems with it.

Humans do not need meat. Humans are highly adaptable omnivores. Meat is a very good food source, but not an essential one.

 

[Sarduk]

Humans do not need meat. Humans are highly adaptable omnivores. Meat is a very good food source, but not an essential one.

If we didn't need meat, we wouldn't have to go out of our way to find sources of iron and protein. 150 years ago, we wouldn't have known what foods contain iron.

 

[Angilion]

Well, you are - for millions of years we have been carnivores, and being carnivores has directly contributed to our evolution to what we are now (our brains would not have grown as big as what they are without eating fish or meat - fact).

Why would nature suddenly change its mind?

Nature "Oh crap! They don't need meat after all."

Humans are not and never have been carnivores. Omnivores, yes. Carnivores, no.

 

[semi-pro waster]

But surely it's just hypocritical to kill even a few just for the taste?

Why so? If the aim is to reduce the overall amount of animals suffering or being killed for food then a limited number dying is better than the full amount dying.

For what it matters I don't eat meat tasting substitutes where I have a choice, I don't like the taste of meat so it's somewhat irrelevant to me. I'm just trying to explain a point as I understand it.

What is all this caring for unconscious animals, or looking after your live stop crap?

Does a lion care for a prey when it kills it by throwing it around to death, or drawing its insides? No! But when we see that, we gasp "at the marvels of nature"

Sheesh kebeesh!

Who says that animals are unconcious? What metric do you use to measure?

So your argument is that because nature can be cruel we should be too? Have I summarised incorrectly? If we want to pretend that we are a civilised and compassionate people then that should extend to how we treat other inhabitants of our World whether they be human or other animals.

 

[Tefal]

Why so? If the aim is to reduce the overall amount of animals suffering or being killed for food then a limited number dying is better than the full amount dying.

But wouldn't even less die if you gave up the meat taste? and just ate the vegetables tasting of well vegetables.

As after all it's not like they do it once they continually try and improve the taste.

 

[Angilion]

They get ill and are weedy, while we meat-eaters are powerful and strong.

I know vegetarians who get protein injections and suffer from iron deficiencies. How natural is that?

There are vegan bodybuilders and athletes. Humans are adaptable enough to thrive on a diet consisting solely of completely raw plant matter.

Sure, we're physiologically adapted to being omnivores. A quick look at your teeth shows that. But we're versatile.

 

[Sarduk]

So your argument is that because nature can be cruel we should be too? Have I summarised incorrectly? If we want to pretend that we are a civilised and compassionate people then that should extend to how we treat other inhabitants of our World whether they be human or other animals.

No you haven't; nature is not cruel, it is natural.

 

[Tefal]

No you haven't; nature is not cruel, it is natural.

Yes but animals that die scared/in pain don't taste as nice.

Plus whats the point in being needlessly cruel?

The lion wont torture it's prey it will kill it as quickly as it can.