"You can't love animal's if you're not a vegetarian"

[Calibanbutcher]

Yeah, that is something an idiot would say/believe. You know, something a member/supporter of PETA would be caught saying. Whenever I hear such I always think of this:

Of course vegetarians who try to convert everyone to their way are cunts, just like the ones who say people who eat meat are selfish. The only selfishness is the idea that their lack of eating a certain food somehow means they are enlightened and therefore right. Eating or not eating certain foods is a choice, to say otherwise is to admit to the world, that you are again, a ****.

I had not seen that one before, it really made me laugh, thank you for that one.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

I was a Vegetarian for a Year in 8th grade after seeing a PETA slaughterhouse video. If i had to Kill the animals myself I'd probably be a Vegetarian. But since i don't as far as i'm concerned Steak grows on trees.

I'd also Eat Humans as a Substitution since I like animals more than Humans.

Yes, because the preparation of what was once a (reasonably) intelligent creature (a human), who could actually understand what death meant would be much less barbaric than that of animals. CLEARLY.

Captcha: lunchtime

 

[Faraja]

Okay it's natural to eat animals, what does that have to do with whether you love them? You don't kill and eat something you love. If someone doesn't have a problem with chickens being killed they obviously don't really love chickens all that much. Maybe you love some animals, but that would probably be evidenced more by not being okay with them being slaughtered.

Your argument falls flat on it's face if you've spoken to anyone who was:

In 4-H, like myself;
From certain east Asian countries;
From the African country of Benin;
or owns or works on a farm.

And those are just the ones I can come up with. I used to have chickens, I love chickens, I love to eat chickens. They are tasty. I wouldn't have killed and cooked my chickens, but it didn't stop me from ordering the chicken strips at Village Inn or IHOP. I also used to have rabbits, while I'm not overly fond of rabbits in general, there was one I cared for a lot. Doesn't mean I wouldn't eat one given the chance. Same with snakes.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in families in Asia that have pet dogs. Doesn't mean that it isn't standard practice in those same countries to eat dogs. To further add to that point, I was watching a show on the History channel at what might happen in the even of a apocalyptic
epidemic. One of the experts they were interviewing (psychiatrist or psychologist, I believe) said that people who normally wouldn't might very turn to pets as food. Just not necessarily their pets.

In the country of Benin, one of the practices for the transition of boys to men is to kill one of the village dogs and eat. They kill it by clubbing it with a horn. These same people revere dogs for their bravery and loyalty. Part of their belief is that, by eating the dog, they will take on those aspects. Why they do it with a horn, I don't know.

The Aztecs (their royalty, at least) would eat parts of their human sacrifices. Do you think they were incapable of loving other humans?

The Yanomamo (don't quote that spelling of their name) of the Amazon still practice a form of cannibalism, but they think it's far better than burying their dead.

 

[Judgment90]

here's how I see it.

If you don't eat meat, you're insulting the animals who died to provide sustenance for other people, and isn't insulting a form of hate for some?

 

[Xan Krieger]

Spoiler: I love animals. Especially cats.

I just can't finish a whole one by myself.

What's funny is that I don't love people as a rule, but I'm decidedly not a cannibal.

Loved the joke (and surprisingly nobody else made one).

OT: Put a puppy in a basket hanging over the edge of a cliff and put a human baby in a similar basket next to the one with the puppy. I will save the puppy every single time you run the test. I love animals because as Slipknot put it "People=shit".

I.. I just.. no. I'm going to leave that one.

Just say it. If you can't say it on the forum then message me.

 

[GTwander]

Spoiler: I love animals. Especially cats.

I just can't finish a whole one by myself.

What's funny is that I don't love people as a rule, but I'm decidedly not a cannibal.

Loved the joke (and surprisingly nobody else made one).

OT: Put a puppy in a basket hanging over the edge of a cliff and put a human baby in a similar basket next to the one with the puppy. I will save the puppy every single time you run the test. I love animals because as Slipknot put it "People=shit".

I.. I just.. no. I'm going to leave that one.

Just say it. If you can't say it on the forum then message me.

I'd save the baby.

~but, in a situation where I see a dead dog in the road, or a dead hobo, the dog gets more of my compassion.

 

[Cobalt180]

The idea that Vegetarians and possibly Vegan philosophy tried to avoid the exploitation and killing of animals for their skins and meats as well as any other by-products of their physicality is somewhat absurd, not ridiculous, but in the sense of the planetary ecosystem as a whole, is absurd.

I say that because in nature, a delicate balance is proposed by the predator-prey-decomposition cycle. As I have been taught, prey animals are more abundant in nature to allow for predator species to survive, when the prey population diminishes, the predator species will either die off until the prey begins to make an adequate return, or, the predator species will branch out, and their fate left to records indicating survival or death. Humans by nature are a predatory species. Our eyes face forward, a biological marker of most terrestrial predatory species (ie. Cats, Dogs) with some notable exceptions, (ie. Sharks, snakes) who have alternate means of sensing prey. The presence of sharp canine teeth also are indicative of our predatory nature, but the presence of more herbivorous teeth have led most researchers to declare humanity as a omnivorous species, one that survive on meats and plants.

It is our part in the cycle to kill to eat, however, that doesn't warrant senseless slaughter, and I'd surmise that those that condemn eating meat are either not fully aware that they're omnivorous, or they vehemently oppose a practice that has allowed the species homo sapien to survive this long. While I will say that the method in which we kill animals is not something to relish, it is not wholly an evil construct, but one built out of a necessity to allow our species to survive.

For one to equate meat-eating to something on par with a nature-themed felony is absurd because whether it was God or Evolution that shaped us, based on what we have recorded ourselves to be through the most extravagant murals to the humblest cave drawings have depicted humans the same. (Which I may also note some cave paintings have depicted humans hunting other animals for meat with spears, a death that may be considerably more agonizing if compared to most slaughterhouses granted the absence of willing testers and an inability to gauge empathetic suffering through psychological interconnection). The idea that one cannot love an animal and eat meat is absurd. Naturally, we eat meat to survive, but to say that I am unable to love my own cat and enjoy chicken is foolish, as it does not abide for the fact that one does not have to enjoy eating meat. In terms of survival, eating one's own pet is deemed horrific by those not in the situation to make such decisions, but survival will either be you or your pet, and, if significantly hungry, animals will not hesitate to kill you if they feel you would be easy prey or feel as though you are threatening them.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I'm actually surprised how I of all people am going to be the one to recognize the other point of view to some extent but I guess if you really really loved ALL animals you wouldn't eat meat. Saying you can't love any animal if you eat meat is completely ridiculous, and I doubt most people who eat hamburgers could find it in themselves to personally take an axe to a cow, but saying you love pigs while eating ham is either a bit hypocritical or you're hyperbolizing by using the word "love."

I guess I wouldn't agree with the statement but i would surmise that "You can't love an animal you're willing to eat" would be a little more accurate.

 

[Ticonderoga117]

That statement makes absolutely no sense. At all.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

That 'argument' is bad, and whoever makes it should feel bad.

We're animals, that eat meat.

It's part of our evolution, DEAL WIT IT!

Part of our Evolution? is that a joke?...Tell me if it is i'm terrible on picking up on this stuff


You can survive without meat there's no necessity for it. The human race wouldn't end if we all became allergic to the stuff. We're omnivores, and since we live in a society that allows you to choose what you want to eat and both meat and other types of food are always available whether you eat meat or not is optional.

Humans are omnivores which means we HAVE to eat both meat and greens. If someone ate only steak/meat and nothing else they develop health problems. Same thing used to happen when people didn't get enough protein but thanks to science vegans and vegetarian don't suffer. Now before you make an uneducated post look up the health issues people suffered in the early 1900's due to meat shortages. Then look at what the food industry adds to vegetables, etc. See knowledge is power and every vegan/vegetarian can thank scientists for the lifestyle they choose to live.

 

[Sylveria]

I love animals, they're cute AND delicious.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

Hey everyone, insert joke based on equivocation of "loving animals" here!

I'm actually surprised how I of all people am going to be the one to recognize the other point of view to some extent but I guess if you really really loved ALL animals you wouldn't eat meat. Saying you can't love any animal if you eat meat is completely ridiculous, and I doubt most people who eat hamburgers could find it in themselves to personally take an axe to a cow, but saying you love pigs while eating ham is either a bit hypocritical or you're hyperbolizing by using the word "love."

This. While it's apparently 10 pages of fun to refute the most literal reading of the quote possible, I think this is clearly what the quote is attempting to convey. Yes, unfortunately it is hypocritical to claim you love animals (in the general sense) and then kill them for sustenance you don't actually need (meaning there are substitutes available to you). As someone mentioned before, it's also incredibly selfish to take another life solely for your pleasure (meaning that the whole argument changes when it's for more than just pleasure: attacking, survival, etc.). Whether you care about those two things is a whole different discussion.

And my guess is that those who want to take it further and say that you can't love your pets if you're willing to eat animals, again really mean it's just hypocritical. Of course you can love your dog and eat a cow. But the choice of which animal to care for and which to eat is a fairly arbitrary distinction. See other cultures' proclivities to spare what we eat and eat what we spare. But if you want to make generalizations about animals, there's not a lot of backing for "this animal is food and this is pet decreed by the nature of existence and so I love one and not the other" (well, unless you're religious....), it's more about whether you value other species' lives more than your own pleasure. Which is why vegetarians feel it is hypocritical to say you love animals and yet eat meat. But by the same token they are hypocritical if they kill mice (or whatever) due to being inconvenienced (infested) by them.

Of course, everyone can draw the line of where to care about other species' lives differently. Crazy people can say never kill a living thing even if your life is at stake. Other people can say you have a problem only if the animals are self aware. Vegetarians seem to be drawing the line to stay consistent with the idea that they love animals.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

Humans are omnivores which means we HAVE to eat both meat and greens. If someone ate only steak/meat and nothing else they develop health problems. Same thing used to happen when people didn't get enough protein but thanks to science vegans and vegetarian don't suffer. Now before you make an uneducated post look up the health issues people suffered in the early 1900's due to meat shortages. Then look at what the food industry adds to vegetables, etc. See knowledge is power and every vegan/vegetarian can thank scientists for the lifestyle they choose to live.

...so we don't actually HAVE to anymore then, do we?



Also, it's completely possible to get enough protein without meat, and without scientists (whatever that means). You just can't eat straight broccoli and expect to get everything you need.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Spoiler: I love animals. Especially cats.

I just can't finish a whole one by myself.

What's funny is that I don't love people as a rule, but I'm decidedly not a cannibal.

Loved the joke (and surprisingly nobody else made one).

OT: Put a puppy in a basket hanging over the edge of a cliff and put a human baby in a similar basket next to the one with the puppy. I will save the puppy every single time you run the test. I love animals because as Slipknot put it "People=shit".

I.. I just.. no. I'm going to leave that one.

Just say it. If you can't say it on the forum then message me.

Dude... infanticide is rarely good as a JOKE. I honestly hope you're not being serious. I agree that a good portion of humanity deserves to go die in a hole, but unless the person in question is Jack Thompson, Hitler, or the entirety of the Fox News cast, I wouldn't pick the puppy in that situation. Even if it was cute.

As to this entire topic... guys. We eat these foods because they're necessary to us for SURVIVE and live a HEALTHY life. Yes, I know that there are plenty of ways to lead a vegan diet, and that, if done successfully, it's actually one of the healthiest options you can pick for yourself. However, a lot of people either don't have the time or the resources to go about a healthy vegan diet, especially when meat is so prevalent in our society as a type of food.

Also, quite honestly, I think some of you people are overthinking it. When I eat a chicken leg, I don't think about the poor chicken whose last moments were stuck in a cage, waiting for its death and deep-frying into the product I'm holding now. No, I think of it as food, because THAT'S WHAT IT NOW IS.

It's food, people. You vegans and vegetarians can eat whatever the hell you want, but please don't patronize me about the type of food I'm eating. I'm hungry, and that's both edible and delicious, so it's going in my damn mouth. Get over it.

 

[Starbird]

Nope. Just as i can hate only SOME people.

Also; I'd probably try a dog meat if i was offered, but i'd never eat MY dog.

Bingo.

Dog isn't great though. Very gamey, quite strong smelling - a lot like Bear, actually. You get some stews out east that are okay and use a lot of spices and veggies to kill the smell slightly, but if you were going to treat it like beef you may find it hard to enjoy.

Kangaroo - now, that is some tasty meat!

That's just the thing though. *What* evidence? I have never seen any scientific proof that animals are self aware (note: pure 'intelligence' =/= self awareness). I've also read studies suggesting *plants* can think. There is just far too much grey and not enough proof.

Link me a study that says plants can think.

We can't have conclusive proof that animals are self aware because animals don't speak. We can only extrapolate from their behaviour and what knowledge we have of the brain. Anyone determined to think they are not self aware will reject the evidence as something not indicative of self awareness, just like creationists will deny evolution because you can't see it happening in real time.

But okay. Why is self awareness more important than "intelligence" when determining whether or not we ought to kill something? For the sake of argument, I asked you if you could extend the same argument to human infants. If not, why? Then you got offended and refused to answer.

But okay, let me tackle your argument to see if I can show you *why* I believe you are wrong.

As I understand it, your argument goes:

1) We should not harm animals unless it is absolutely necessary for our survival.
2) The meat industry harms animals.
3) Therefore we shouldn't eat meat.

If you don't agree, feel free to do your own structure.

While there are a lot of things that I disagree with here, I will say that unless you can guarantee that no-one will lose their job or livelihood, then I'd say that everyone going vegetarian would be a catastrophe.

This is only true if it happens instantly. If it is a gradual process meat farmers will have plenty of opportunity to find different occupations. Obviously I want structures put in place to protect those who might lose their jobs to ensure they are not left out in the cold.

Now if you were to suggest that we should research cloned meat more, breed cows without the capability of feeling pain or something along those lines, I'd be right behind you. But telling everyone "okay, from this point on no one is permitted to eat meat at all unless it's do so or die"...is just not reasonable.

I'm not saying "no one is permitted". I'm saying "I think we should rethink our society's norms and eventually stop this practice".

I was also trying to explore (via the Insect thing) that many people will use similar arguments to the ones you are using to say that we shouldn't kill bugs.

No they don't, and if they did it wouldn't hold water because insects don't have brains that would allow them to comprehend fear and suffering. Mammals and birds do.

If you are going to say crap like this you damn well better be able to back up why your viewpoint is logically (note: objectively) right.

Nothing is objective.

You then jumped in with:

Peruvian never said killing or harming animals is objectively wrong. That line of argument is completely fucking meaningless. Nothing is objectively wrong. Why not hurt or murder other humans, or keep slaves?

.

Right of the bat you were inflammatory without any reason (do you really think killing an animal or keeping it in a cage is the same as murder or human slavery?). This is what I meant by "look at how hyperbolic (some) vegetarians are!"

I wasn't equating those things with eating meat. I was illustrating that even things which everyone agrees are wrong are not objectively wrong. Now you are the one strawmanning. You are taking things out of context and taking personal offense where none is intended.

Again, I followed this up with my 'unreasonable demands'...trying to (in a facetious way - all the smilies aren't a hint?) demonstrate how you really shouldn't say inflammatory crap like this unless you are absolutely sure your position is *perfect*. Saying thing like this is coercive - attempting to draw comparisons between really depraved, awful things and eating meat.

I'm sorry you misunderstood but that's not what I was saying.

Okay, firstly I believe that we can, a priori, view humans (and human infants) as self aware (or have the potential for self awareness) and thus assign them certain rights based simply on that fact. I really don't want to go too far into this topic though (since it touches on other very contentious issues).

We don't need 'proof' that humans are self aware, because we know it experientially.

Animals now, experientially to me do not have self awareness. You could make an argument either way, but to say that animals deserve similar rights to humans would require some *very* solid proof that they cross a certain line.

I didn't get offended, but I don't want to go too deeply into "why isn't it okay to kill human infants if it's okay to kill animals?" because it's a massive can of worms.

Regarding the jobs/industry issue - alright, I've got no disagreement here. Not for any *moral* reasons, but simply due to practicality (it being more economically feasible to make synthetic or cloned meat than continue to increase livestock to support the growing human population). However this is change that will need to start in the industry, not by having everyone go vegan.

Regarding the 'objective right and wrong' issue...ugh, I really don't want to get into this (since it's going to get long, and go well off topic). But I think, again, that most people will accept that the torture, enslavement and wanton murder of other humans is wrong on an objective (note: by objective in this case I mean certain moral rights conferred by self awareness)level, while not killing animals for meat doesn't involve any such rights.

Asking "why is slavery/infanticide objectively wrong?" is daft to me. Of *course* it's wrong. The arguments against it are well established and the majority of the world accepts it. Again, I really don't want to go into "why is slavery wrong?" here.

And if nothing is objectively right or wrong, then your point falls into the same trap - if eating meat isn't objectively morally wrong or right, then you really can't tell anyone not to do it .

This is why I considered your post inflammatory (note: not offensive, just using an example that is meant to be more emotional than rational). Comparing the 'objective right and wrong' of slavery and torture to the 'objective right and wrong' of killing animals for meat to me seems absurd.

Finally - what I mean by 'coercive' is that far too many militant holders of any viewpoint will rely on guilt, emotion, shame and very subjective reasoning to try to force others to share their beliefs. PETA's red paint antics, gross out slaughterhouse documentaries and the like.

 

[Eryc Duhart]

The way I see it, animals eat each other for the sake of sustenance. We humans started out doing it for the same reasons only, at this point, society has grown enough that we don't need to.

Vegetarians recognize this and try to uphold this ideal the best they can. People who eat meat, can do so because the society they contribute to makes that possible.

Could the process be done better? Yes. Could we do without it? Definitely. Are there systems in place that we contribute to that allow us not to? Indeed. There isn't any more cognitive dissonance, or social transparency of sacrifice, in eating that sirloin than there is the rest of society that you're immersed in. Some facet of your environment sacrifices for you everyday and does it so well that you don't even need to think about it. Nothing happens without payment from someone or something.

That being said, HUMANITY AS A WHOLE has a ways to go in this regard. We all need to do a better job of recognizing and being thankful for the sacrifices that are made on our behalf. We can't always stop them, but we can at least not squander them. We also shouldn't become social prudes, wagging our fingers in peoples' faces, acting pious and trying to make them feel guilty for enjoying or refusing the fruits of the collective labor.

 

[Faraja]

I'm pretty sure they're all able to be logical and see why I'm right.

They'd likely disagree with you.

So you lie when you say you love chickens. Because you don't love chickens, you love some chickens. By your inane logic Hitler loves the human race because he loved some humans.

You got it backwards, I love chickens in general, but I don't love every individual chicken.

And they clearly do not love dogs in general.

They very well might, but they can still separate some dogs from all dogs.

Right and they have no love for the species as a whole. They don't love dogs they love some dogs

Again, they might, but they love their dogs more, and are willing to make kill another to save theirs.

Okay, and they clearly don't show love for dogs in general if they'd kill it. They lack empathy for it.

They don't show it, except that they revere dogs as a species. Yes, there are much better ways to humanly kill them instead of bludgeoning them to death.

Incapable? Strawman much? It's an indication that they do not love humans in a general sense.

Again, they very well might have, but their pantheon of gods and cultural practices came above that. These are the same people that welcomed Cortez, rather than just executing him and the other Spaniards that arrived on the new world out right.

Well geez, when you come up with people who only eat animals who died of natural causes maybe you wouldn't appear so intellectually dishonest.

I didn't say they always died of natural causes, but presumably that would be the reason for 85%ish of deaths. Regardless, they still eat their dead.

Intellectually dishonest? Really? I more or less love most of humanity, but I put my country above the rest of it.

There's something else you're forgetting, animals aren't people. They're generally lower on the food chain, and tend to invoke a different idea of love than other people.