Rukas exposed; beef related.
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
- Status
I think biological means organic to us.
explanation:
Organic farming is a farming system that works with nature's own forces. Organic farmers place strong emphasis on sustainability, animal welfare and the harvest of a product that is not only good for your health but also great for the environment. Livestock are afforded a quality of life with a healthy diet and the types of conditions necessary to produce quality animal products.
Organic chicken is tasty.
explanation:
Organic farming is a farming system that works with nature's own forces. Organic farmers place strong emphasis on sustainability, animal welfare and the harvest of a product that is not only good for your health but also great for the environment. Livestock are afforded a quality of life with a healthy diet and the types of conditions necessary to produce quality animal products.
Organic chicken is tasty.
"Quite" cruel is very much an understatement. Basically what you're saying is: I don't care about anything except for the fact that meat tastes good. Why not just stop there? Why try and give reasons to support your decision, which isn't based on reason but pure selfish enjoyment? To me that's just trying to find excuses to suit your own needs. "I don't care about animal suffering because I get something out of it". You've made your point and most sane people will know not to argue with your ideals. It's like if some whore goes around fucking married men. Sure she can say "hey it's my right, it's the way of the world etc etc." but why not be truthful and end all discussion and say "I'm a selfish whore and I only care about getting mine".
The only reason why people choose to ignore morals when it comes to animals is because they can't talk back. Pretty much everyone is this thread is saying "it's the way of the world" and I would respect that somewhat if people actually lived by those rules but they don't. And practically no one would want to live by those rules. There would be no legal system, there would be no such thing as human rights. Now if you'd be happy to live under the circumstances where someone can walk into your house, rape your mother, kill your father, eat your pet, piss on your curtains and then set your house on fire without any legal repercussions, sure I'll accept your reasoning. But until people stop demanding that they have rights and completely irradicate all morals, it's complete and utter self-serving bullshit.
If you need to eat meat in order to live, it's fine. That is the way of the world. But that's not how it is at all. There's only a minority of people who eat meat in order to survive, the rest eats it because it tastes good period. Besides that, meat isn't just a part of our diet, it's the main part of our diet. And we don't eat it every now and then, we eat it every damn day.
If you truly think it's alright to eat animals then go for it but at least have the decency to eat it sparsely (no more than 3 times a week) and buy biological meat.
I honestly can't respect any person that thinks it's okay to subject animals to incredibly cruel treatment just so you can enjoy a certain food for 5 minutes per day. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over people like that dying. The only acceptable answer I can think of for a person to eat meat while he knows he's financially supporting the inhumane cruelty of animals is "a single vegetarian doesn't make the slightest of difference so why cut something out of my life when it doesn't change anything?". It's not an ideal way to live since it means bad things won't change but at least it's valid.
By the way I agree with the holier-than-thou attitude. But there's a difference between a person feeling holier-than-thou because they don't do drugs and someone feeling "better" than someone else because they don't aid in the cruel ritual slaughtering of living creatures. There's also a difference between thinking you're better than someone because YOU are special and thinking you're better than someone because THEY're retarded. For example I look down on rapists because rape is bad. But I don't think I'm "good" because I've never raped someone, I'd consider myself normal. I'm only 'better' because they're worse.
EDIT: A question to the people that eat meat because it's "the way of the world". Would you still eat meat if it tasted like shit? If you answer 'no' to that question you shouldn't probably re-consider your argument.
EDIT 2: Dukeje, lijkt misschien of ik pissig ben, maar ik hou van je
The only reason why people choose to ignore morals when it comes to animals is because they can't talk back. Pretty much everyone is this thread is saying "it's the way of the world" and I would respect that somewhat if people actually lived by those rules but they don't. And practically no one would want to live by those rules. There would be no legal system, there would be no such thing as human rights. Now if you'd be happy to live under the circumstances where someone can walk into your house, rape your mother, kill your father, eat your pet, piss on your curtains and then set your house on fire without any legal repercussions, sure I'll accept your reasoning. But until people stop demanding that they have rights and completely irradicate all morals, it's complete and utter self-serving bullshit.
If you need to eat meat in order to live, it's fine. That is the way of the world. But that's not how it is at all. There's only a minority of people who eat meat in order to survive, the rest eats it because it tastes good period. Besides that, meat isn't just a part of our diet, it's the main part of our diet. And we don't eat it every now and then, we eat it every damn day.
If you truly think it's alright to eat animals then go for it but at least have the decency to eat it sparsely (no more than 3 times a week) and buy biological meat.
I honestly can't respect any person that thinks it's okay to subject animals to incredibly cruel treatment just so you can enjoy a certain food for 5 minutes per day. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over people like that dying. The only acceptable answer I can think of for a person to eat meat while he knows he's financially supporting the inhumane cruelty of animals is "a single vegetarian doesn't make the slightest of difference so why cut something out of my life when it doesn't change anything?". It's not an ideal way to live since it means bad things won't change but at least it's valid.
By the way I agree with the holier-than-thou attitude. But there's a difference between a person feeling holier-than-thou because they don't do drugs and someone feeling "better" than someone else because they don't aid in the cruel ritual slaughtering of living creatures. There's also a difference between thinking you're better than someone because YOU are special and thinking you're better than someone because THEY're retarded. For example I look down on rapists because rape is bad. But I don't think I'm "good" because I've never raped someone, I'd consider myself normal. I'm only 'better' because they're worse.
EDIT: A question to the people that eat meat because it's "the way of the world". Would you still eat meat if it tasted like shit? If you answer 'no' to that question you shouldn't probably re-consider your argument.
EDIT 2: Dukeje, lijkt misschien of ik pissig ben, maar ik hou van je
Eating meat in itself, be it bird, mammal, fish, reptilian, whatever, is a part of natural human life. That's one thing. But I draw a certain moral line between actually catching your own food (trap the hare, kill the hare, skin the hare, disembowel the hare, cook the hare, eat the hare) and being provided for (go to the supermarket). The first case is always legal in my opinion. When in a survival situation it's every beast for themselves.
Now, on to the bio industry. Morally, you can ask a lot of tough questions about it, true. But, even if we want to be as objective as possible when it comes to "validating" animal life, we can never escape our own subjectivity. No matter how bad I'll make me feel myself, I'll still feel worse killing a fluffy cat, rabbit, or dog, than I'd feel squashing a mosquito, a fruit fly or a cockroach.
We humans have built in systems that somehow triggers various things which make us give different levels of appreciation to animals. Dogs and cats are cute and are our true pets. Cattle and poultry are heavily industrialised, those animals don't have a life, but it would be incredibly hard to survive as a society, a society on any level mind you, whether regional or continental, without it (the meats from the industry).
Having accepted that, I look at myself and the current position, the choices which are offered to me. And I choose to continue to eat pretty much whatever I want and only worry about morals when someone asks or when I'm drunk (and even then only 50% of the time). I have a few reasons for that:
1.) You already mentioned this one. What can I do alone? Sure, the hippy activist might rattle off a campaign speech about joining the FGWR (Fucking Gay Wildlife Rangers) but one man more with the gay ass rangers isn't helping either. Basically, and bear with me here 'cos this is a bit of a sidetrack, in terms of solving the problem, I look at the bio industry in the same as I look at world hunger. Now, it may seem a weird equation at first, but this is about solving the problem. Whether you want to solve world hunger or the animal suffering in the bio industry, both require an immense, global, coordinated effort by all the major countries in the world. That is how you solve a serious, planetwide problem. And that's not being done. And you can join Greenpeace and donate to the WWF to add your drop on a glowing plate, but is it really helping? Tackling such problems is a major issue, not something that one country or organisation can ever even aspire to fix.
2.) When one looks back in history, and specifically to the domesticating of animal life, you have to admit they conceded fairly quickly. I mean, this is a bit of a fun, different way of looking at things yet it has a fair point:
Animals allow themselves to be domesticated. You have to admit that. Whether that itself is a valid reason to exploit them is an entirely different matter, but you cannot get around the fact that, well, "we (=humans) won". And biologically, those animals aren't doing bad at all really. The species thrives, be it in somewhat unusual circumstances, but thrive it does. This of course does not make the current bio-industry "al right", but it's not like human kind from the very beginning hatched a devious plot to submit all animals to their will.
Which kinda brings me to my last reason for not caring in everyday life:
Which is of course point number 3:
Things turned out this way. Like cars. They have massive benefits for us personally. Massively increased mobility, freedom to go wherever you want, yet they are polluting the environment. Every corner stone of our modern society has it's severe drawbacks. Feeding 6 billion people alone is a big task already, and when approximately 2 billion of those (the west) are picky customers as well, yeah, shit. But that brings me back to point 1. What the hell can I do?
I can agree to disagree but still carry on doing it because I don't feel like all of a sudden having to live a different life. It fucking breaks my heart that there are children in Africa dying because they don't have drinking water, but should I personally be feeling bad for that when I'm drinking my Bitburger and watching football on the tv? Should I feel constantly guilty about a situation that I can't do anything about?
Does it suck? Well...yeah, but what do you (not Chronic, but agressive eco-hippy stereotype) want us (as in, the world) to do? There simply is no 1-2-3 alternative.
The choice of diet is certainly not a social construct. Let's be sensible here, biology 1on1.
I was talking about me personally. I like cats, never said everyone did. That was my point. That you develop subjectiveness towards animals no matter what. That can either be because it looks cute, because you hate it, because you fear it, etc etc. A professor that studies insects his entire life will of course have more qualms with swatting a fly than a garbage man or jungle guide. Some subjectiveness is personal, others are more widespread. An easy example is, the bigger the animal is, either the more impressive or sad the kill is. At the end of the road your subjectiveness towards animals has been influenced by hundreds, maybe thousands of factors. Ranging from simple things such as instinct (humans naturally fear snakes because of monkey roots for example) or religion (reverance for a member of the bovine cadre), to intricate things like childhood doodlebug trauma's, to name something.
Moving on.
The big difference is that your vote is a free vote. No matter your choice in the vote you don't have to stop doing things, nor would you be obligated to do "new" things. If i "vote" vegetarian, because of say, animal cruelty, I have to consciously avoid certain produce because of my (new found) principles. I don't want to do that.
Easy, if maybe somewhat crooked analogy:
Dude, are you concerned about global warming?
- Yeah, kinda
So why do you take the car to school?
- It's 30 miles, man...
Don't you have principles?
I'm not going to make my life a fucking chore of minding my principles when i buy dinner when with that action I am taking (or not taking, the proverbial vote, as you have bombarded it) does not have any effect at all. It's only seen by a few supermarket customers, some cassieres, your vegetable salesman and that's it. It's not counted in Washington. The meat companies aren't going to lose sleep over 2 less pork chops a day.
That's why I said already, global coordinated, multinational action. If something like that comes off the ground, sure, count me in. But until then I'm not going to be a whineypants to be principal in an already lost cause.
Nature (i.e. instinct) is probably exactly the reason why most people, provided they're pushed far enough, would have little problem with killing for food.
I was talking about me personally. I like cats, never said everyone did. That was my point. That you develop subjectiveness towards animals no matter what. That can either be because it looks cute, because you hate it, because you fear it, etc etc. A professor that studies insects his entire life will of course have more qualms with swatting a fly than a garbage man or jungle guide. Some subjectiveness is personal, others are more widespread. An easy example is, the bigger the animal is, either the more impressive or sad the kill is. At the end of the road your subjectiveness towards animals has been influenced by hundreds, maybe thousands of factors. Ranging from simple things such as instinct (humans naturally fear snakes because of monkey roots for example) or religion (reverance for a member of the bovine cadre), to intricate things like childhood doodlebug trauma's, to name something.
Moving on.
The big difference is that your vote is a free vote. No matter your choice in the vote you don't have to stop doing things, nor would you be obligated to do "new" things. If i "vote" vegetarian, because of say, animal cruelty, I have to consciously avoid certain produce because of my (new found) principles. I don't want to do that.
Easy, if maybe somewhat crooked analogy:
Dude, are you concerned about global warming?
- Yeah, kinda
So why do you take the car to school?
- It's 30 miles, man...
Don't you have principles?
I'm not going to make my life a fucking chore of minding my principles when i buy dinner when with that action I am taking (or not taking, the proverbial vote, as you have bombarded it) does not have any effect at all. It's only seen by a few supermarket customers, some cassieres, your vegetable salesman and that's it. It's not counted in Washington. The meat companies aren't going to lose sleep over 2 less pork chops a day.
That's why I said already, global coordinated, multinational action. If something like that comes off the ground, sure, count me in. But until then I'm not going to be a whineypants to be principal in an already lost cause.
Nature (i.e. instinct) is probably exactly the reason why most people, provided they're pushed far enough, would have little problem with killing for food.
One more thing:
"Tell that to an Indian who'll shoot you for slaughtering a cow."
Tell that to a Native American who shoots big, wild cows everyday because it's their main staple food.
"Hindus value cows, you value cats. Some cultures eat cats."
Despite my liking of cats and dogs and fluffy animals, i like to eat hare and rabbit, and i'd like to try cat and dog for a change. I hear they make a killer baked guinea pig in Peru. I'm curious, of course. That's why humies got so far.
"So, there's nothing "built-in" (where's the biological proof for that?), in us that makes us value some animals more than others."
Large part of the valuation process is of course determined by natural instinct. Coming from the trees and plains of Africa, our oldest and most "baked in" routines are, like most animals of course, well run down in the basic boot system of our grey matter palace. Often enough it's our instinct that gives a first assesment on any animal we encounter, hell, on any action that we perform.
If you suddenly found yourself eye to eye with a Bengal tiger instead of a Bengal housecat it's not rationale telling you that you're screwed. It's instinct.
"Tell that to an Indian who'll shoot you for slaughtering a cow."
Tell that to a Native American who shoots big, wild cows everyday because it's their main staple food.
"Hindus value cows, you value cats. Some cultures eat cats."
Despite my liking of cats and dogs and fluffy animals, i like to eat hare and rabbit, and i'd like to try cat and dog for a change. I hear they make a killer baked guinea pig in Peru. I'm curious, of course. That's why humies got so far.
"So, there's nothing "built-in" (where's the biological proof for that?), in us that makes us value some animals more than others."
Large part of the valuation process is of course determined by natural instinct. Coming from the trees and plains of Africa, our oldest and most "baked in" routines are, like most animals of course, well run down in the basic boot system of our grey matter palace. Often enough it's our instinct that gives a first assesment on any animal we encounter, hell, on any action that we perform.
If you suddenly found yourself eye to eye with a Bengal tiger instead of a Bengal housecat it's not rationale telling you that you're screwed. It's instinct.
I took biology 101, and haven't learned that. Illuminate me.
Well, you develop the subjectiveness, but it doesn't excuse you from from the consequences of your actions.
Well, that's the problem! We want to stay in our comfort zones, we don't want to change our daily habits for the benefit of others or other animals. Laziness, apathy! Nothing to be admired.
Easy, if maybe somewhat crooked analogy:
A great number of people here in Seattle take the bus in those cases.
You don't have to look at it from such a global perspective. If you know YOU'RE not contributing to animal cruelty, it should be beneficial enough to you. If not, you lack that moral. Simple as that, no?
Well, there you go. But don't make it sound like it's completely OK to eat meat.
But, are you pushed enough?
Well, you develop the subjectiveness, but it doesn't excuse you from from the consequences of your actions.
Well, that's the problem! We want to stay in our comfort zones, we don't want to change our daily habits for the benefit of others or other animals. Laziness, apathy! Nothing to be admired.
Easy, if maybe somewhat crooked analogy:
A great number of people here in Seattle take the bus in those cases.
You don't have to look at it from such a global perspective. If you know YOU'RE not contributing to animal cruelty, it should be beneficial enough to you. If not, you lack that moral. Simple as that, no?
Well, there you go. But don't make it sound like it's completely OK to eat meat.
But, are you pushed enough?
I mean it in the sense that you eat what your body is capable of eating. In the "wild" so to speak you do not have the luxury of picking your diet. You eat whatever you can get your hands on. Whatever that may be. An apple, a potatoe, a grub worms, a salmon, or a dead rabbit. If we were never biologically meant to have our diets so heavily influenced by meats, why do you see all of the "old peoples" of the world that still adhere to their traditional lifestyles of millennia ago, have a very important role for meats in their diet. It's just one of the easiest and most readily available sources of "lot'sa stuff" in the wild.
Homo sapiens are omnivores. Borderline scavenger. There are the few exceptions that confirm the rule. I believe there's a bunch in Uganda that only drink milk, but regardless. It's an obvious case of physiology. A cow rechews her food, so she's got 5 stomachs. A rhino eats a lot of plantfood, he's got long intestines. Etc. etc. We are omnivores. Now, does that mean that we aren't able to live without meat and flesh? No, of course not. Not in today's world with the capabilities we have. But without society to protect us we havent got the knowledge nor the technology to sustain a vegetarian diet in the wild. And I heavily doubt it's even possible on a short term basis for the entire world population, even if that global, cooperative effort does come.
I never said it did.
I do not consider it lazy to refuse to fight a forlorn war. People randomly deciding to become vegetarian because of principles, then changing back 5 years later 'cos its such a hassle, it's not doing anything. Again, I say, you need to have a realistic result in sight before you want to commit to realistic actions. The only people you are making a point to when you don't eat meat is yourself. The rest doesn't really care. So I say, once more and hopefully for the last fucking time, without either a well coordinated multionational, political and economical rescue brigade, OR manage to get like 2/3rds of the world population to do something combined.
But that seems a bit like a far cry off. So untill that day I'm not going to feel guilty and cry crocodile tears because of a cow that was content with being led in a barn 8500 years ago.
You can call me an asshole, so be it, but I refuse to play mr. Morals here.
Obiously, in my example, there are no bus lines. Nor trams, nor trains, subways, cabs, sports team coaches, friends with rides, no old ladies on puch mopeds. No alternatives. What are you going to do? Walk the 30 miles or get in your car anyway?
I believe we share the burden of society equally. This is exactly what I mean with holier than thou attitude that some people develop. Not saying you, SOFI, are, I'm still drunk and ridiculously high and haven't pegged you as being truthfull or devil's advocate here, but anyway.
"I am not eating steak tonight, I'm eating a salad with fruits from Africa. Tealed on African soil, taken way from African mouths, to satisfy my big fucking ego because I feel too big to eat the chicken that's in the supermarket already."
An overblown, yet somewhat relative analogy. Shared burden, my friend. You can not pull out of it simply because you don't eat dead animal.
I would have no problem at all fending for myself in a survival situation (provided I dont have to wrestle a 600 pound grizzly).
Homo sapiens are omnivores. Borderline scavenger. There are the few exceptions that confirm the rule. I believe there's a bunch in Uganda that only drink milk, but regardless. It's an obvious case of physiology. A cow rechews her food, so she's got 5 stomachs. A rhino eats a lot of plantfood, he's got long intestines. Etc. etc. We are omnivores. Now, does that mean that we aren't able to live without meat and flesh? No, of course not. Not in today's world with the capabilities we have. But without society to protect us we havent got the knowledge nor the technology to sustain a vegetarian diet in the wild. And I heavily doubt it's even possible on a short term basis for the entire world population, even if that global, cooperative effort does come.
I never said it did.
I do not consider it lazy to refuse to fight a forlorn war. People randomly deciding to become vegetarian because of principles, then changing back 5 years later 'cos its such a hassle, it's not doing anything. Again, I say, you need to have a realistic result in sight before you want to commit to realistic actions. The only people you are making a point to when you don't eat meat is yourself. The rest doesn't really care. So I say, once more and hopefully for the last fucking time, without either a well coordinated multionational, political and economical rescue brigade, OR manage to get like 2/3rds of the world population to do something combined.
But that seems a bit like a far cry off. So untill that day I'm not going to feel guilty and cry crocodile tears because of a cow that was content with being led in a barn 8500 years ago.
You can call me an asshole, so be it, but I refuse to play mr. Morals here.
Obiously, in my example, there are no bus lines. Nor trams, nor trains, subways, cabs, sports team coaches, friends with rides, no old ladies on puch mopeds. No alternatives. What are you going to do? Walk the 30 miles or get in your car anyway?
I believe we share the burden of society equally. This is exactly what I mean with holier than thou attitude that some people develop. Not saying you, SOFI, are, I'm still drunk and ridiculously high and haven't pegged you as being truthfull or devil's advocate here, but anyway.
"I am not eating steak tonight, I'm eating a salad with fruits from Africa. Tealed on African soil, taken way from African mouths, to satisfy my big fucking ego because I feel too big to eat the chicken that's in the supermarket already."
An overblown, yet somewhat relative analogy. Shared burden, my friend. You can not pull out of it simply because you don't eat dead animal.
I would have no problem at all fending for myself in a survival situation (provided I dont have to wrestle a 600 pound grizzly).
What the hell are you on about? Indeed I wasn't talking about diet there. I was talking about animal assessment.
We don't have an instinct to eat any type of particular food. I never said that. I'll wager we have plenty of instincts to AVOID certain types of food, though.
Meat was eaten because alternatives were scarce? Heh, guess why Einstein? Because alternatives for meat ARE scarce. Thats why so much of the natural world kills each other for a meal.
And even today in human society, realistic large scale alternatives for meat are hardly there.
Why are you so strung up on history? In ancient times, that was the case, but in modern times you have the ability to ride the bus. You're defending your modern choices within a historical context. "I eat meat because some thousands years ago, people couldn't survive otherwise".
The bottom line is that there's no real valid argument for eating meat, unless you live in special circumstances. Which is what Chronic keeps saying. What people have come up with is:
1. It's a hassle
2. Animals will die anyway, I won't make a difference
3. It's in my nature to eat meat
Am I missing anything?
The bottom line is that there's no real valid argument for eating meat, unless you live in special circumstances. Which is what Chronic keeps saying. What people have come up with is:
1. It's a hassle
2. Animals will die anyway, I won't make a difference
3. It's in my nature to eat meat
Am I missing anything?
All these examples are pointless.
The bottom line is this. Do humans require meat to survive? No. Therefore eating meat, and killing an animal to do so, is a choice, and not a survival need.
What has made humanity flourish and survive so long is not that we ate meat but that we had made our own choices in life. Humanity can choose not to eat meat and still survive with no problems.
Therefore eating meat is a choice. Slaughtering animals is a choice. You choose to digest the flesh of a poorly treated, abused and slaughtered animal. You choose to sustain that industry and the practices that come with it.
The bottom line is this. Do humans require meat to survive? No. Therefore eating meat, and killing an animal to do so, is a choice, and not a survival need.
What has made humanity flourish and survive so long is not that we ate meat but that we had made our own choices in life. Humanity can choose not to eat meat and still survive with no problems.
Therefore eating meat is a choice. Slaughtering animals is a choice. You choose to digest the flesh of a poorly treated, abused and slaughtered animal. You choose to sustain that industry and the practices that come with it.
So if you choose to eat organic meat your then only digesting the flesh of well treated, loved and slaughtered animal. And you choose to sustain that industry and the practices that come with it.
At the end of the day, this is all a choice. If you like the taste of meat too much to stop eating it, then fine. Your not breaking any laws, no need to feel ashamed.
At the end of the day, this is all a choice. If you like the taste of meat too much to stop eating it, then fine. Your not breaking any laws, no need to feel ashamed.
- Status
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.