While that may be so, you'd be surprised at how complicated these animals can be, I learned this staying at my friends farm for four days, we tended to cattle and Livestock, and I was amazed at the differences between each cow. They may all look the same in a herd, but the moment you pull one out, and examine it, you find it's astonishingly different to the others, My friends grandfather was doing just that, he was helping many of his livestock, one cow was depressed and just not eating and becoming thin and weak. He'd give it medicines and treatment to help it, another one, and this one was very special, would not give it's calf milk. It was very angry for no reason, so we would have to carefully secure it and milk it to give to the calf, and then go find the weak calf, and feed it. While we were suckling it, a mistake was made and the wrong gate opened, proving this cows complexity, it goes from being angry and depriving it's calf of milk, to becoming extremely protective, it chased and charged us until we let the calf go. Long story short we eventually got it back to the pen. Those four days changed my view and increased my empathy for animals. You may believe that cows are cows and meat is meat. But All animals great and small, taken for granted or not, are special. As for Morality My view are, if the animal is being raised for meat, so be it, so long as it lives a comfortable life and is humanely treated. and is given a painless death, I'm happy. This isn't the case in some places, I know.
Animals don't need intelligence. All animals only need to be able to find food and reproduce. The reasons us humans use our intelligence is because we aren't as physically strong as other animals, so we must acquire food by other means. Now that our food is literally given to us on a plate by supermarkets, humans use their intelligence to do pretty much everything except hunting.
And on that point, that animals are stronger, faster, etc than humans so we became intelligent, we also became very social creatures and capable at mass reproduction. Even the biggest and strongest predator can't fight a horde of intelligent, weapon-wielding, intelligent creatures.
We also begin to lose our touch with nature in my opinion. How would your average man fare in harsh conditions? Yes, we do still have a survival instinct, and to some degree can survive, That's what separates us from animals, animals NEED to survive, but humans do not, that means we can focus our intelligence elsewhere, to the degree where we forget we are part of this ecosystem and food chain too
So I've been on this subject since I looked at petas website and watched food inc. I love meat, but I've gotten sick and tired of factories. It disgusts me to think about it. I'd much rather hunt. I hate to think that the animals are stuck is a tiny little cage their whole life and never get to see the light of day. Their stuck in that cage and fattened until the day their slaughtered. The same kind of things go for animal testing. I just want to hunt rather than eating that filth. Now I know people are going to argue about how the animals are put through aaaaall thaat tooorture when their shot, but, (hate to seem like jerk) isn't it almost about the same death, if not better, than if they were killed by a mountain lion or something? Now this is just my personal opinion, I don't mean any offense by it. But seriously though, I don't think a death from a human would be much different than from another animal. This subject kinda makes me feel kind of abad bout myself because I've seen pictures on the internet about stuff like "if you eat meat, you hate animals" and stuff like that. It makes me really mad to think that people think you hate animals because you eat meat. It really does. Anyway, I'm kind of glad this subject was brought up.
I used to agree with peta, now I really don't. Although I'd still stick with hunting, because I don't know where exactly my food is coming from. I have a garden because of the same thing.
It's pretty simple, really. Homo Sapiens is an omnivorous species. Omnivores eat meat. Therefore, humans are supposed to eat meat.
PETA means well... sort of... not really. Their belief that animals deserve rights is brutally two-faced and ignores the fact that animals don't possess the same intelligence and/or sapience as humans. We're the top of the food chain and that comes with all of the grim implications. I suppose it doesn't matter when they're hypocrites and regularly euthanize the very animals they speak to protect. ===== I don't like the manufactured process and acquisition of animals into food either, but it's hard to argue against it being a necessary evil at a quick glance. Sadly, people are starving in other places of the world. Were they to have such a thing and we didn't, how would it affect both places? How would it change our perception of such a thing?
I fail to see it as an evil. It seems, to me, that it's part of the natural order. Why is it wrong for an omnivorous species to kill to eat?
Animals kill animals for food all the time. Its not evil, its just nature. Accept it. I understand not eating meat for health reasons, or simply out of choice, just don't hate other people for eating it.
I think the "eating meat is natural" argument is pretty flawed. I'm not against others eating meat, but it is certainly a bad argument. You know what else happens in a state of nature? Murder, rape, assault, abuse, and pretty much every thing our society tells us is wrong in the first place. Saying something, anything, is "natural" or "unnatural" is of no consequence and does nothing to further anyone's argument.
Except for the fact that humans were born to be omnivores: I.E. eat meat too. It's perfectly healthy, and science has shown that meat, in certain amounts, is great for your health.
You're reverting to the "it's natural" argument to counter my criticism of the "it's natural" argument. Not really the point, you see. I don't believe in the "natural = ethical" ideas that sometimes get tossed around. I'm not really against other people eating meat, so go right ahead if that's what you want, but the first argument you're using to justify it is totally facile. As for it being good for your health, I'd say that's true but there are also substitutes that can accomplish the same thing, so both sides can claim that to be true.
I think the argument is made to us being the most evolved, and as such, we're supposed to carry ourselves in a purer light. Unfortunately, that just won't be the case any time soon. The common point raised is that animals being "cultivated" in facilities that never leave a metal box to see the light of day--born to be fattened and killed with no "life" able to be experienced at all--is vile. In a lot of ways, it is. But that's from our perspective as humans. From what we see with our beliefs and morals, it is a terrible fate, even for animals deemed to be of low(er) intelligence.
Agreed. We are not "naturally" meat eaters but by extension of natural processes we are able to consume meat. That's the crucial difference but people too easily smash those two together as the same thing. The only thing I consider "natural" for mankind is the ability use our mind to find the best of what is available for ourselves, and that of course includes picking what to eat. One method or aspect is not more natural than the other, but what is is our ability to make things work with what we are given. All in all, people do cling too much onto that argument and I agree; it's a bad place to solely base your stance on. It's just too crude and there are too many bad implications made. Sent from my XT1080M using Tapatalk