Eating meat is morally indefensible

Morals?

You need to clarify what that word means. Some say it is immoral to walk around naked. Imagine a naked female nipple?

That word means nothing.

That being said, the industrial meat industry needs to change.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

CowboyBob wrote:

I surely hope this tread gets cancelled. All it shows is the stupidity of LRC posters, who have had too soft of a life.

I’ll never understand cancel culture. Who cares if someone posts something that you define as stupid? This thread is perfectly appropriate regardless of where you sit on the meat eating divide.

I am just a reflection of the new culture we are now exposed to on a daily basis. I guess you didn't get it.....ie. it was a mixed message...get it.

The definitive guide to morals and morality can be found in God's Word, the Bible.

As far as eating meat goes, God told Noah in Genesis 9:3: "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you."

Now, before Noah man was a vegetarian, and in the new world we all will be too, as the Bible tells us that we will live in harmony with all the animals and they will not fear us nor will we fear them, meaning we won't kill them and vice versa.

So, you vegans and vegetarians out there will have a head start on us carnivores.

I just hope that broccoli tastes like a t-bone steak (and there's beer).

Cheers

Apparently two-thirds of meat comes from factory farms.

I don't think traditional farming is immoral, and hunting can be even more virtuous, as dude3000 notes.

But the intensity of the suffering in factory farms seems indefensible to me.

If these farms were just abandoned, that would result in less suffering for these animals (even starving to death slowly would be preferable to being kept alive in agonising conditions). But I think if there was widespread agreement that factory farming should end, these animals would be slaughtered as quickly and humanely as possible.

Do people hire private planes to feed wild animals after blizzards? If they don't feed wild animals, why would they be expected to feed former farm animals? People concerned with animal welfare don't think all animal suffering should be eliminated. They think unnecessary suffering should be eliminated. The best way to do this would probably be to eliminate factory farming and have a one off mass cull.

Jaden Ile wrote:

i am a revolutionary wrote:

Unless you live in a third world country or something, I agree. But in the US with so much abundance, for the average person, theres really no reason other than pleasure. It is not necessary for survival at this point.

Isn't this the wrong way round?

Production of meat is inefficient. The food that feeds the animals could feed a lot more humans. In some cases the land on which animals are kept could grow food which feeds a lot more humans.

It is because there is abundance in the US that eating a lot of meat is feasible. In many poorer countries, meat consumption is much lower because they wouldn't be able to produce enough food if they had a high meat consumption.

I think the point they were trying to make was that people in poorer countries don't have much choice as to what they eat so they don't have the luxury of considering the "morality" of what they eat since they are just trying to stay alive. I think it's a misconception that third-world countries don't meat, they do, just not the quality that the first world is used to. They still need the protein and vitamins/minerals that only meat provides, but when they can't afford normal livestock (beef, pork, chicken, lamb, goat) they eat fish and rodents and insects and whatever they can find (think Chinese wet-markets).

I think what a lot of Western vegans don't consider is that their diet is only feasible because of global capitalism, and isn't as environmentally friendly as they think. All the nuts they substitute meat for consume ALOT of water which raises sustainability issues. Also, not all vegetables can be grown in all climates, so sourcing things locally can be an issue and could raise fuel consumption as well, assuming you're able to afford vegetables out of season. It's not as simple as people make it out to be.

bump go veg

so seriously i don't eat meat and eat very few dairy or other animal products BUT i would eat invasive animals like american wild boar, asian carp, florida pythons etc. more people need to eat those so we can preserve native species

As if I’d ever own a dog. I find dog owners some of the worst and least self aware people on the planet.

coach wrote:

hmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

We should be eating dogs and horses in the US. Lot of dogs and horses being killed at shelters and good free meat going to waste. Not joking.

Then go ahead and kill and eat your dog

What’s god?

The definitive Quran verse says we can eat meat.

“O ye who believe! Eat of the good things wherewith We have provided you, and render thanks to Allah if it is (indeed) He whom ye worship” (2:172).

“He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (2:173).

The point "they were trying to make" was the wrong way round. People in poorer countries can't afford as much meat. Therefore they are forced to eat more "morally."

I'm not aware of good arguments for veganism or vegetarianism. Hunting for food and traditional farming some justified to me. So talking about the difficulties of providing a vegan diet seems unhelpful to me.

Also, is it a problem that not all vegetables can be grown in all climates? Hundreds of years ago people just ate whatever vegetables were grown locally. They didn't eat much meat then either.

Jaden Ile wrote:

Isn't this the wrong way round?

Production of meat is inefficient. The food that feeds the animals could feed a lot more humans. In some cases the land on which animals are kept could grow food which feeds a lot more humans.

It is because there is abundance in the US that eating a lot of meat is feasible. In many poorer countries, meat consumption is much lower because they wouldn't be able to produce enough food if they had a high meat consumption.

To put a number on the problem, 80% of agricultural land is used to feed livestock. And agriculture is generally destructive to the environment. But I can see how people who grow up eating a lot of meat would get hooked on it. The transition will be a long one.

It’s actually just the opposite from the premise of the thread. Being a vegetarian is morally indefensible.

eating plants is immoral too.

the only thing to do is synthesize your food,

all meat eaters should be killed.

lions, bears sharks, etc. get rid of those sinners.

so be safe, kill yourself,

you must be moral or die.

its only logical and democratic.

i see that you can eat meat in the bible and quaran,

buddhists eat grasshoppers so that's also meat.

and above all of that, i myself verify it is ok to eat meat.

so the debate is now ended.

i know everything.

Yes, it’s immoral to allow animals to die horrible deaths and get nasty diseases from famine and many would now be extinct without human involvement

hmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

What’s god?

It's dog spelled backwards.

From an environmental standpoint a lot of the meat (esp beef) and dairy industry in a place like the US has a huge carbon footprint. Full life cycle analysis from the birth of a calf to the feed and the slaughter and the packaging/transportation is a huge use of energy and resources. It's drastically less sustainable (on average) compared to utilizing other plant-based food sources (which can also be healthier because lets face it, most Americans could use less bad cholesterol!).

If we conclude that high carbon emissions and environmental issues from climate change will destroy life on Earth (prob for us mammals first) is there some sort of "moral" obligation to try to minimize our carbon footprint for all living things on Earth....including future generations of humans?

Lets bring up the concept of what is "equivalent". Many studies have supported the notion that a pig is around equal intelligence to that of a dog. Many Americans would gasp at the thought of eating a dog and consider it to be "morally wrong." But a pig can be killed and eaten without hesitation and pork is a regular part of the average American diet. One could argue that there is a bit of an inconsistency there where dogs get a free pass and pigs get the short end of the stick?

hombre3000 wrote:

Any way you slice it, eating meat is immortal.

I love to eat chickens, cows, pigs, and turkeys but I am not delusional enough to think that will make me immortal. I do hope it lengthens my life though. The biggest turning factor in humankind was when we discovered that we could cook our food before eating it.