Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

First off, this is not a rant or a personal attack on any group of people, I'm making this thread mostly because of an internal battle in my head that needs settling. Let it also be known that I am a meat eater.

Okay so let's begin by laying down what we know for sure (or at least as close as possible to certainty): Firstly, The majority of people would agree that the suffering/death of living things is not something desirable. Many people have pets they love dearly as if they were human relatives, this is not breaking news. Secondly, it is possible for civilized man to live perfectly fine in this day and age without ingesting meat. We have living breathing evidence of this; vegetarians. Considering this then, it has to be admitted that if you eat meat, you do so for nothing more than pleasure or convenience, in other words not out of necessity. So far so good I hope.

So then, it seems to be the conclusion that the vast majority of people directly the support the murder and suffering of animals, living conscious things, for pleasure and convenience. These same people display complete outrage at the abuse/killing of household pets (in the not too rare news reports of dogs/cats being killed for fun you often see particularly bad cases of people demanding mob justice), and when this huge hypocriticism is shown to them, they argue that meat is different because it's a necessity, animals we eat die for a "purpose". But as i've already demonstrated, the justification for meat eating comes down to pleasure just as much as it does for murder for kicks. Why is one form of pleasure seen as completely morally okay and another seen as outright evil? What fundamentally is the difference between a man who kills a dog for the fun of killing, and a man that supports the mass slaughter of pigs by purchasing bacon? Neither serve any real "purpose", both are for pleasure.

hopefully this has made sense because I can't be bothered proof reading

tl;dr in a meat eating society I should be able to murder pets en masse without anybody taking a second glance

Plants are people too. I laugh at you consumers.

Photosynthesis

At 3/24/14 10:10 PM, JaY11 wrote: What fundamentally is the difference between a man who kills a dog for the fun of killing, and a man that supports the mass slaughter of pigs by purchasing bacon?

If I saw a man killing dogs my first question wouldn't be "Are you going to eat that." Two fundamentally different things buddy.

Morality is something created by humans, and humans have been eating meat for eons, it's really only the change in perceived morality (and availability of lots of alternate sources of protein) that makes people question whether to eat meat, right?

Do whatever feels right to you.

At 3/24/14 10:15 PM, Scintillating wrote:

At 3/24/14 10:10 PM, JaY11 wrote: What fundamentally is the difference between a man who kills a dog for the fun of killing, and a man that supports the mass slaughter of pigs by purchasing bacon?

If I saw a man killing dogs my first question wouldn't be "Are you going to eat that." Two fundamentally different things buddy.

my point being why would one raise any more questions than the other? murder and paying for murder.

Morality is something created by humans, and humans have been eating meat for eons, it's really only the change in perceived morality (and availability of lots of alternate sources of protein) that makes people question whether to eat meat, right?

We also burned women alive we thought were witches; change in perceived morality brought about by more knowledge is usually a good thing I think.

At 3/24/14 10:15 PM, Scintillating wrote:

At 3/24/14 10:10 PM, JaY11 wrote: What fundamentally is the difference between a man who kills a dog for the fun of killing, and a man that supports the mass slaughter of pigs by purchasing bacon?

If I saw a man killing dogs my first question wouldn't be "Are you going to eat that." Two fundamentally different things buddy.

Morality is something created by humans, and humans have been eating meat for eons, it's really only the change in perceived morality (and availability of lots of alternate sources of protein) that makes people question whether to eat meat, right?

Do whatever feels right to you.

Another excellent point - why exactly do we even eat to begin with? Oh, I forget - it keeps the body going with vitamins and minerals used to keep you in shape and prevent you from dying of starvation and other risks factored into malnutrition.

Like how "high calorie" intakes are bad, it's like uh no; it's the fact people won't walk a couple miles after eating that high calorie crap that causes health problems due to excessive energy intake. We were a nomadic species that fought gigantic dinosaurs and frothing-at-the-mouth sabretooth tigers, or at least that's what Joe & Mac 2 taught me. Just eat, and keep on the move!

This is a cruel world where the strong eat the weaker. The lions eat everything weaker than them. The sharks eat everything weaker than them. Hell, even the mice have some power over other organisms. Do you know how bad it sucks for us producers living at the bottom of the food chain? Hmm?

Vive les plantes
Revolution!
Today we fight back

At 3/24/14 10:10 PM, JaY11 wrote: First off, this is not a rant or a personal attack on any group of people, I'm making this thread mostly because of an internal battle in my head that needs settling. Let it also be known that I am a meat eater.

Naw it's cool bro.

Okay so let's begin by laying down what we know for sure (or at least as close as possible to certainty): Firstly, The majority of people would agree that the suffering/death of living things is not something desirable. Many people have pets they love dearly as if they were human relatives, this is not breaking news. Secondly, it is possible for civilized man to live perfectly fine in this day and age without ingesting meat. We have living breathing evidence of this; vegetarians. Considering this then, it has to be admitted that if you eat meat, you do so for nothing more than pleasure or convenience, in other words not out of necessity. So far so good I hope.

Lets not forget about iron and protein deficiency, some people who are anemic like.... actually do NEED meat bro. But that aside yeah I guess, but I personally don't think that killing something that is not self aware is exactly morally wrong, unless said creature is an endangered species, but that's just me.

So then, it seems to be the conclusion that the vast majority of people directly the support the murder and suffering of animals, living conscious things, for pleasure and convenience. These same people display complete outrage at the abuse/killing of household pets (in the not too rare news reports of dogs/cats being killed for fun you often see particularly bad cases of people demanding mob justice), and when this huge hypocriticism is shown to them, they argue that meat is different because it's a necessity, animals we eat die for a "purpose". But as i've already demonstrated, the justification for meat eating comes down to pleasure just as much as it does for murder for kicks. Why is one form of pleasure seen as completely morally okay and another seen as outright evil? What fundamentally is the difference between a man who kills a dog for the fun of killing, and a man that supports the mass slaughter of pigs by purchasing bacon? Neither serve any real "purpose", both are for pleasure.

Well, first off there is some debate as to the whole "conscious things", but that's beside the point. Now you are generalizing about the sentimental feelings about the killing of household pets, but once again, beside the point.

So... I think you are missing a few other factors. Two being just cause and how humane the death is. Now, most animals (I know this is a generalization, but just go with it for arguments sake) that are slaughtered from human consumption are killed rather painlessly, where most house pets that are killed are usually starved or beat to death. Big difference. As to just cause, I don't think they are quite the same. Sure, indirectly they are both for pleasure, but if you eat an animal, it has a PHYSICAL benefit to you, where if you just beat and animal to death and leave it to rot, maybe you had fun, but physically, no one was helped. Also, eating meat is natural. Prey vs. Predator has been around for millions of years, and no one has complained until now.

Your other argument for the vegetarian life style was that we could simply get other sources of food, but that is not entirely true, in fact, apprx 10% of the global calorie intake is from meat. If you were to take away 10% of the worlds food... there would be a LOT more people starving.

hopefully this has made sense because I can't be bothered proof reading

tl;dr in a meat eating society I should be able to murder pets en masse without anybody taking a second glance\

Well... no. That's kinda like saying in a society where people go to war it should be okay to just go into a public area and go on a murder spree.

Wrong.

At 3/24/14 10:19 PM, JaY11 wrote: We also burned women alive we thought were witches; change in perceived morality brought about by more knowledge is usually a good thing I think.

It's not even an increase in knowledge. It's an increase in amino-acid/protein food availability, because of the massive industrialized scale of farming in our modern age.

But why should something become immoral as long as it's no longer a necessity? Was it any more morally acceptable before? Should humans just die because they are compelled to eat other animals? Is a human eating animals any more perverse than other organisms doing the same? etc. etc. blah blah I'm gonna eat a steak and wear a leather belt

At 3/24/14 10:32 PM, Scintillating wrote:

But why should something become immoral as long as it's no longer a necessity? Was it any more morally acceptable before? Should humans just die because they are compelled to eat other animals? Is a human eating animals any more perverse than other organisms doing the same? etc. etc. blah blah I'm gonna eat a steak and wear a leather belt

Maybe one day when humans figure out how to shove chlorophyll into their skin, eating plants will be morally wrong too.

know i now there are several ways to get protein through soybeans,beans and other stuff but there is nothing moral about eating meat we eat it gain protein and use that energy for the day but you do need a limit and portion for your meals.

also for the people that use protein supplements where do you think that stuff comes from ? from animals as well as plants but they do use animals to make them.

If you need it to survive, go right ahead. I don't eat much meat. I've always been fascinated with the idea of 'living off the land'. So if you need to spear a fish or kill a wild animal to survive, then do so. It's great when you're feeling weak, which is when I usually eat meat.

Lean meats like rabbit, dog, cat, etc are actually not good for your body when you're trying to survive of course. If you're killing just to kill and eat for pleasure, that's kind of fucked up in my mind.

I never got the eating condition that people attach to hunting. If you put yourself in a situation in which you need to kill to survive because you think it will be interesting/fun, that's not really survival. You could have just become a vegan and cancelled the camping trip, but that wouldn't be any fun would it? The only real reason I go hunting is because it's fun. I object to hunting without eating simply because it's wasteful and why the fuck wouldn't you want to eat the delicious hog you just shot but I don't see an overarching moral issue involving survival. The wasteful thing isn't a huge deal either. Hell I bet the amount of food the average person here scrapes into a trashcan annually weighs more than a deer.

I wouldn't kill an endangered animal, but I don't think it's a crime to kill a squirrel with a pellet gun and throw it in the garbage can either.

At 3/24/14 10:32 PM, DaAtheno wrote:

At 3/24/14 10:10 PM, JaY11 wrote: First off, this is not a rant or a personal attack on any group of people, I'm making this thread mostly because of an internal battle in my head that needs settling. Let it also be known that I am a meat eater.

Naw it's cool bro.

Okay so let's begin by laying down what we know for sure (or at least as close as possible to certainty): Firstly, The majority of people would agree that the suffering/death of living things is not something desirable. Many people have pets they love dearly as if they were human relatives, this is not breaking news. Secondly, it is possible for civilized man to live perfectly fine in this day and age without ingesting meat. We have living breathing evidence of this; vegetarians. Considering this then, it has to be admitted that if you eat meat, you do so for nothing more than pleasure or convenience, in other words not out of necessity. So far so good I hope.

Lets not forget about iron and protein deficiency, some people who are anemic like.... actually do NEED meat bro. But that aside yeah I guess, but I personally don't think that killing something that is not self aware is exactly morally wrong, unless said creature is an endangered species, but that's just me.

You don't think your average farm animal is self aware?

Well, first off there is some debate as to the whole "conscious things", but that's beside the point. Now you are generalizing about the sentimental feelings about the killing of household pets, but once again, beside the point.

So... I think you are missing a few other factors. Two being just cause and how humane the death is. Now, most animals (I know this is a generalization, but just go with it for arguments sake) that are slaughtered from human consumption are killed rather painlessly, where most house pets that are killed are usually starved or beat to death. Big difference. As to just cause, I don't think they are quite the same.

I think these death factories they are tightly packed into and forced away from their families is real suffering (I know I keep making comparisons to pets but consider how differently people would feel seeing slaughterhouses full of dogs or cats). The deaths aren't always instant, but regardless, death itself is surely undesirable for any animal anyway.

Sure, indirectly they are both for pleasure, but if you eat an animal, it has a PHYSICAL benefit to you, where if you just beat and animal to death and leave it to rot, maybe you had fun, but physically, no one was helped.

But it's not a physical benefit we need anymore, making it just as shallow of a pleasure as any other.

Also, eating meat is natural. Prey vs. Predator has been around for millions of years, and no one has complained until now.

it's also natural for us to be tearing our prey apart with our bare hands but I hope most people would view that as barbaric

Your other argument for the vegetarian life style was that we could simply get other sources of food, but that is not entirely true, in fact, apprx 10% of the global calorie intake is from meat. If you were to take away 10% of the worlds food... there would be a LOT more people starving.

I'm not suggesting we ban eating meat or anything radical like that, just food for thought for those who live such a life that they have the option (e.g. most people on NG).

Well... no. That's kinda like saying in a society where people go to war it should be okay to just go into a public area and go on a murder spree.

I half meant that part as a joke

Meat is yummy.

At 3/24/14 10:32 PM, Scintillating wrote:

At 3/24/14 10:19 PM, JaY11 wrote:

But why should something become immoral as long as it's no longer a necessity? Was it any more morally acceptable before?

To reduce the amount of suffering in the universe is all I have in mind, whether or not it was morally acceptable before we stopped absolutely needing meat is irrelevant, the point is that a lot of mankind has the choice now and they (including myself) don't take it.

At 3/24/14 11:19 PM, JaY11 wrote:

To reduce the amount of suffering in the universe is all I have in mind

The suffering

At 3/24/14 11:15 PM, JaY11 wrote: You don't think your average farm animal is self aware?

No, I do not. No spindle neurons bro. Need those mega neural highways. I mean, if we were talking elephants or dolphins, then yeah, i'd say they were self aware. But a cow? I think not.

I think these death factories they are tightly packed into and forced away from their families is real suffering (I know I keep making comparisons to pets but consider how differently people would feel seeing slaughterhouses full of dogs or cats). The deaths aren't always instant, but regardless, death itself is surely undesirable for any animal anyway.

True, but it's completely up to you where you buy your meats from. You don't have to buy a butterball turkey, instead get something that's raised locally in a pasture.

But it's not a physical benefit we need anymore, making it just as shallow of a pleasure as any other.

You just missed the point... it's still a physical benefit.

it's also natural for us to be tearing our prey apart with our bare hands but I hope most people would view that as barbaric

The only reason we don't do that is because it spreads germs.

I'm not suggesting we ban eating meat or anything radical like that, just food for thought for those who live such a life that they have the option (e.g. most people on NG).

Okay.

I half meant that part as a joke

A'ight then.

At 3/24/14 10:10 PM, JaY11 wrote: Considering this then, it has to be admitted that if you eat meat, you do so for nothing more than pleasure or convenience, in other words not out of necessity.

Nope. Need chicken for dem gainz.

At 3/24/14 11:21 PM, koopahermit wrote:

At 3/24/14 11:19 PM, JaY11 wrote:

To reduce the amount of suffering in the universe is all I have in mind

The suffering

I can't tell if you're joking or if you're genuinely trying to make a point in comparing the intelligence of animals with that of plants

We do what we gotta to survive, that's what I think.

At 3/24/14 11:23 PM, DaAtheno wrote:

At 3/24/14 11:15 PM, JaY11 wrote: You don't think your average farm animal is self aware?

No, I do not. No spindle neurons bro. Need those mega neural highways. I mean, if we were talking elephants or dolphins, then yeah, i'd say they were self aware. But a cow? I think not.

Cows seem particularly robotic, but as far as I know pigs are considered to be equally if not more intelligent than dogs and cats. Then there's also the question of whether an animal needs to be "self aware" to suffer.

If we were to set a one month old baby on fire we'd consider its wails and struggling to be clear signs of suffering, despite that we know that humans aren't self aware at that age.

it's a pretty speculative subject to be honest, which is why I mentioned that it's been an internal battle for me

At 3/24/14 11:28 PM, JaY11 wrote:

At 3/24/14 11:21 PM, koopahermit wrote:

At 3/24/14 11:19 PM, JaY11 wrote:

To reduce the amount of suffering in the universe is all I have in mind

The suffering

I can't tell if you're joking or if you're genuinely trying to make a point in comparing the intelligence of animals with that of plants

So now we're sparing the lives of animals over plants solely because animals are "smarter". If animals are so smart, then how come they can't photosynthesize? Why do they have to mooch off the hard workers? What is really happening is that we're sparing the lives of animals over plants solely because animals look more like humans than plants do. Human morality is so prejudice.

At 3/24/14 11:33 PM, JaY11 wrote: Cows seem particularly robotic, but as far as I know pigs are considered to be equally if not more intelligent than dogs and cats. Then there's also the question of whether an animal needs to be "self aware" to suffer.

If we were to set a one month old baby on fire we'd consider its wails and struggling to be clear signs of suffering, despite that we know that humans aren't self aware at that age.

it's a pretty speculative subject to be honest, which is why I mentioned that it's been an internal battle for me

1. I don't think pigs, or dogs, or cats are self aware........ or babies.

2. A baby has potential, a pig does not.

At 3/24/14 11:48 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
Quote by someone quoted by Stephen Fry at the end of a QI episode. Quite a humorous comment.

Cow approved.

Meats, Its what's for dinner.

Meat is wonderful. I love the taste of death.

1. You're saying that if people eat meat, then it should be acceptable to kill household pets for fun. First of all, people don't kill and eat animals for "fun", they do it because it's food. Just because we could technically survive on just plants and vitamins, doesn't make it healthy 100% of the time. Furthermore, just because we don't need to eat meat doesn't make the killing of animals for food pointless, there's still a point to it; it's a massive access to vital proteins and minerals. Humans are omnivores for a reason, we require a balance of meat and vegetation, not just one of either, and just because you can survive on one of either doesn't make it a superior eating habit.

2. The killing of other animals for food is natural. Omnivores in nature don't technically require meat to survive, but they eat it anyways, are you saying that's immoral? If you can't apply your morals to the structure of nature, then you're literally just making things up and saying "Anything that goes against this is wrong!". Think about it; killing in self defense is morally acceptable, and it happens in nature. Killing for no reason whatsoever is morally unacceptable, and it very very rarely happens in nature. The fact that animals eat other animals is morally alright, it's the nature of life, and that same morality applies to humans.

3. There is a massive difference between cattle, and a pet. Cattle, pigs and chickens, make for good food due to the large amount of consumable material, not to mention that cows can furthermore be refined into leather, and you can eat almost every part of a pig. People will often abuse, and even kill pets, due to simple speciesism. They see them as inferior, and genuinely don't care for their well-being at all. It's harsh and cruel, and completely pointless. There are probably people out there who abuse cattle and other generic farm animals for no reason, but those people don't reflect the grand scheme of animal harvesting. Farm animals aren't killed for no reason, they're killed for food, and just because you can attain the fuel to live by other means doesn't make their death in any way pointless.

I had like, 4 other points, but I've forgotten them all by now.

For any vegetarians out there, what if science found a way to grow artificial meat? Like take actual animal product but then find a way to essentially endlessly grow meat from that and just eat the grown meat? It kills animals initially but then infinite meat with no more killings. Would you consider that immoral too or would that be okay?