I eat meat, what do you guys have to say.
How do you Justify the Consumption of Meat
Posts
Total:
33
-->
@Trent0405
There is no moral justification for it. The fact is that it's indisputable that eating meat involves the slaughter of animals which are 100% as alive and sentient as us but we lie about it to justify it.
The justification to eat it is that nature isn't moral and we are being natural (that's the usual justification, anyway). The less intelligent justification is that it's natural and therefore morally acceptable as it's something we're built to do.
I never understand how fans of nature (green party hippy types) can celebrate it as a moral thing and spread peace and love. Nature is merciless, uncaring, unbiased and forever changing, leaving no one happy and stable (the most obvious doom for us all is that so far no immortal creature exists as far as we know, everything can and will die eventually but that's not the only harsh change that hits us all, there's a lot more to it).
Nature is without morality, it just is. In the same way as it's natural to be merciless it's also natural to care and empathise and this was a major reason that our species thwarted others. We both can harm others more than other species can and also can help each other and care for one another far more than the other species can dream of. Both our capacity to devour others and help each other not be devoured is key to understanding what has humans as the apex predator of the entire planet in every single regard.
The justification for eating meat lies in appreciating that nature itself isn't entirely moral, in fact it is 100% amoral (meaning it doesn't care about morality vs immorality). If you want to be the most 'good' person that you can be, then yes do not eat meat especially if you're financially independent. Until you're financially independent from your parents/guardians, you have an excuse to eat meat if they make you eat it and are the ones funding your food supply, shelter etc.
-->
@Trent0405
For starters we live in a culture where it's a normal custom to consume dead animal flesh so by the time you're old enough to walk most likely you've already been conditioned to it. So unless you've begun to somehow be convicted by it whether through alternative information or natural disgust there's no real concern to justify it, for most people it's simply a readily available "need".
I was the same way, I grew up eating dead animal tissue and was conditioned to believe it was a need, that I was somehow supposed to consume it to survive or be "healthy". The funny thing is, is that for a long time eating it grossed me out, especially if it had a lot of fat, gristle and cartilage however I enjoyed the taste so I continued eating meat until about a decade ago. Once I was educated in health and really began to contemplate what it was I was eating I could no longer stomach it. Now, I understand it is a myth that one has to consume it and the alternative food sources are of higher quality and far healthier. I'm not talking about fake meat either lol, or products that are being presented to substitute meat, I'm talking about alternative sources of protein or amino acids.
It's unanimous meat consumption is unhealthy, one can claim "well in moderation it's oaky" but even that in itself should alarm someone. In other words you can have little doses of such poison to where it doesn't kill you right off then it's okay!
Consumption of meat is associated with kidney failure, heart attacks, heart disease, inflammation, gastritis, colon cancer and a host of other ailments. It is acidic in nature, acids break down and deteriorate internal tissue they don't support tissue and cell health.
Meat s acidic as hell and very hard to digest, you don't even need a little bit of it. I don't consume meat anymore and it's been years, not only am I lighter....but faster, more energetic and overall very pleased and content without it. Heck , I can make just about everything I loved while eating meat without it, but even better and without being grossed out.
Did you know that dead animal meat putrefies before it leaves the human body? that the human gut has to break all that skin, tissue and cells down just to get to a little bit of "protein" you could have gotten from a cleaner source? the body is a machine and you don't want to burn dirty fuel, everything you consume there is a residual effect. They call that "ash" and you either eat something that leaves an acidic ash or an alkaline ash and the body doesn't want acidic ash foods because there are consequences. The body reacts/responds negatively (whether immediately or long term) to foreign substances and foods not in line with our natural sources of nutrition.
Every animal species has certain food sources it should comply with, and you see complications arise when that species alters that source. Just take a good look at the state of human health and look at medical and death statistics. Man really was never meant to suffer and be riddled with sickness of all kinds before he dies. These are the results of altered food sources believe it or not.
There's a big difference to the anatomy of say the cat family as opposed to humans and primates. Just looking at teeth structure and intestinal structure, cats eliminate meat from the gut much faster than humans due to the structure of that digestive system. Cats are also not associated with longevity and are notorious sleepers. That's because they need to rest long periods of time with such an acidic diet, the digestive periods are much longer.
The general lifespan of non-meat eating animals doubles that of meat eaters. For example the life span of a lion in the wild is an average of 10-15 years whereas primates (veggie and fruit eaters) live up to 40-50 years and even more impressive elephants up to 60-70 years. So you could imagine a human eating primarily meat would be a disaster, and plant based food sources are linked to longevity, health and vitality.
Power is also not just associated with eating meat (protein), as can be seen in horses, gorillas, rhinos, elephants ect ect and the power we see in big cats for example are more short bursts of adrenaline as opposed to the stamina of vegetarians and fruit eaters, a horse would be a great example of stamina.
The consumption of meat is more like an addiction or a stimulant for humans and when a person ceases to consume it they begin to withdraw from it, they feel weak and emaciated (at least for a time). This of course isn't because they "need" it it's because they stopped a habit the body became accustomed to or addicted to so the body is going through a state of crisis or detox. As the body adjusts it no longer needs that source of stimulation (as proven by myself and many others).
There's grounds to be argued that humans have had to adapt to eating meat according to where man migrated (from tropical zones to northern climates), but the true food source for humans was more tropical and jungle oriented. We're simply not equipped to naturally kill and digest animal flesh as can be seen in the anatomy of true meat eaters. So while man has adapted to eating alternative to fruits and veggies man has also paid a price for it as can be seen in his state of health globally.
I have incisors and canine teeth, both of which are essential in tearing flesh, as with all omnivore and carnivorous animals.
I like the taste of meat. Do I need any other justification?
Morality? Is that a joke?
-->
@fauxlaw
I have incisors and canine teeth, both of which are essential in tearing flesh
You also have a round hard cranium, do you knock over bowling pins with your head?
I like the taste of meat.
That hardly justifies anything. However I wouldn't argue you need to justify eating dead animal flesh, rather is it essential or harmful. And have you truly educated yourself on the matter. Personal tastes and preferences rarely dictate anything other than form your habits whether they are good or bad....there's plenty of weird preferences in this world in case you haven't noticed lol. Some of which come with a stiff price to pay.
-->
@fauxlaw
Morality? Is that a joke?
Depends on how an individual looks at it, and do they see eating dead animals as an essential or not and is it immoral to slaughter animals to fill your belly because you like it. So to some it can be a moral concern.
After all, perhaps a more advanced species could come along and begin to butcher humans because they like the taste of your thigh meat and juicy heart and they feel no remorse because you're half the species they are.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Taste doesn't justify? In my republic, it does. Sorry about yours. Yes, other places do have a variety of food sources. I've tried them in over 30 countries, including insects. Don't knock if you haven't tried it. Besides, since rice paddies emit methane, as do all natural and cultivated wetlands, plus lakes, rivers, and oceans, and at a greater volume than cow farts, let's just leave it at this: you can have your rice, but leave my steak alone.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yes, to each their own morality. Leave it at that, too.
If some other species wants to eat e, so be it. I have been where I am no longer at the top of the food chain, in a Thai jungle with nothing of protection other than a good blade at my hip, and my wits. Sobering. But survivable. Until you have been at risk of your life by another species, you don't know what risk is.
-->
@Trent0405
We are physiologically omnivorous, so the consumption of meat protein within a varied diet was obviously how our digestive system developed.... Back in the day you couldn't just pop down to the supermarket and pick up a pack of synthesised veggie protein....Back in the day you ate what was available, and if you didn't, you didn't survive for long (not that you survived for long anyway).
The modern moral argument is simply the modern moral argument...Simply because some people can comfortably afford to be modernly moralistic.
because humans are carnivores and babies who dont eat meat or have a vegan eating stlye, do not get enough nutrition to survive
also there are some vitamins that you can only get through meat. at least for b12. i mean there are supplements and such, but given that we're designed to eat meat and it's essential in smaller doses if you eat natural foods, id say it's moral.
-->
@n8nrgmi
That is in potato skin, partially in many vegetables (but not sufficiently) as well as the shcrose i things like apples breaking down to have energy-boosting properties that helo almost as much as vitamin B variants.
-->
@fauxlaw
I have incisors and canine teeth, both of which are essential in tearing flesh, as with all omnivore and carnivorous animals.I like the taste of meat. Do I need any other justification?Morality? Is that a joke?
I see no errors in this. However just know that this exact same justification can be used for me to eat you. Or for a society of humans to breed, rear and fatten up a herd of Homo Sapiens, slaughter and butcher them in the same way we do livestock.
If they like the taste of human meat then "Do I need any other justification?".
-->
@Envisage
"Society" is no guarantor of morality. There are as many moralities as there are climates. Which of the latter is "ideal," such as the Green New Deal should seek to have it emulated worldwide [even if such were possible]? Therefore, only by agreement of international law [and not all countries subscribe to I.L.] can we dictate the behavior of cannibalism, let alone morality for or against it. I'm being entirely pragmatic about this, even though I personally oppose cannibalism. I can choose to avoid those regions of the world thought to be inhabited by cannibals, however, it is greater risk to be in regions where, even where cannibalism does not exist, I may still be where I am not at the top of the food chain. I have been in such circumstances, and I was by choice.
-->
@zedvictor4
That was the 2nd best post you've ever made. Sharply on point.
If one's life philosophy allows them to live only in a technologically advanced society, they are delusional.
We see results of this delusion all the time,
*The American genius on safari in Kenya who tries to pet a lion.
*The American genius arrested in Togo demanding his "right" to a phone call.
*The American genius in a Bolivian village sick and miserable because there are no vegetarian restaurants.
*The The American genius in Thailand who unplugs an outside speaker blaring Buddhist chants because it disturbed his sleep.
*The American genius in Yemen openly walking around with a bible.
*The American genius who will literally die without bottled water.
*The American genius who will rather die because the only food source needs to be slaughtered....by himself.
The modern moral argument is simply the modern moral argument...Simply because some people can comfortably afford to be modernly moralistic.
Plunk them down in any part of the world where big daddy technology isn't there to coddle them, and they die like vampires in the sunlight. And they become confused into thinking their total dependence on technology IS reality, and worse, is moral.
A living example of this was the lockdown for Corona. People in cities were starving and had to be "saved" with donations, while people who live hand to mouth were completely dependant on charity.
-->
@ethang5
Thanks for the compliment.
You see, we do agree about some things.
And which was the first best point I ever made?
-->
@zedvictor4
In the post where you impersonated a normal person and I invited you to visit Mrs. Ethan and I in Philly.
-->
@ethang5
Maybe I am a normal person that tends to impersonate atheists.
If you're ever in the U.K. you more than welcome to call in for a beer and a chat....But let's just keep religion off the agenda.
Cycling and family are my two main religions...But not necessarily in that order.
I usually, only put my atheist hat on between 6.30am and 8.30 am U.K time.
-->
@zedvictor4
Maybe I am a normal person that tends to impersonate atheists.
Normal people don't impersonate atheists. Some atheists are themselves normal people.
If you're ever in the U.K. you more than welcome to call in for a beer and a chat....But let's just keep religion off the agenda.
Jesus is not something I can "leave at the door", and I don't drink. But I would enjoy a cold virgin Pinã Colada.
Cycling and family are my two main religions...
Cjristianity is my only religion but I am very fond of family.
I usually, only put my atheist hat on between 6.30am and 8.30 am U.K time.
If I ever find myself on your side of the pond, I'll be sure to drop by after 9 am.
-->
@zedvictor4
We are physiologically omnivorous
Actually physiologically we are much more like primates or gorillas. (Frugivores).
so the consumption of meat protein within a varied diet was obviously how our digestive system developed....
It's not a question whether homo sapiens adapted to eating meat, rather are humans designed to take down animals and digest dead animal flesh. And even better, is it truly necessary and healthy. I've put some good information and links in my first post but it seems no one bothered to read them.
The question is was man originally a tropical species where he yielded crops and picked fruits from trees. As man migrated he was forced to adapt to eating alternative sources due to the climates. A religious Joe could argue the Garden of Eden was a tropical zone where he was created to eat fruits and plant matter. But I'd rather not go there because it's not really needed to make the point I've made.
Back in the day you couldn't just pop down to the supermarket and pick up a pack of synthesised veggie protein....
Let's get something straight, back in the day you couldn't just pop down to the local supermarket and buy a nice little package of pre-slaughtered meat someone was kind enough to mass butcher for you. However, humans have always had access to farmland, veggies and fruits and where they weren't available is where man had to begin to kill animals to survive. In my links above they question whether or not dead animal meat is suitable for mans health.
I personally no longer eat meant, and I don't look for alternative protein sources I simply eat fruits and veggies as most of my diet and whatever else I feel like eating. The difference in health and stamina aren't comparable and since I used to be a meat eater I can say this from experience.
Back in the day you ate what was available, and if you didn't, you didn't survive for long (not that you survived for long anyway).
That's right, and take a good look at the life span of an Eskimo where the diet is primarily dead animal meat. And while you're at it, take a look at my post where I compare the lifespan of certain animals.
The "modern" supermarket is more driven to pander and pacify meat eaters than farm based food eaters by a long shot with all your packaged products of processed meats and TV dinners, hot dogs, thinly sliced animal tissue and all the little animal parts you think you need to survive lol.
The modern moral argument is simply the modern moral argument...Simply because some people can comfortably afford to be modernly moralistic.
Whatever this is supposed to mean, but it comes across as meat-headed. There is no "modern" moral argument and there doesn't need to be one, man has been foraging and eating fruits for as long as man has existed, there's always been non-meat eaters. Either someone feels disgusted by eating another creatures flesh, cells and blood or they don't. But as you always say, have they been conditioned to such a practice where being convicted by it is not even a thought?
-->
@fauxlaw
Taste doesn't justify?
Not at all, at least not in regards to the question being asked. And as I pointed out above, personal tastes and preferences can support really bad habits.
In my republic, it does. Sorry about yours.
In my republic all the little animal parts you need are readily available through the mass slaughter of all the creatures flesh you wish to consume.
Yes, other places do have a variety of food sources. I've tried them in over 30 countries, including insects. Don't knock if you haven't tried it.
I'm not really "knocking" anything but I am contributing to the topic at hand with my educated opinion. I was an avid meat eater as well.
Besides, since rice paddies emit methane, as do all natural and cultivated wetlands, plus lakes, rivers, and oceans, and at a greater volume than cow farts, let's just leave it at this: you can have your rice, but leave my steak alone.Yes, to each their own morality. Leave it at that, too.
Seriously "rice patties" lol, have you never heard of fruits and vegetables?? you need to get out more or perhaps come on over to my house where I can make you some real food and some dishes that will knock your socks off. And guess what? none of them will include dead animal parts. You won't even realize you're missing your precious steak. But sure, I'm not here to take your meat.
If some other species wants to eat e, so be it.
You can say this here, but lets line up you and your family in front of a slaughter house and then we will talk.
I have been where I am no longer at the top of the food chain, in a Thai jungle with nothing of protection other than a good blade at my hip, and my wits. Sobering. But survivable.
I'm no one's mommas boy so don't lecture me about survival.
Until you have been at risk of your life by another species, you don't know what risk is.
You bring up a good point. It's not working in your favor though.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Am I obligated, but by point of law, to justify anything to anyone?
I agree, fruits and vegetables have mighty good taste, which is the whole purpose of your invitation to me to join you in a vegetarian meal that, to quote you, "will knock your socks off." That is accomplished by taste, yeah? I rest my taste case as justification. To me.
Lining me and family up at a slaughter house would not change my opinion of a preference for an omnivorous diet. It may kill us, but isn't that murder? Flagrantly condescending argument.
Should any argument in which a difference of opinion relative to what one eats work in anyone's favor but the eater? Hell, I won't eat "anything." Milk chocolate, for example, is intolerable. To me.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Eskimo culture evolved around what was available, and that didn't include a lot of fruit and nuts, and health and life expectancy were what they were. Eskimo's were driven by the necessity of survival and not by a constructed morality.
You live in a comfortable environment where you can afford to construct moral concepts, but not everyone chooses to adopt your personally assumed morality.
And Chimpanzees love a bit of Red Colobus Monkey, brains first....No morality available.
And if omnivores are meatheads, does that make vegans nutcases?
And a religious Joe and the fatted calf....
-->
@zedvictor4
Eskimo culture evolved around what was available, and that didn't include a lot of fruit and nuts, and health and life expectancy were what they were. Eskimo's were driven by the necessity of survival and not by a constructed morality.
You missed the point here, which was....is the consumption of dead animal flesh designed for the human anatomy not whether man migrated to cold climates and was forced to adapt to it. Keep up. What follows then, is it necessary for you to be a meathead in your culture, and it is moral for you to allow the mass slaughter of creatures to fill your belly.
You live in a comfortable environment where you can afford to construct moral concepts, but not everyone chooses to adopt your personally assumed morality.
I'm discussing health and the anatomy of humans, I'm not making a moral argument with this content. Though the moral argument is relevant each person will have to figure that out for themselves.
First we should establish whether or not eating dead animals is fit for human vitality, not whether has man adapted to it.
And Chimpanzees love a bit of Red Colobus Monkey, brains first....No morality available.
That's aggressive behavior, monkeys, apes and gorillas are classified as frugivores/vegetarians. That's what our anatomy mostly resembles. Having said that, if you've ever watched chimpanzees chase down, capture and rip apart another monkey piece by piece it should paint a very savage picture for ya.
-->
@fauxlaw
Am I obligated, but by point of law, to justify anything to anyone?
No, but if you wish to make a meaningful point in this topic you should consider what it is you're doing and why, or by what intentions.
I agree, fruits and vegetables have mighty good taste, which is the whole purpose of your invitation to me to join you in a vegetarian meal that, to quote you, "will knock your socks off." That is accomplished by taste, yeah? I rest my taste case as justification. To me.
No, my point is to first show what is fit for human anatomy/health and then to show how diverse and wonderful that source of food is. Meat heads usually assume a frugivore or vegetarians choice of foods are lacking. That isn't true at all.
Lining me and family up at a slaughter house would not change my opinion of a preference for an omnivorous diet. It may kill us, but isn't that murder? Flagrantly condescending argument.
I'm making the case for the animals that are butchered because you enjoy the taste of their flesh. Your comment that alluded you wouldn't care ("If some other species wants to eat e, so be it") if a superior creature decided it wanted you for lunch is BS.
Should any argument in which a difference of opinion relative to what one eats work in anyone's favor but the eater? Hell, I won't eat "anything." Milk chocolate, for example, is intolerable. To me.
That's because milk and chocolate aren't fit for human consumption. Your natural food source will always be your healthiest choice if you wish to live long and have vitality and great health and that source will always first be raw fruits and vegetables. Doesn't mean you can't eat them (milk and processed chocolate) of course, but there are consequences. Have you ever notice that nature mostly follows it's natural food sources? man should be no different. Cows milk is for cow babies not humans.
-->
@fauxlaw
Check out some of the links and rationale I posted in my original post if you're interested.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Well "design" has connotations which lead to other issues.
The fact is, that we are capable of digesting a wide variety of foodstuffs including meat and this is what we have done for millennia. So we have therefore developed as omnivores and not become extinct because of it.
I would suggest that the key to health and vitality is a varied and balanced diet, and this is now easily achievable without consuming meat or animal derivatives. But this is a relatively modern possibility. Not so long ago meat was a vital component of a balanced diet. The wide range of foodstuffs and supplements that are now constantly at our fingertips is only a very recent social development.
As I previously stated, it's easy to espouse a newly constructed morality from a position of comfort.... Come the apocalypse and you will be eating your neighbour if the supermarket shelves are empty and your neighbour is all that is available.
How humans classify chimpanzees is irrelevant, classifying is simply an exercise that placates the human need to classify things. The fact is that chimpanzees kill and consume animal flesh....So in fact chimpanzees should rightly be classified as omnivores, or perhaps aggressive omnivores.
Maybe one day we will teach chimpanzees a bit of morality. Because currently they don't seem to appreciate the concept.
And Eskimos live where they do, just as you do.... Though maybe you think that a bit of forced relocation and moral brainwashing is the moral solution to that irksome issue.
I can't morally justify it but I don't consider myself to be a moral agent.
-->
@simplybeourselves
I can't morally justify it
Smart guy, shows me you're a well rounded thinker despite your preferences. Being able to see all the angles involved adds dynamics to your thought processes. I do think there's two separate issues here, morality and health. I tend to get to the latter first. I think it's so culturally oriented for most people it's not a moral concern, it's just what people do, the norm.
but I don't consider myself to be a moral agent.
Okay, may I ask why? just curious about that statement...
-->
@zedvictor4
moral brainwashing
Don't be such a belligerent azzhole. There's two areas of thought here not just one and neither one is a "newly constructed position". Morality AND health, eating fruits and vegetables has nothing to do with modern comforts genius. Perhaps go read my original post as to educate yourself on the topic.