No more meat?

[Norsklow]

We are? Why? Consciousness classifications again, hold no weight in morality. Arguing otherwise allows for us to begin arguing whether killing newborns simply because they are not conscious for food is perfectly moral.

hold no weight in morality

How does morality ITSELF hold weight? What are the mores that define YOUR morality?

perfectly moral.

Same question, but in other words! What is the content of the Morality you claim?

You are using a LABEL. What's inside of the box that you are hiding under your label?

Arguing otherwise allows for us to begin arguing

Reverse engineering 'morality'. A thing is not moral of its own accord, but because it is inconvenient in another circumstance.

[PapaJacky]

Non sequitur. There's an obvious difference between pure survival needs and constructed survival needs.

No, there really isn't. If the constructed survival needs becomes the new environment in which the species is subject to, it becomes a part of its pure survival needs. The new environment affects the actual need of said "pure" needs as well. For example, if you cannot afford food due to money (a constructed object), then it affects your pure survival needs. And if you live in a third world country and can afford to choose options that reduce the amount of suffering through not eating meat, then there is no "pure survival need" to actually eat meat.

That is not true. The difference between pure survival needs and constructed survival needs are that pure survival needs is the action that must be done to satisfy said survival needs (having sex, eating, drinking, breathing, not freezing and not melting). Constructed survival needs is the actions that must be done in order to obtain the object that can satisfy said survival needs (getting money, mainly). I need to eat food to live, I don't need a slave to grow the cotton for my shirt, of all things.

You're thinking of biological classifications. We're discussing consciousness classifications.

We are? Why? Consciousness classifications again, hold no weight in morality. Arguing otherwise allows for us to begin arguing whether killing newborns simply because they are not conscious for food is perfectly moral.

We've been. Again, this is where the philosophical divide opens. If the animal in question is capable of higher brain functions such as self-awareness, I feel terrible for intruding in it's habitat, killing it, raping it in the literal sense, etc. If the animal in question is essentially, a vegetable playing a tape on repeat, I do not feel bad for killing it, eating it, etc. On newborns, that argument would actually involve another moral argument based not on consciousness, but on the fact that it's of the same species as ourselves.

No, I'm talking about brain-dead individuals. They are for all intents and purposes, a vegetable.

And yet, they are still protected. It goes to the immediate family, and they choose whether said person should be taken off of life support. Also, this is a false equivalency, since animals are not brain dead, and the ones we slaughter have feelings.

If you read my original statement, I did not equivocate brain dead individuals to animals, I simply said that consciousness is already present in legal contexts.

[Mavorpen]

That is not true. The difference between pure survival needs and constructed survival needs are that pure survival needs is the action that must be done to satisfy said survival needs (having sex, eating, drinking, breathing, not freezing and not melting). Constructed survival needs is the actions that must be done in order to obtain the object that can satisfy said survival needs (getting money, mainly). I need to eat food to live, I don't need a slave to grow the cotton for my shirt, of all things.

What? No. Neither of them are actions. They are needs. Pure survival needs are needs that are a product of your environment, and you are born with them. They typically are biological. In the case of biology, you are correct to say the two are separate. However, from the moment you are born, you are thrust into a world where money is required to survive, so much that they might as well be basic needs. And despite this, this has nothing to do with morality. In the case of basic needs versus constructed needs, both involve choices. You can choose how you fulfill your basic needs as well as your constructed needs. That is the core of the debate.

We've been. Again, this is where the philosophical divide opens. If the animal in question is capable of higher brain functions such as self-awareness, I feel terrible for intruding in it's habitat, killing it, raping it in the literal sense, etc.

That's not a moral argument, that is personal emotions and an appeal to emotion.

If the animal in question is essentially, a vegetable playing a tape on repeat, I do not feel bad for killing it, eating it, etc. On newborns, that argument would actually involve another moral argument based not on consciousness, but on the fact that it's of the same species as ourselves.

It's good that the animals we slaughter do not meet that definition then. They aren't "vegetables playing a tape on repeat." They learn, they change, and they have emotions. It seems that you honestly don't even want to debate at this point, if you're going to change the parameters behind what is morally right or not. Using your argument, I can say, "Oh, well even though we're the same species, we're different races! Therefore it's okay to slaughter black people!" Stop being completely inconsistent and changing the parameters of the debate when you're backed into a corner and can't morally defend your stance.

If you read my original statement, I did not equivocate brain dead individuals to animals, I simply said that consciousness is already present in legal contexts.

Yes, but it is to protect those that are unconscious. You've basically admitted that our legal system is contradictory.

[The Stormcloak Rebels]

*writhes in agony as if hit with Dragonrend*
IMPOSSIBLE!!! This cannot be!
They'll never take my pepperoni pizza!

Although, I have found that mushrooms can substitute nicely for meat...

[Terruana]

Sorry, but you were the one who likened eating meat to keeping slaves.

No, I said the argument you used was comparable to the argument of a slaveowner. I did not compare the act to slavery.

If anyone's guilty of making strawmen, it's you.

Not at all.

If you want to ignore everything I've said and pretend like you still have the moral high ground, go ahead. I don't care enough to argue. But I do not, and will never, agree with you that eating meat is somehow immoral because the animals the meat is made from have to die for me to eat it.

How did I ignore what you said? I addressed everything. I addressed everyone of your straw men and your condescending arguments.


I don't care enough to argue. But I do not, and will never, agree with you that slavery is somehow immoral because the black people the labor is taken from have to be owned like property for me to make profit.

NOW I compared it to slavery.

Your over-use of the edit function and ridiculous strawmen have convinced me utterly. I now agree with everything you've said.

However, you've still failed to answer the basic principle underlying everything I said. Thousands of animals, maybe even millions, die every day so that you can maintain your current lifestyle. Why does the fact that you don't eat any of them make you any better than the rest of us? Do you think the animals that die so that you can argue about vegetarianism on the internet matter less than the ones that go into my steaks and burgers?

[Mavorpen]

Your over-use of the edit function and ridiculous strawmen have convinced me utterly. I now agree with everything you've said.

However, you've still failed to answer the basic principle underlying everything I said. Thousands of animals, maybe even millions, die every day so that you can maintain your current lifestyle. Why does the fact that you don't eat any of them make you any better than the rest of us? Do you think the animals that die so that you can argue about vegetarianism on the internet matter less than the ones that go into my steaks and burgers?

What? Have you been reading? At all? It seems you've been ignoring everything I've said up to this point. I'll make them clear for you:

1. I have never claimed that animals do not die due to my lifestyle.
2. I have never claimed to be better than you or anyone that eats meat. I have stated that eating meat is a choice, a choice that we can easily do without in a first world country, which makes it indefensible. Without it, not only would we not be hindered, we would be better off. On the flip side, other things in my lifestyle such as clothing, technology, etc. have a significantly higher necessity. They make things more efficient.
3. I have never claimed that the animals that die due to my computer are any less important than the ones on your plate.

Get this through your head, I have yet to actually deny that my lifestyle contributes to issues that we face. YOU however, have yet to address a crucial point that I made. I asked you why the fact that we do things to harm others should override choosing to minimize that harm or eliminate it? What you are essentially saying is that because we have done bad things, it's perfectly moral to continue to do them. It isn't. I realize this, which is why I am (again) going to college so that I can contribute to solving the problems we face.

Yet again, stop ignoring things I have already said.

[Gideus]

Ok... Time to give my views on the whole meat thing.

First off, I eat meat because I do like it when it is prepared the correct way, but I almost always make sure that the place I'm getting it from at least treated the animals humanely. I am opposed to animal cruelty in all forms.

Secondly, I could go at the least vegetarian if I really wanted. Living with a vegan father and vegetarian stepmother, this would be fairly easy so long as I don't spend too much time at my actual mother's house. In fact, I probably will in a few years.

Now down to meat itself. We don't need it to survive. You say we need it for protein - but there's so many other ways we can get protein. Rice and beans for example. Rice and beans are a complete protein, meaning that they contain all the necessary amino acids. They are relatively easy to grow and can be prepared in a multitude of ways. Then there's nuts, there's animal products(milk, eggs, etc.) which are not necessarily cruel nor are they killing animals. In the case of goat milk, the goat doesn't even need to be pregnant/a mother to produce milk. Why do we need to eat meat? I can get all the B-vitamins in vegan/vegetarian methods... As this website and the almighty wikipedia both point out. Not to mention, there are plenty of artificial/synthetic sources - daily supplemental pills.

So why do we need meat? We don't. There are plenty of vegan/vegetarian replacements for meat that often taste even better. Not to mention there are so many more food-borne illnesses in animal products, meat in particular due to shitty processing, which if undercooked (I'm looking at you people who like rare meat) have even higher chances of transmitting, than in vegan food. So where's the benefits besides the taste/flavor? Well, ok. Bacon. But I've had great veggie bacon which tastes almost exactly the same with a better, crispier texture.

So where's the benefits, the bonuses, the superiority in eating meat?

EDIT: Also, some fake meat is better at what it's replacing than the actual meat itself. Take turkey for example. I fucking HATE turkey. Tofurkey however? I love almost all forms of tofurky as long as it's not overcooked. And when it comes to burgers, for the same price/value the veggie burgers tend to be higher quality/better taste in my opinion.

[Purpelia]

Vat grown meat is going to taste about as bad as factory farmed meat. Since it has no animal attached the muscles don't get exercised and you can't get all flavors in that the animal would get by eating the various herbs it can find when properly farmed. And if you can't eat proper tasty meat why bother eating it at all.

What in the world are you talking about?

The taste of meat is effected by the life style of the animal. A healthy well excessed pasture farmed animal is going to taste much better than a factory farmed one or one whose meat was vat grown and artificially excessed.

Vat grown meat is going to taste about as bad as factory farmed meat. Since it has no animal attached the muscles don't get exercised and you can't get all flavors in that the animal would get by eating the various herbs it can find when properly farmed. And if you can't eat proper tasty meat why bother eating it at all.

Herbs don't get absorbed into muscle, which is largely what you mean by "meat". Unless you're eating the contents of your burger's intestines, it's diet will have little to no effect on the taste.
And you can exercise lab grown muscle too.

Of course not. They effect the way the animal develops thou. For one thing a good and healthy diet means that the animal has to be fed with less artificial supplements that carry all sorts of other chemicals with them.

Also for the morality nuts here. Get a life people. It's not people we are eating but animals. When a lion eats a gazelle it's nature but when I eat a cow it's somehow immoral? Even thou I actually give the cow a pretty decent life and kill it much more humanely than being chased down and mangled by a lion.

[Mavorpen]

The taste of meat is effected by the life style of the animal. A healthy well excessed pasture farmed animal is going to taste much better than a factory farmed one or one whose meat was vat grown and artificially excessed.

That's...not how it works. Artificial meat would be created so as to make it taste good. I'm not following what you're saying at all.

Also for the morality nuts here. Get a life people. It's not people we are eating but animals. When a lion eats a gazelle it's nature but when I eat a cow it's somehow immoral? Even thou I actually give the cow a pretty decent life and kill it much more humanely than being chased down and mangled by a lion.

Lions will also sometimes go to a new pride, kill the offspring of the leader's mate, and mate with the female after defeating the at then pride leader. According to your logic, that makes it moral and thus should be legal. I don't care if the cow has a decent life. Using your logic, slavery should be legal if they are given decent lives. I also don't care if it's more humane than what it would experience in the wild. In the wild, it might have a chance at survival. In a slaughterhouse? Nope.

[Gideus]

What in the world are you talking about?

The taste of meat is effected by the life style of the animal. A healthy well excessed pasture farmed animal is going to taste much better than a factory farmed one or one whose meat was vat grown and artificially excessed.

Herbs don't get absorbed into muscle, which is largely what you mean by "meat". Unless you're eating the contents of your burger's intestines, it's diet will have little to no effect on the taste.
And you can exercise lab grown muscle too.

Of course not. They effect the way the animal develops thou. For one thing a good and healthy diet means that the animal has to be fed with less artificial supplements that carry all sorts of other chemicals with them.

Also for the morality nuts here. Get a life people. It's not people we are eating but animals. When a lion eats a gazelle it's nature but when I eat a cow it's somehow immoral? Even thou I actually give the cow a pretty decent life and kill it much more humanely than being chased down and mangled by a lion.

The "morality" aspect is not that it's immoral to eat meat but rather that we don't need to eat it. We have no need to eat it and we can survive, hell flourish, without meat. Meat is not a necessity so there is no need for it.

Also, as in my previous post, I like meat every now and then, but a naturally grown cow will be much better than the factory grown animals. If at all possible I will only eat meat when it is proven to have come from such a source, a source where the animal is fed food like grass and alfalfa rather than corn, and has no artificial supplements/growth hormones/etc.

If you've ever had factory grown(corn fed/other high carb feed) meat then compared that taste to the taste of grass-fed beef(assuming both are beef), the taste is vastly different. And the second option tastes better, is healthier, and is much more humane.

[Gideus]

The taste of meat is effected by the life style of the animal. A healthy well excessed pasture farmed animal is going to taste much better than a factory farmed one or one whose meat was vat grown and artificially excessed.

That's...not how it works. Artificial meat would be created so as to make it taste good. I'm not following what you're saying at all.

Also for the morality nuts here. Get a life people. It's not people we are eating but animals. When a lion eats a gazelle it's nature but when I eat a cow it's somehow immoral? Even thou I actually give the cow a pretty decent life and kill it much more humanely than being chased down and mangled by a lion.

Lions will also sometimes go to a new pride, kill the offspring of the leader's mate, and mate with the female after defeating the at then pride leader. According to your logic, that makes it moral and thus should be legal. I don't care if the cow has a decent life. Using your logic, slavery should be legal if they are given decent lives. I also don't care if it's more humane than what it would experience in the wild. In the wild, it might have a chance at survival. In a slaughterhouse? Nope.

As I already told him, the only morality aspect of it is that we don't need to eat the meat.

The lions do need to eat meat; their bodies do not digest or gain the right nutrients from other sources. The lions need it, we do not. That is the morality aspect.

Now, if we could artificially grow met, we would make it taste good. But we can't, so the only way to change the flavor of meat is to change its food. And because we don't need to eat it, why should we bother?

[Goodclark]

No more meat? Scientists will probably be making some kinda synthetic meat by then.

[Purpelia]

The "morality" aspect is not that it's immoral to eat meat but rather that we don't need to eat it. We have no need to eat it and we can survive, hell flourish, without meat. Meat is not a necessity so there is no need for it.

But meat is a very impormant bit of a balanced diet. I mean sure you can use various suplements and workarounds for it. But that does not mean we don't need it. Furthermore, even if we assume that what you say is correct (since I am in no mood to debate that part) just because something is not necessary does not make it in any way immoral. I mean, we don't need the internet to survive. And the electricity could be better used desalinating water for the poor or what ever. Does that make all our posting here evil?

Also, as in my previous post, I like meat every now and then, but a naturally grown cow will be much better than the factory grown animals. If at all possible I will only eat meat when it is proven to have come from such a source, a source where the animal is fed food like grass and alfalfa rather than corn, and has no artificial supplements/growth hormones/etc.

Well where I am from (Europe) it is a pretty trivial thing to do this. Hell I usually buy meat in my local butcher shop that has it's own slaughter house supplier. And I live in a pretty major city, not some place in the deep countryside. Plus I am not 100% on this but there is some way to tell this even if you buy meat at the supermarket. But I did not go into it that much.

If you've ever had factory grown(corn fed/other high carb feed) meat then compared that taste to the taste of grass-fed beef(assuming both are beef), the taste is vastly different. And the second option tastes better, is healthier, and is much more humane.

Don't make me get flashbacks...

[Mavorpen]

No more meat? Scientists will probably be making some kinda synthetic meat by then.

They are.

[Purpelia]

The taste of meat is effected by the life style of the animal. A healthy well excessed pasture farmed animal is going to taste much better than a factory farmed one or one whose meat was vat grown and artificially excessed.

That's...not how it works. Artificial meat would be created so as to make it taste good. I'm not following what you're saying at all.

I would like a citation for that now. If you don't mind.

[Goodclark]

No more meat? Scientists will probably be making some kinda synthetic meat by then.

They are.

Well scientists are being proactive, aren't they?

[Sociobiology]

That's...not how it works. Artificial meat would be created so as to make it taste good. I'm not following what you're saying at all.



Lions will also sometimes go to a new pride, kill the offspring of the leader's mate, and mate with the female after defeating the at then pride leader. According to your logic, that makes it moral and thus should be legal. I don't care if the cow has a decent life. Using your logic, slavery should be legal if they are given decent lives. I also don't care if it's more humane than what it would experience in the wild. In the wild, it might have a chance at survival. In a slaughterhouse? Nope.

As I already told him, the only morality aspect of it is that we don't need to eat the meat.

The lions do need to eat meat; their bodies do not digest or gain the right nutrients from other sources. The lions need it, we do not. That is the morality aspect.

Now, if we could artificially grow met, we would make it taste good. But we can't, so the only way to change the flavor of meat is to change its food. And because we don't need to eat it, why should we bother?

why bother growing coca or soy beans instead of wheat, because we like it that's why.

[Williamson]

if people learns to eat in moderation and learns not to eat less meat and more fruit and vetagables not only where their their people more cattle, but people will be less fat.

[Mavorpen]

But meat is a very impormant bit of a balanced diet. I mean sure you can use various suplements and workarounds for it. But that does not mean we don't need it. Furthermore, even if we assume that what you say is correct (since I am in no mood to debate that part) just because something is not necessary does not make it in any way immoral. I mean, we don't need the internet to survive. And the electricity could be better used desalinating water for the poor or what ever. Does that make all our posting here evil?

Meat isn't important in a balanced diet. It's just plain not needed at all. It's not the fact that it isn't necessary, it's the fact that it's unnecessary and it causes suffering to other beings. We really don't need desalinization, if we reduced consumption of meat, water shortages would be minimal.

[Geilinor]

20% of their protein from animal-based products now

That's it? I suppose we should be okay, then. Prepare for mass growth in the soy business.

[Gideus]

The "morality" aspect is not that it's immoral to eat meat but rather that we don't need to eat it. We have no need to eat it and we can survive, hell flourish, without meat. Meat is not a necessity so there is no need for it.

But meat is a very impormant bit of a balanced diet. I mean sure you can use various suplements and workarounds for it. But that does not mean we don't need it.

We don't need meat. I explained this in a previous post of mine. Rice and beans cover your protein and all the B-vitamins can be obtained from vegetable/fruit/legume/etc. sources or synthetic sources.

[Mavorpen]

That's...not how it works. Artificial meat would be created so as to make it taste good. I'm not following what you're saying at all.

I would like a citation for that now. If you don't mind.

That's...literally common sense.

[Gideus]

if people learns to eat in moderation and learns not to eat less meat and more fruit and vetagables not only where their their people more cattle, but people will be less fat.

So... overall, a great bonus for all of us.

Also, people won't necessarily be less fat. There's plenty of greasy, fatty, etc. food that's not meat or animal based. See: Potato chips.

[Geilinor]

But meat is a very impormant bit of a balanced diet. I mean sure you can use various suplements and workarounds for it. But that does not mean we don't need it.

We don't need meat. I explained this in a previous post of mine. Rice and beans cover your protein and all the B-vitamins can be obtained from vegetable/fruit/legume/etc. sources or synthetic sources.

If meat is the shortage, then maybe try to make it up through seafood farming. You need a giant building with numerous tanks.

[Mavorpen]

We don't need meat. I explained this in a previous post of mine. Rice and beans cover your protein and all the B-vitamins can be obtained from vegetable/fruit/legume/etc. sources or synthetic sources.

If meat is the shortage, then maybe try to make it up through seafood farming.

That's a horrible alternative. Fishing is already a major problem.