We Are Supposed to Eat Animals !

[maskedmelon]

Dave Chapelle, Oprah and Glen Beck all eat aminals.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Beck started tv on cnn

Yeah I know, I never saw him there though, since I never watched CNN except on some special coverage. I meant early on fox I guess. Back then he was sort of more like AJ, maybe a little more tame. I didn't watch him for long, I have enough sources, and his theories were sometimes problematic in a lot of ways; a little too tangled and not leading to the way I have seen things for a lot of years. But I listened for a time. And where that path lead to, hey, he can kiss Zuckerberg's butt all he want's, he aint doing it on my behalf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dave Chapelle, Oprah and Glen Beck all eat aminals.

Each other [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[R Flair]

Just ate a pound of cheeseburgers. It was glorious. Confirmed fat.

[big_ole_jpn]

Oprah posts got me #swole lot of insight

[entruil]

Bacon.



"Not talkin' 'bout rich, I'm talkin' 'bout Wealthy" - Chris Rock

Oprah still had to give away free cars++ to maintain her Pseudo-Influence... I wouldn't put to much credence into the fact that she murdered Tupac and Biggie.

[Evia]

Originally Posted by katrik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As soon as I try a good veggie burger, veggie hotdog, and veggie steak, I'll consider it. Until then, nope.

Field Roast makes a bomb diggity veggie burger and hot dog. I still haven't found a good alternative to steak though.

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by GradnerLives [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no reasonable scientific or moral defense for continuing to eat meat in a society where other options exist. It is unconscionable and unsustainable.

Eating meat is like smoking cigarettes. You can try to justify it 100 different ways, but in the end the reason why you're still doing it is because you can't be bothered to stop.

ITT: people with quite literally next to 0 idea about nutrition, the evolution of species and the nature of conciousness defend the easiest course of action because it's easy.

The idea that vegetarianism is a healthier option has been debunked by everyone. And there are no morals.

[GradnerLives]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The idea that vegetarianism is a healthier option has been debunked by everyone. And there are no morals.

Surprisingly, there really aren't any major studies that have been done that have provided any conclusive evidence that a vegan diet is more or less healthy. I never argued that it's healthier, just that it's not less healthy and that the fact that it "Goes against nature" is a stupid defense given how many things technology has allowed us to do that "Go against nature".

Human teeth are shaped like an omnivore's. So what? The human body can also only survive between 4 and 35 degrees celsius, should we stop using AC and furnaces because it's "Unnatural"? We do what we need to do, technologically, to continue to thrive and if we don't continue to make progress in providing alternative diets that don't rely on meats we can't keep up with the demand. Meat production is unsustainable given our current projected population growth and there aren't really any credible sources that refute that.

As far as morality is concerned, the meat industry tortures living things. You can wax relativist on it and start talking about the differences between an animal's experience versus a human's or you can try to discuss the cruel realities that exist in nature. You can even get real first year philosophy major up ins and suggest that morality is completely subjective but that line of thinking is useless at best, pretty damn dangerous at worst.

None of that changes the fact that humans, as highly developed analytical creatures with the ability to adapt to external pressures and internal preferences, have a choice to allow it to happen or allow it to stop (to whatever extent an individual can impact that). Opting out has value and while it's debatable what sort of moral value the decision has in the long run, there's not much point arguing that less death and torture is a bad thing objectively.

[Spyder73]

Reading back over this thread, it has taken some interesting twists and turns. I feel/hope it's about to come full circle back to Aliens

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by GradnerLives [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Surprisingly, there really aren't any major studies that have been done that have provided any conclusive evidence that a vegan diet is more or less healthy. I never argued that it's healthier, just that it's not less healthy and that the fact that it "Goes against nature" is a stupid defense given how many things technology has allowed us to do that "Go against nature".

Human teeth are shaped like an omnivore's. So what? The human body can also only survive between 4 and 35 degrees celsius, should we stop using AC and furnaces because it's "Unnatural"? We do what we need to do, technologically, to continue to thrive and if we don't continue to make progress in providing alternative diets that don't rely on meats we can't keep up with the demand. Meat production is unsustainable given our current projected population growth and there aren't really any credible sources that refute that.

As far as morality is concerned, the meat industry tortures living things. You can wax relativist on it and start talking about the differences between an animal's experience versus a human's or you can try to discuss the cruel realities that exist in nature. You can even get real first year philosophy major up ins and suggest that morality is completely subjective but that line of thinking is useless at best, pretty damn dangerous at worst.

None of that changes the fact that humans, as highly developed analytical creatures with the ability to adapt to external pressures and internal preferences, have a choice to allow it to happen or allow it to stop (to whatever extent an individual can impact that). Opting out has value and while it's debatable what sort of moral value the decision has in the long run, there's not much point arguing that less death and torture is a bad thing objectively.

Why is the life of a lettuce any less than that of a snail, or a duck, or a cow, or a man? Each is nothing more than a collection of cells, why are larger more diverse collections anymore valuable than smaller more specialized ones?

Life requires death. Even plants, the most innocent of living things would cease without the time worn carcasses of their predators to sustain them. We can delude ourselves into believing we have attained some degree of righteousness for choosing to devour the most vulnerable of life in lieu of the lives of their aggressors, those that more closely resemble our selves, but in the end all we have done is deny the intermediaries a purposeful existence.

That said, many steps can certainly taken to make harvesting of animals a more humane.