Things meat eaters say and do

[BJJNick]

(:D)

Lately I have had an omni friend say that sharks don't feel guilty about eating fish and lions don't feel guilty about eating other animals so why should human beings feel guilt about eating animals.:dizzy:

haha. That's ignorant.

A guy once told me, "Eat like a lion, look like a lion."

This coming from a skinny, malnutritioned looking dude.

[BlackCats]

Lol, my response to my friend was to say "well some animals have sex with their siblings so I suppose that means if you act as other animals do that means you should have sex with your sister".

Not the most mature and intelligent response in the world I admit.:D:o

[sandra]

It's funny though BlackCats! :D

[Shrapnel]

(:D)

Lately I have had an omni friend say that sharks don't feel guilty about eating fish and lions don't feel guilty about eating other animals so why should human beings feel guilt about eating animals.:dizzy:

Oy... I get that type of comment from omnies too. Usually I try a response of, "Because humans actually have a choice and the ability to understand their actions for the most part, while sharks and lions have no choice."

Hehe, though, I like your response Blackcats XD

[BlackCats]

^ That probably would have been a better response Shrapnel.:)

The same friend said that I will never be able to make him feel guilty about eating animals so I shouldn't bother.:rollseyes_ani: He is against animal testing and experiments though strangely enough.

[Shrapnel]

^ That probably would have been a better response Shrapnel.:)

The same friend said that I will never be able to make him feel guilty about eating animals so I shouldn't bother.:rollseyes_ani: He is against animal testing and experiments though strangely enough.

=) Thanks. Heh, sounds like he is really trying to not allow himself to feel guilty.

[BlackCats]

=) Thanks. Heh, sounds like he is really trying to not allow himself to feel guilty.

Yes you're probably right. My friend loves his companion animal so much as well and I'm sure he wouldn't consider eating her even though apparently we humans have those front teeth which mean we have to eat meat according to him.:rolleyes:

[Shrapnel]

Yes you're probably right. My friend loves his companion animal so much as well and I'm sure he wouldn't consider eating her even though apparently we humans have those front teeth which mean we have to eat meat according to him.:rolleyes:

Yeah, my sister is kinda like that. She likes the family cats, and likes to be around other dogs and cats, but doesn't see anything wrong with eating other animals like chickens or pigs. The human ability to compartmentalize is amazing sometimes :rolleyes:

[BlackCats]

The human ability to compartmentalize is amazing sometimes :rolleyes:

That's very true.

[Quantum Mechanic]

Oy... I get that type of comment from omnies too. Usually I try a response of, "Because humans actually have a choice and the ability to understand their actions for the most part, while sharks and lions have no choice."

Hehe, though, I like your response Blackcats XD

That, and I am quite sure that those animals are actullaly phisiologically carnivorous (as opposed to humans, who do it mostly out of choice, with few exceptions). There's a thread I believe discussing this, how humans intestinal tract and teeth (as well as closest genetic relatives in non-human animals) are indicative of being herbivorous.

But of course none of that is relevant because "God says it's okay to eat meat in the Bible!" Well, people have used the Bible to justify slavery and homophobia, so while I'm religious that "argument" doesn't convince me...

[Sarabi]

(:D)

Lately I have had an omni friend say that sharks don't feel guilty about eating fish and lions don't feel guilty about eating other animals so why should human beings feel guilt about eating animals.:dizzy:
I'd say, So if sharks don't feel guilty about eating human beings, we shouldn't either? If a Hitler didn't feel guilty about slaughtering 50 million people for no reason, we shouldn't either? How does another person's or another being's killing of another being justify our own? And also, sharks and lions are not omnivores...

[Shrapnel]

That, and I am quite sure that those animals are actullaly phisiologically carnivorous (as opposed to humans, who do it mostly out of choice, with few exceptions). There's a thread I believe discussing this, how humans intestinal tract and teeth (as well as closest genetic relatives in non-human animals) are indicative of being herbivorous.

But of course none of that is relevant because "God says it's okay to eat meat in the Bible!" Well, people have used the Bible to justify slavery and homophobia, so while I'm religious that "argument" doesn't convince me...

Yeah, the "we were built to" is stupid. We have the means to blow up the Earth. Multiple times over. I certainly can shoot someone in the face since I have the physical means to, but being able to do something, even "built to" (my finger fits perfectly inside the trigger guard of a gun) is certainly not the same as being morally right to do something and I would doubt most omnies would argue that I should be justified in shooting people all random like just because I can. We were built to have empathy, even if we don't always use it. And our brains are developed enough that we can invent synthetic and plant based alternatives to animal products, so that argument of what we were "designed" to do is rather pointless.

Heh, yeah. I'm religious too (Catholic) and don't see that as any such argument. Besides, those people are using the Bible to justify already held notions, not using it to find guidance. They seem to ignore the whole, "Do unto others, etc., etc., etc." as well as "That which you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me." or "C'mon. Don't be a douche. 'K?" (that last one kinda paraphrased, but the idea is there).

[BlackCats]

I'd say, So if sharks don't feel guilty about eating human beings, we shouldn't either? If a Hitler didn't feel guilty about slaughtering 50 million people for no reason, we shouldn't either? How does another person's or another being's killing of another being justify our own? And also, sharks and lions are not omnivores...

He actually did say that human beings are omnivores so we can eat meat without guilt because it is "natural".:rolleyes: He also said that my wearing a synthetic coat was bad for the environment also but I told him it was second hand haha.

I have very annoying friends.

[Quantum Mechanic]

He actually did say that human beings are omnivores so we can eat meat without guilt because it is "natural".:rolleyes: He also said that my wearing a synthetic coat was bad for the environment also but I told him it was second hand haha.

I have very annoying friends.

The tanning proccess for leather and such is also quite bad for the environment - besides, I'm sure this person you were talking to doesn't own anything synthetic :rolleyes:.

[BlackCats]

The tanning proccess for leather and such is also quite bad for the environment - besides, I'm sure this person you were talking to doesn't own anything synthetic :rolleyes:.

Exactly.

[Sarabi]

Argh. These arguments make me so sick, I just want to puke on a meat-eater. :D

Yesterday, I got some great cooking tips from my Aikido instructor who lived in some weird vegetarian residence in Berkeley for five years, BUT only after he demanded to know why I wouldn't eat free range eggs. And then another student kept trying to get me to tell her why veganism instead of vegetarianism, which was cool, but of course the conversation ended as soon as she understood that I had a good reason for veganism and not vegetarianism. And THEN, one of my good buddies started telling me how he was considering vegetarianism for ecological reasons, which he emphasized as being the only logical reason, which led us into something that was mildly argumentative (I've never argued against him before).

Anyway, I won the first two discussions, but the last one... I said something about suffering, and he just said, "What is suffering?" lalala... "I see it as the natural way of things." And I just keep thinking, "Hello!!! I thought you were Buddhist, buddy!" What is suffering, my foot! And then I'm reading this book for my Problem of God class, and there's this priest forsaking Christianity with essentially the same exact argument! When asked if he is happy, he just replies about how subjective happiness is. Everyone cares about happiness and suffering until it challenges their deeply held views. Apparently, in the West, everything subjective is looked down upon unless it makes them feel GOOD and RIGHT about themselves, always forgetting that "good" and "right" are subjective in and of themselves.

And the natural argument? I just want to go back and finish that conversation that ended on the street corner and point out that everything is natural in nature unless it's subverting nature, and eating other animals is subverting nature, whether it's necessary or not... and especially if it's unnecessary! This is the funny thing about nature: nature subverts herself! Natural beings kill each other. This is natural for the killer, but never for the killed. Of course, you could also argue that there's no exception, that everything is natural, in which case caring for other animals is at LEAST as f-ing natural as slaughtering them! So it's a dead argument for meat consumption, at best. And a live one, at worst!

He also told me that the distinction we make of what eat and what we don't is arbitrary, and I wish I'd told him that everything is abitrary without the perspective that it was meant for, the perspective that gives it meaning. And yes, his perspective looks pretty damned arbitrary from my perspective. That's the exact problem, all told: that we think that the lives of other creatures are meaningless and arbitrary, so we can eat them in order to satisfy our infinitely more meaningful and purposeful lives.

Why didn't I think of all this when we were walking on the street? The short-lived conversation left me with a very unsatisfied feeling because this guy is a fellow Buddhist, who I fully expected to care about suffering, of all things. And he's really bright, and I too stupid to argue back coherently... His way of speaking was so serious and thoughtful and... wrong. lol. :D But at least I finally found a decent argument against these arguments that normally seem so immature... just because they sounded so mature coming from him.

[BJJNick]

Argh. These arguments make me so sick, I just want to puke on a meat-eater. :D

Yesterday, I got some great cooking tips from my Aikido instructor who lived in some weird vegetarian residence in Berkeley for five years, BUT only after he demanded to know why I wouldn't eat free range eggs. And then another student kept trying to get me to tell her why veganism instead of vegetarianism, which was cool, but of course the conversation ended as soon as she understood that I had a good reason for veganism and not vegetarianism. And THEN, one of my good buddies started telling me how he was considering vegetarianism for ecological reasons, which he emphasized as being the only logical reason, which led us into something that was mildly argumentative (I've never argued against him before).

Anyway, I won the first two discussions, but the last one... I said something about suffering, and he just said, "What is suffering?" lalala... "I see it as the natural way of things." And I just keep thinking, "Hello!!! I thought you were Buddhist, buddy!" What is suffering, my foot! And then I'm reading this book for my Problem of God class, and there's this priest forsaking Christianity with essentially the same exact argument! When asked if he is happy, he just replies about how subjective happiness is. Everyone cares about happiness and suffering until it challenges their deeply held views. Apparently, in the West, everything subjective is looked down upon unless it makes them feel GOOD and RIGHT about themselves, always forgetting that "good" and "right" are subjective in and of themselves.

And the natural argument? I just want to go back and finish that conversation that ended on the street corner and point out that everything is natural in nature unless it's subverting nature, and eating other animals is subverting nature, whether it's necessary or not... and especially if it's unnecessary! This is the funny thing about nature: nature subverts herself! Natural beings kill each other. This is natural for the killer, but never for the killed. Of course, you could also argue that there's no exception, that everything is natural, in which case caring for other animals is at LEAST as f-ing natural as slaughtering them! So it's a dead argument for meat consumption, at best. And a live one, at worst!

He also told me that the distinction we make of what eat and what we don't is arbitrary, and I wish I'd told him that everything is abitrary without the perspective that it was meant for, the perspective that gives it meaning. And yes, his perspective looks pretty damned arbitrary from my perspective. That's the exact problem, all told: that we think that the lives of other creatures are meaningless and arbitrary, so we can eat them in order to satisfy our infinitely more meaningful and purposeful lives.

Why didn't I think of all this when we were walking on the street? The short-lived conversation left me with a very unsatisfied feeling because this guy is a fellow Buddhist, who I fully expected to care about suffering, of all things. And he's really bright, and I too stupid to argue back coherently... His way of speaking was so serious and thoughtful and... wrong. lol. :D But at least I finally found a decent argument against these arguments that normally seem so immature... just because they sounded so mature coming from him.

I hear ya. It's always hard to come up with good arguing points when you're put on the spot. Write some notes on your hand and own him the next time you see him. lol

[LittleSeaWolf]

Recently, here in the BayArea, there was news of KFC employees taking a bath in the company sinks... and everyone was upset, appalled and they ended up getting fired because it was so unsanitary and "gross". I couldn't help thinking, however... how does a restaurant that treats chickens horribly, serves dead birds that at one time walked in their own crap and then soak it in animal fat- find some girls taking a bath in a sink gross? Im not saying its right- totally not... but I think the place itself worse than that act :P

[vorpal]

Yeah, I have never understood (even when I was omni) why people are disgusted when they find a hair or a fly in their food when what they are eating is a dead animal anyway.

[Adelina]

Some of the questions here made me laugh, but others really amused me. I am hearing many silly questions, but here I read some for which I didn't supposed.
Few days ago told me for I don't know which time:
"Do you know you can die that way?" Which is something what makes me laugh every time.
Other thing what they had asked me is: "Can you use drugs?" I didn't understood are they asking me for narcotic drugs or drugs in a way of medecine, but I really don't care. In the both ways the question is stupid.
And I will tell you something what asked me thirty years old man from Russia. It sound very stupid and perverted, but that was the most strange question I had heared in my life/not only about veganism/:
"Can you drink sperm?" I didn't understood should that make me laugh or cry about the human stupidity?

[bradders]

laugh it off.

Got into an argument the other day with my mate/ ex bf who was vedgie but now is an omni "who has a little organic white meat and a little fish"
he said he could see no reason not to eat meat after discussing for half an hour the reasons why there is no need to etc and that if there is no need to eat meat then why kill animals

he came out with a load of tripe about protein and evolution and that he'd spoken to 'expert primatologists from ZSL'

dumbass who listens to zoologists who exploity aanimals for money

[missbettie]

dumbass who listens to zoologists who exploity aanimals for money

zoologists don't ALWAYS exploit animals. aren't a lot of them into preservation?

[bradders]

You'd think so but when they keep the animals in such aweful conditions and force them to be on display to make money even when it isn't in the animal's interest you'd think again. If they were genuinely interested in the welfare of the animals they would all be at wipsnade not London zoo and not so many of them and they would be putting the money into preserving habitat rather than performing experiments on them and keeping them in completely unsuitible cages, tanks etc

[bradders]

And the ones in question were involved in a range of experiments over the past few years at London zoo including psychological experiments eg the effects of starvation, motivation through scarcity and lethargy through abundance

[missbettie]

hmm for every good apple there is always a bad apple.