[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Electrocuting doesn't sound so horrible, we used to do that to humans. Grinding up pigs alive is unnecessary, though what the hell kind of meat does that make, and unnecessary confinement would generally be considered abuse.

Thank-you for clearing that up. With those statements, it shows you do generally consider factory farms (thats the animal flesh you find in the grocery store) 'abusers', because almost all confine animals in tiny places. Therefore your morality indicates that that treatment is abuse, and you are feeling the animals are being treated like:

"to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way"

With you saying that "unnecessary confinement would generally be considered abuse" you are showing your morality does extend to animals. If it didn't you wouldn't consider what is done to those animals 'abuse'. Abuse is a strong word.

I think I found out what is going on here. You are simply saying "My morality doesn't extend to animals I don't know" simply for agrument sake, because you don't feel that way (which is proven above).

Abuse is all in the eye of the beholder, in other countries being whipped is a perfectly legal and reasonable punishment, here it is abuse.

It can be, but it some cases it can't. If it was always, there would be serious issues.

Sustenance and enjoyment are good enough reasons for most.

Sustenance can be provided in other ways, so can enjoyment. It still does not mean 'they are good reasons'.

Except, as I pointed out before, society universally condemns unnecessary murder

It doesn't matter if most of society condemns it or not. Isn't that an 'ad populum' argument? Just because many people view something wrong or right, doesn't make their views right.

People debate abortion because their moralities differ, some believe that the potential represented in the fetus is enough to make destroying that potential wrong, (whether they want to ban it is another issue) others believe that thw rightness or wrongness is more murky. The general facts are all accepted by both sides, unless a religious issue is brought in.

It is just like here, our moralities differ, yet you can't seem to want to prove your point right. At least both sides in the abortion debate, even with totally different morals, can still debate. Why can't we? What is the difference?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Good to be back, Matt. How does what most Americans do have any bearing on an individual's personal dietary choice? Your argument is against buying meat from supermarkets; not against eating meat altogether.

It is actually. I just have a stronger case against what most Americans eat, and since most here are the average American, I use that argument. I can go against all animal flesh eating, but I choose to focus on what most people here are like. Animal flesh eating in any circumstance causes enviromental damage, ending of an animals life (which may have lived much longer), and most would still cause health problems (not as much though).

Quote by: thrashee Because while you're citing facts and figures, the rest of us are enjoying a juicy, plump steak

Enjoy.

So? Here's an idea, let's start looking at ALL the things that are unneeded in our society, and start stripping them. Your logic is, the industry around an activity causes harm, so the activity is bad. That's faulty logic. Change the industry, not the activity.

This argument has been tried many times. If you want to discuss all the harmful things, make a thread about it. This is about animal flesh eating, not about other harmful things. Just because many other things are harmful does not mean animal flesh production isn't as harmful.

Change the industry? Do you know what laughable talk you are throwing out of your mouth? If you change the industry so it reduces abuse, and enviromental damage, your next steak will be $50. The price of animal flesh is already going way up, and doing that would further the condition. That's actually fine by me, because if meat is very expensive, very few people will purchase it.

Just a tip, don't try to say 'change the industry' in this debate, since you would truly not want that if you realized the problems for you in the future. Unless you're rich of course.

Then I hope you are a vegan, and I hope you grow all your own vegetables and fruit at home. You never go to Walmart either, right? You make your own clothes? You commute to work, or even better, telecommute? You never purchase new music, and the internet connection you're using right now is powered by gerbils and a wheel--who, of course, are given 15 minute breaks every 4 hours with a half hour for lunch

Another funny comeback. This one has been tried and tried again. A wrong doesn't make a right We aren't talking about what other things people may do, we are talking about eating animal flesh. You are going way off topic with your rant, and if you would like to continue it make a new thread titled "Music harms the earth! Gerbils abused by internet!". Lets see how far you go with that.

I don't support this kind of treatment either, and I didn't claim it doesn't exist. That's why I referenced the organic industry.

Why did you reference the organic industry?

Oh, B.S.--you don't charge animals with abuse because they're animals, not because they lack a choice. Animals kill needlessly, by the way. Is that cruel and abusive?

Nope, because they don't have the capacity to reason their actions. If you suddenly think they do, then you are putting them on the same levels as humans. I thought that was the biggest divider between humans and the rest of the animals-we can reason and they can't.

We humans can change our ways and reason things out. They can't, therefore they are not guilty. That's why people don't put dog or cats on trial

No, I don't want links. Wanna know why? Let me put it this way: if we humans simply tried to live the longest by doing every single thing as healthily as we could, you know what we'd have? Very long, and very boring, lives.

Thats what I thought, you don't want links because you know they would prove that animal flesh is harmful to us.

What again did you prove wrong here?

Hmm...let me think...that eating flesh causes un-needed enviromental damage, cruelty, health problems, and people who consume animal flesh are less civilized. I could list more...