Quote:
Quote by: Muckraker  My opinion is this:
1. As food technology progresses, meat is no longer needed as a source of nutrition. |
The same goes for plants right? I mean, as technology progresses, vegetables are no longer needed as a source of nutrition. This is a very weak argument...
Quote:
Quote by: Muckraker 2. The process of generating meat is not a resourceful use of raw materials. |
And what is? Plants go through vigerous process before entering the human digestion system...
Quote:
Quote by: Muckraker 3. The process of generating meat would be extremely disturbing to many people who eat meat if they had any knowledge of what that process was. |
I know what that process is, I've seen it, I still eat meat. Taken from a halfway decent movie called The Island:
"Hey, just because people eat the burger, doesn't mean they wanna know the cow."
Does it make me worse of a person because I know how the meat manufacturing process works?
Quote:
Quote by: Muckraker
4. "It tastes good" is not a valid position to argue from. A talented chef can make anything taste good and if you were to discover you were eating something you found disturbing it wouldn't matter how it tastes to most people. IE - I find the chef ejaculated in my alfredo sauce because he felt it gives the sauce a unique flavor. Do I really care that it tastes good? Do I really care about the nutritional value of semen?
|
I agree about the taste factor, as meat provides major health benefits for us humans.
Quote:
Quote by: Muckraker 5. If people had to be exposed to the killing process and the butchering process of their food, as the vast majority of people prior to industrialization had to, many would gain a greater respect for the animals and some would pursue alternate food sources that are also readily available. |
I have great respect for animals, but I wouldn't mind trying the meat from half of them.