[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You're right about the debate being uninteresting to those who consume flesh.

In all likelihood it is interesting to those who are on the fence about it -- the undecided -- eventhough they do eat flesh. That is how I was before I changed. The question of becoming a vegetarian got into me and then I found looking in on debates like these interesting and informative. They, along with books and articles, pushed me off the fence.

I am sure I won't revisit this thread often, because there are other items of greater interest to me personally (like government tyranny).

No problem. Look forward to you dropping by once in a while.

I agree with you that "tryanny" is important, though. Billions of beings are under the tyranny of the human species. ;-) That is one of the points that those who are for animal liberation consistanty bring forth.

I was a vegetarian in my early twenties for about three years. That was thirty years ago, but I lost weight down to a very thin, for me, 160 lbs.

Glad to hear that. You saved many animals during that time. Though it may be unlikely, perhaps you may reconsider in the future.

I am naturally thin. I have gained weight as a vegetarian.

I don't think I was a whole lot healthier.

I most certainly do.

I don't have any objection to killing animals for food. All creatures die and their bodies are used for food by the other life forms of this planet.

I have no problem with just eating meat. If an animal dies from old age, and it is there, then fine -- eat it. If man can grow meat in trays in future factories, then fine. But, you seem to be putting forth the "natural" argument which I have already shown to be false above.

We are outside the natural system and there is nothing we do in the form of obtaining our meat which is "natural." In addition, when a wolf or bear consumes another animal, or anything for that matter, they give back bio-mass to the Earth. We do not. Our waste goes to be purified and treated. Our bodies are sealed in metal or concrete boxes or turned into ashes. We take and take and try our best to even deny our corpse' nutrients from even the worms.

Your use of "all creatures" has conveniently left us out. Why? Because you, too, know that we are outside the natural system. Besides, "all creatures" may die, and even if we are used in some way, "all creatures" are not subjected in nature to the brutal mechanization we have unaturally hoisted upon them. The "natural argument" for meat consumption by modern man does not fit -- unless one accepts that one`s argument is based on prejudice and not reason. If so, in that case there is no reason, so long as we please our prejudices, why we shouldn`t continue slavery and exploiting the weak for the benefit of the strong -- in which ever form we can remotely justify with our selfishness.

Meat is not undigestible and the flavor is pleasing. I can afford it.

Are you putting forth the logic that just because something is not "X" and that something is also "Y", it is then justified? To make it simpler, you could have just used a "positive" rather than a double negative (e.g. Meat is digestible...). In that case your premise would be: Because something is "X" then it is justified.

Does this sound right from a sweatshop worker?: "Children are exploitable and the profits I earn from their exploitation is pleasing to my bank account." I am not asking you about the individual scenarios. I am asking you about the logic you are using when suffering is the end result.

I choose not to hunt because I don't really like killing and butchering animals,

PH, which is worse, the ruler that orders the wrongful killing of a people, the population that urges him to do so so that they can benefit from it, or the henchmen who carry out the operations? Since you are interested in "tyranny" this should pique some thought from you, I would think -- if the spirit of logic, analogy, and interest in debate is deeply embedded in you. From your high post count, I would guess that it is.

but if certain herbivore species are not culled, their populations grow out of control, due to the reduction of predators by the encroachment of humanity.

All herbivores, and most animals for that matter, have natural mechanisms to deal with overpopulation. Hunting is not necessary. That however, is another topic which I will get to in a future thread (or perhaps one already specifically exists for that. If so please be kind enough to direct me to it).

If the death is quick and painless and their domestication is benign, I have no problems with farm animals cultivated and harvested for food.

Then why don`t you have a problem with it? Do you think the animals who are raised in todays` farms have lives which are not miserable? Do you think an animal such as a sow or cow dies quickly when the knockers often do not work and then they are poked to bleed out -- a cow or sow taking 2 to 10 mins to bleed out and loose conciousness. Many are not even allowed to blead out before they go on to the de-legging station. Sows are often hoisted into the boiling vats alive. These are all large animals and the companies in efforts to provide the cheapest product possible and to please stock holders run the slaughtering lines at break-neck speeds. Do you think they stop the line because they see a sow going into the vats still alive, or a cow mooing before it gets its legs chainsawed off? No. They do not.

Slaughterhouses have the highest turnover rate of all industries -- close to 100%. Most workers are released convicts or from the immigrant community. Even they can`t bear the horrors they see for much more than one year.

Animals transported for slaughter are often done so over hundreds of miles without water through hot country. Stress coupled with no water is not "benign." In the winter they are often frozen to the metal sides of trucks, and the slaughterhouses use cable cranes and hooks to rip them off. Off to the chute they stun them with voltages that are often high enough to blow their loins.


Now, why do you assume their death is "quick and painless and domestication is benign" in light of that? You premised your statement with "if", so I assume that if it is not, then you are not "ok" with it.

Those who choose vegetarianism have my respect as individuals, but the philosophy of "animal rights" is a bit ridiculous in a world where "human rights" is still being challenged.

Are you saying only one thing can be focused on at a time? -- That the world's recourses are so few we just can`t afford to spread around compassion to other beings besides "man"? Is that what you are saying? You write those words, but I don`t believe you mean them, because if "human rights" were so important as to to trump all other beings which deserve rights to protect them, then why do you even spend time on the computer posting on things not associated with "human rights"? After all, every little second you have could be put to good use in realizing perfect human rights for everyone.