Is eating meat morally wrong

[TW Scott]

I knew that your uneducated ass would reply with that comment, as you try to wriggle out of yet another blunder. It's a pity (for you) that carbohydrates, lipids and protein (*hint* We break these down to produce ATP... energy) ARE classified as nutrients, hmmm? In fact, all nutrients are involved in metabolic processes, which generally result in the release of energy.

Okay so first you criticize me for making personal attacks and then you make one yourself. Not even an accurate one. True you get more calories from grains, you also waste a lot of the potential becuase our body is not designed to process it as effectively as herbivores. Not only that you are missing out of high quality completely protein, massive amounts of B vitamins, folic acid, iron, copper and a host of other useful nutrients when you eat that 4.5 kg of grain to my one kilo of beef. It's just a better package deal to eat the meat.

James isn't the one dogmatically promoting the unnecessary slaughter of sentient beings. Who's ideals are dangerous, again?

You want that I should eat them alive? I knew you vegetarians were cruel heartless bastards but that is just too far. LOL.

Alright all kidding aside I am promoting choice, nothing more. You can choose to eat meat or not. Doesn't matter to me. It is morally okay to eat meat or to not eat meat. What I have a problem with is the way James R, approaches this. He is demanding we quit eating meat, likening it to murdering our own family members and stating clear as day that anybody who does not agree with him has no morals. That is the kind of thinking that starts dangerous cults and tyrannical governments.

 

[mountainhare]

TW Scott:

Okay so first you criticize me for making personal attacks

Where?
Looks like you're making shit up again.

and then you make one yourself.

Boo hoo. Go cry in a corner. You've been insulting James throughout this entire thread. What's wrong, can't the poor baby handle his own medicine?

True you get more calories from grains, you also waste a lot of the potential becuase our body is not designed to process it as effectively as herbivores.

Waste a 'lot' of potential? How much is that? Have any sources, or are you just making shit up?

Not only that you are missing out of high quality completely protein, massive amounts of B vitamins, folic acid, iron, copper and a host of other useful nutrients when you eat that 4.5 kg of grain to my one kilo of beef

All of which can be obtained from plant sources is sufficient quantities.

just a better package deal to eat the meat.

Really?

http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html

Farm animals naturally inefficient

Farm animals are inefficient converters of plants to edible flesh. In 1993, US farm animals were fed 192.7 million tonnes of feed concentrates, the bulk of it corn, in order to produce 31.2 million tonnes of carcass meat – making for a ratio of 6.2 to 1. Additional feed was also provided in the form of roughage and pasture.5, 2 In terms of feed utilization, broiler chickens are the most efficient requiring 3.4 kilograms of feed (expressed in equivalent feeding value of corn) to produce one kilogram of ready-to-cook meat. Pigs are the least efficient, with a feed to meat ratio of 8.4 to 1. For eggs expressed as weight, the ratio is 3.8 to 1. For cheese the ratio is 7.9 to 1.5

Like us, animals are naturally inefficient because much of their food is converted into energy for movement, excreted as manure, or used for the growth of body parts not eaten by people. Very little can become direct edible weight gain. For example, cattle excrete 40 kilograms of manure for every kilogram of edible beef produced.6

Since when was a ratio of 6 tonnes of grain to produce approx. 1 tonne of beef a 'good package'? How the hell is that efficient? It makes far more sense to grow various crops which provide Vitamin B, protein (legumes and nuts), iron (spinach) and other necessary vitamins, instead of wasting 5 tonnes of grain just to produce 1 tonne of beef.

Alright all kidding aside I am promoting choice, nothing more.

Wow. Aren't you noble...

You can choose to eat meat or not. Doesn't matter to me.

"You can choose to rape your girlfriend or not. Doesn't matter to me."

It is morally okay to eat meat or to not eat meat.

Since you've failed to provide any explaination as to why eating meat is morally okay, your opinion remains unsupported conjecture. Please don't present your opinion as fact... I find it rather dishonest and dogmatic.

What I have a problem with is the way James R, approaches this.

Of course you have a problem with it. Individuals engaging in immoral acts often don't like being told their actions are unethical. It's human nature.

He is demanding we quit eating meat,

No he's not. He's merely asking that people acknowledge that the unnecessary killing of animals to consume their flesh is immoral. In fact, numerous posters on this thread have admitted to eating meat, and then acknowledged that while they know that it is immoral to do so, they can't stop because of a lack of willpower/inconvenience. James R has never branded them a murderer, and has never dogmatically demanded that they stop eating meat. On the other hand, numerous meat-eaters all over the world shove meat down their childrens' throats. Who's brainwashing who, again? Who's the dogmatic one?

likening it to murdering our own family members

Where did he do this?

and stating clear as day that anybody who does not agree with him has no morals.

Wrong. James calls the act of murdering animals immoral. He's called no one immoral, per se. And even if he did say that you had NO morals, that makes you Amoral, not IMmoral, you ignorant twit.

That is the kind of thinking that starts dangerous cults and tyrannical governments.

What's wrong? Can't you handle a little competition?

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Yes, but can you get whole protein from grains? Sufficent iron? Adequate copper? Usable amount of Vitamin B? Not liekly in even 10 to 1.

Grains are not the only vegetarian foods.

A balanced vegetarian diet provides sufficient amounts of iron, copper and vitamin B. If you don't believe that, just ask any vegetarian whether they need to eat meat to stay healthy.

Sorry, but you must have visited an operation that is not as modern as the one I worked in for the summer. The cattle never saw the one before it die and they had a neurologist tell them how to do the killing no pain what so ever. So your argument is empty. Just becuase a few places mess up does not make it immoral.

Regardless of the pain inflicted at the time of death, you are still ignoring the fact that these animals are bred solely for human consumption. They live short and miserable lives, which are ended abruptly to satisfy the whims of people like you.

 

[draqon]

yummy meat....yummy delicious...nutritious and part of every human life...enjoy dog stake on breakfast...lunchtime is the cooked lamb with lemon grass sauce...and on dinner is the extra fine beef meat with red wine. Life is great.

 

[James R]

dragon:

If you have nothing intelligent to contribute, go post in the cesspool.

 

[TW Scott]

Grains are not the only vegetarian foods.

A balanced vegetarian diet provides sufficient amounts of iron, copper and vitamin B. If you don't believe that, just ask any vegetarian whether they need to eat meat to stay healthy.

Yess at the cost of cleared land, hunted varmints, pesticides, CO2 production from shipping and spending an inordinate amount of money. If your lucky you get enough to stay alive, if not like three of my friend you get hopsitalized for vitamin deficencies becuase your particualr system has a hard time absorbing said vitamins and minerals/

Regardless of the pain inflicted at the time of death, you are still ignoring the fact that these animals are bred solely for human consumption. They live short and miserable lives, which are ended abruptly to satisfy the whims of people like you.

Okay proove to me their life is so miserable. Can you do it? Prove to me that cattle in the wild have a better, healthier life on the whole than even the best ranch and you may have the inkling of a point. Until then you are simply taking an assumption and making it your main argument.

 

[TW Scott]

Waste a 'lot' of potential? How much is that? Have any sources, or are you just making shit up?

It's that stuff called dietary fiber in us and in animals like the common cow just another starch

All of which can be obtained from plant sources is sufficient quantities.

Sufficient to survive and sufficient to thrive are two different thing. Not to mention that we get some of those thing more efficently from meats.

Really?

http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html

Yes, really and if you are gonna post something it should be form a neutral site not some journal dedicated to promoting your cuase. Makes you look lazy.

Since when was a ratio of 6 tonnes of grain to produce approx. 1 tonne of beef a 'good package'? How the hell is that efficient? It makes far more sense to grow various crops which provide Vitamin B, protein (legumes and nuts), iron (spinach) and other necessary vitamins, instead of wasting 5 tonnes of grain just to produce 1 tonne of beef.

It's 4.5 and 1 ton, by the way that grain still incudes the hulls, which we cannot eat. Besides I get more than beef, I also get manure and leather, both very useful.

Wow. Aren't you noble...

No, just a normal person. I hold no noble titles but thank you for asking

"You can choose to rape your girlfriend or not. Doesn't matter to me."

Well that is your choice not to care, meanwhile I see you do that and I will kick you until you are dead. I said you can choose to eat meat, not act like a jerk. There is a difference.

Since you've failed to provide any explaination as to why eating meat is morally okay, your opinion remains unsupported conjecture. Please don't present your opinion as fact... I find it rather dishonest and dogmatic

I am doing just as James R is doing. When it comes to Morality, Ethics, and Philosophy opinion counts.

Of course you have a problem with it. Individuals engaging in immoral acts often don't like being told their actions are unethical. It's human nature.

Which is why he is so angry and upset that I contradict him on this. Explains why you are, too. I got you in a vice and making you show your true colors and it galls you that you are being made to display your immorality. Sorry.

No he's not. He's merely asking that people acknowledge that the unnecessary killing of animals to consume their flesh is immoral. In fact, numerous posters on this thread have admitted to eating meat, and then acknowledged that while they know that it is immoral to do so, they can't stop because of a lack of willpower/inconvenience. James R has never branded them a murderer, and has never dogmatically demanded that they stop eating meat. On the other hand, numerous meat-eaters all over the world shove meat down their childrens' throats. Who's brainwashing who, again? Who's the dogmatic one?

Well first it is not immoral, and it is not his place to tell people it is. It is immoral to think that you are that much better than everyone else. I ask James R this, would he let his children eat meat if they expressed the desire? If not he has no leg to stand on in the brainwashing issue, if he does he is acknowledging that it is not morally wrong.

 

[mountainhare]

TW Scott:

MH: Waste a 'lot' of potential? How much is that? Have any sources, or are you just making shit up?

Scott: It's that stuff called dietary fiber in us and in animals like the common cow just another starch

Looks like you have a literacy comprehension problem. I didn't deny that dietary fibre existed in some vegetarian foods. However, I want some hard facts to support your claim that the consumption of grain by humans wastes 'MOST' of its potential. That's what you said, Scott. MOST. Define 'most', and then justify your claim.

Sufficient to survive and sufficient to thrive are two different thing.

No. They are a bullshit distinction which you fail to explain and clarify. But hey, continue to use vague terms and phrases. Because we all know that if you are vague, then you are no longer obliged to support your claims... right?

Not to mention that we get some of those thing more efficently from meats.

How so? Evidence?

Yes, really and if you are gonna post something it should be form a neutral site not some journal dedicated to promoting your cuase. Makes you look lazy.

My article drew upon facts and statistics from neutral sites. They have referenced all of their claims. Are you going to address the sourced claims that I quoted, instead of whining 'bias'? Because if you don't, the claims stand unrefuted.

It's 4.5 and 1 ton,

Wrong, dumbass. You're describing the grain-egg ratio. The average grain-meat ratio is approx 6 to 1.

I've posted this before, but obviously you need to have things repeated to you before they sink into your Neanderthal skull:
http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html

Farm animals are inefficient converters of plants to edible flesh. In 1993, US farm animals were fed 192.7 million tonnes of feed concentrates, the bulk of it corn, in order to produce 31.2 million tonnes of carcass meat – making for a ratio of 6.2 to 1.
by the way that grain still incudes the hulls, which we cannot eat. Besides I get more than beef, I also get manure and leather, both very useful.

Well that is your choice not to care, meanwhile I see you do that and I will kick you until you are dead.

Why? It's none of your business. It's the man's choice. Who are you to enforce your moral beliefs on him? Are you a homosexual liberal atheistic vegetarian in disguise!?

I said you can choose to eat meat, not act like a jerk. There is a difference.

Not really. If I see you torturing a dog, cow or pig, I will think 'jerk'. The vast majority of animals are tortured in the abominable practice of factory farming every day, and you eat the products of that torture.

I am doing just as James R is doing.

James R isn't presenting his opinion as fact.

Which is why he is so angry and upset that I contradict him on this.

James R isn't the one engaging in continuous ad hominems. You have be insulting him ever since he started pointing out the logic falliciousness of your stance.

Explains why you are, too.

I've only just joined this thread, because I found your ignorance, obtuseness and arrogance mind boggling.

I got you in a vice

It's not a very strong vice, if it's constructed from logic fallacies, contradictions, ad hominems and unsupported conjecture.

and making you show your true colors a

All you have shown is that I am condescending to dumbasses. Everyone here already knows this.

nd it galls you that you are being made to display your immorality.

*chuckle* No doubt you were chewing on the steak of a recently tortured and murdered animal while giving me a lecture on morality.

Sorry.

There's no need to apologize for your obvious obtuseness and spasticity. I know that you were dropped on your head at birth, and you're not to blame.

 

[TW Scott]

TW Scott:

Looks like you have a literacy comprehension problem. I didn't deny that dietary fibre existed in some vegetarian foods. However, I want some hard facts to support your claim that the consumption of grain by humans wastes 'MOST' of its potential. That's what you said, Scott. MOST. Define 'most', and then justify your claim.

Quite simple, take the calorie production of burning grain versus how much your body actually gains after chewing, digestion and elimination. Still works out to more callories than beef, but I am at least getting a melange of other things from the beef.

No. They are a bullshit distinction which you fail to explain and clarify. But hey, continue to use vague terms and phrases. Because we all know that if you are vague, then you are no longer obliged to support your claims... right?

No, I always thought that an intelligent person knew the distinction between survive and thrive. Surviving is just that, you're alive somethimes just barely above the minimums. Thriving is when you are well above those minimums.

How so? Evidence?

Case in point the Atkins diet, a rather meat intensive diet that if followed well provides you with everything you need and has reversed cases of morbid obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and heart disease. The foundation is low carbohydrates but the structure of meat intensiveness makes this even better.

My article drew upon facts and statistics from neutral sites. They have referenced all of their claims. Are you going to address the sourced claims that I quoted, instead of whining 'bias'? Because if you don't, the claims stand unrefuted.

Well as has been said before there are 3 kinds of lies, white lies, damn lies, and statistics. Any two people can look at a clinical trail and come up with five different interpretations.

Wrong, dumbass. You're describing the grain-egg ratio. The average grain-meat ratio is approx 6 to 1.

Actually that is the grain to Beef ratio around here, lots of great grazing land helps.

I've posted this before, but obviously you need to have things repeated to you before they sink into your Neanderthal skull:
http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html

Actually like I have said before a biased site is meaningless. Anybody can write anything they want when they have no real accountability.

Why? It's none of your business. It's the man's choice. Who are you to enforce your moral beliefs on him?

Well, personally it is a choice. There are ways to act in society. We have rules to protect ourselves. It is my business what happens to my fellow man. I'm not afraid to admit a double standard in this regard. I'm a speciest. I'd protect you from a rampaging bear even though I do not like you.

Not really. If I see you torturing a dog, cow or pig, I will think 'jerk'. The vast majority of animals are tortured in the abominable practice of factory farming every day, and you eat the products of that torture.

Actually if you saw me torturing a dog, cow or pig, it would be the seventh sign. As for factory farming, I've never seen such an institution. Everything I have seen is much more humane than how we treat ourselves.

James R isn't presenting his opinion as fact.

Actually yes he is.

James R isn't the one engaging in continuous ad hominems. You have be insulting him ever since he started pointing out the logic falliciousness of your stance.

Logic belong in Ehtic and Morality, but does not rule them. Morals and Ethic is also part emotion, belief, and balance. Logic does not cut it and trying to make moral based solely on logic is assinine. If you can't think of example of where logic would fail then I will give them.

I've only just joined this thread, because I found your ignorance, obtuseness and arrogance mind boggling.

Why? becuase I fail to bow down to you and James R. I am ignorant about a few things I will admit. I can be arrogant as that comes with a 187 IQ. Obtuseness, well I guess I can be when I fail to buy the what you're selling. Of course you are just as ignorant, arrogant and obtuse.

It's not a very strong vice, if it's constructed from logic fallacies, contradictions, ad hominems and unsupported conjecture.

As above logic does not reign supreme in Morality and Ethics. It does have input, but not as much as you think. Contradiction? Yes I am contradicting you. Ad hominems it is only an ad hominem if i do not address the issue in some other way. Unsuppported conjecture? Why bother responding then, oh that right I am exposing yours.

All you have shown is that I am condescending to dumbasses. Everyone here already knows this.

Do you often act condescending to yourself? I mean that would be hard, but probably doable.

*chuckle* No doubt you were chewing on the steak of a recently tortured and murdered animal while giving me a lecture on morality.

Not tortured and hunting is not murder. Though what you do with debate could possibly be construed as such.

There's no need to apologize for your obvious obtuseness and spasticity. I know that you were dropped on your head at birth, and you're not to blame.

Obviously someone thinks they are addressing themselves again. You must really start being nicer to yourself one of these days. I'm sure buried deep down in there is a person worth talking civilly to. Even if you were the only person here who didn't realize that was a sarcastic sorry.

 

[mountainhare]

LOL. I can't believe the bullshit you're touting, kid.

MH: Looks like you have a literacy comprehension problem. I didn't deny that dietary fibre existed in some vegetarian foods. However, I want some hard facts to support your claim that the consumption of grain by humans wastes 'MOST' of its potential. That's what you said, Scott. MOST. Define 'most', and then justify your claim. ”

Quite simple, take the calorie production of burning grain versus how much your body actually gains after chewing, digestion and elimination. Still works out to more callories than beef, but I am at least getting a melange of other things from the beef.

On one hand, you claim that you get more calories from grain, than from the same amount of beef. Then you conveniently shoot yourself in the foot by claiming that the human being 'wastes' most of its potential.
So a human derives 'wastes' most of grains potential, yet somehow manages to derive more energy from it than beef? Wow, by your own logic, we come to the conclusion that beef is incredibly energy inefficient. Instead of supporting your own arguments, you support mine. Thanks.

“ No. They are a bullshit distinction which you fail to explain and clarify. But hey, continue to use vague terms and phrases. Because we all know that if you are vague, then you are no longer obliged to support your claims... right? ”

No, I always thought that an intelligent person knew the distinction between survive and thrive.

Ad hominem. 'Survive and thrive' are terms pulled out of your ass when it is convenient to do so.

Surviving is just that, you're alive somethimes just barely above the minimums.
Thriving is when you are well above those minimums.

*sigh* You've still failed to clarify. Instead, you've introduced vague terms. Instead of using your arbitrary measuring stick, give some definite values/borders. Is someone whose nutritional requirements are met SURVIVING, or THRIVING?

*waits in antipication for the following gymnastics event, starring Scott*

Not to mention that we get some of those thing more efficently from meats.

“ How so? Evidence? ”

Case in point the Atkins diet, a rather meat intensive diet that if followed well provides you with everything you need and has reversed cases of morbid obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and heart disease.

I trust you have studies to back up this claim? I'm not going to even bother addressing your trash until you provide some solid evidence.

“ My article drew upon facts and statistics from neutral sites. They have referenced all of their claims. Are you going to address the sourced claims that I quoted, instead of whining 'bias'? Because if you don't, the claims stand unrefuted. ”

Well as has been said before there are 3 kinds of lies, white lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Ahh, using a proverb as an argument. You're getting rather desperate, yah?

Any two people can look at a clinical trail and come up with five different interpretations.

Congratulations! You have just smashed the foundations of science as a whole! Epidemiology is no longer a respectable field of investigation, because there are 'different interpretations', right? The fact remains that not all interpretations are equal, and generally only one interpretation is equal.

Now, once again, are you going to address the specific claims in my article, instead of making generalized attacks against the field of science and statistics?

“ Wrong, dumbass. You're describing the grain-egg ratio. The average grain-meat ratio is approx 6 to 1. ”

Actually that is the grain to Beef ratio around here, lots of great grazing land helps.

Evidence? Oh wait, you don't believe in statistical evidence. So we just have to rely on your say-so.

“ I've posted this before, but obviously you need to have things repeated to you before they sink into your Neanderthal skull:
http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html ”

Actually like I have said before a biased site is meaningless. Anybody can write anything they want when they have no real accountability.

Everyone is biased to some degree. Following your train of thought, everything everyone says is meaningless.

However, in reality, merely because an individual is biased does not automatically invalidate their claims. You're committing a 'poisoning the well' logic fallacy. And the fact remains that my site SOURCED their claims.

Once again, stop with the logic fallacies and red herrings, and address the specific claims of my site.

“ Why? It's none of your business. It's the man's choice. Who are you to enforce your moral beliefs on him? ”

Well, personally it is a choice. There are ways to act in society. We have rules to protect ourselves. It is my business what happens to my fellow man. I'm not afraid to admit a double standard in this regard. I'm a speciest. I'd protect you from a rampaging bear even though I do not like you.

That's touching. However, the fact remains that you believe that intervention is necessary when an individual commits an immoral act. This is what many vegetarians believe. Why do you have a right to force your standards of morality on others, whereas vegetarians do not? Oh wait... their views on morality are inconvenient for your lifestyle.

“ I've only just joined this thread, because I found your ignorance, obtuseness and arrogance mind boggling. ”

Why? becuase I fail to bow down to you and James R.

Because you refuse to admit that you are wrong. Because you continue to rationalize your immoral behaviour, despite the fact that it has been shown to be both morally and logically bogus.

I am ignorant about a few things I will admit.

An understatement...

I can be arrogant as that comes with a 187 IQ.

Which is why you post retarded bullshit on public forums, instead of earning $500,000 as a senior specialist, or fame as a Nobel Prize winner? Obviously logic and basic general knowledge aren't necessary if one is to have a high IQ.
But I bow to your IQ, master. Unsupported assertions about intelligence from braggarts on public forums, who usually have poor grammar and spelling, have never failed to impress me.

Deleting the rest of your bullshit, 'master'.

 

[TW Scott]

LOL. I can't believe the bullshit you're touting, kid.


On one hand, you claim that you get more calories from grain, than from the same amount of beef. Then you conveniently shoot yourself in the foot by claiming that the human being 'wastes' most of its potential.
So a human derives 'wastes' most of grains potential, yet somehow manages to derive more energy from it than beef? Wow, by your own logic, we come to the conclusion that beef is incredibly energy inefficient. Instead of supporting your own arguments, you support mine. Thanks.

Firsty of all I said a lot, not most, most were your words. Second I was talking 4.5 kilo of grain versus 1 kilo of beef. Even you cannot argue that nutritionally meat is the better choice for proteing, B vitamins, iron, copper, and several other vitamins and minerals.

Ad hominem. 'Survive and thrive' are terms pulled out of your ass when it is convenient to do so.

Ad hominem? Where I do not believe I attacked yopu and I did answer your questions.

*sigh* You've still failed to clarify. Instead, you've introduced vague terms. Instead of using your arbitrary measuring stick, give some definite values/borders. Is someone whose nutritional requirements are met SURVIVING, or THRIVING?

*waits in antipication for the following gymnastics event, starring Scott*

No gymnastics event at all. I clarified my terms sufficently for the debate.

I trust you have studies to back up this claim? I'm not going to even bother addressing your trash until you provide some solid evidence.

Trash? Yes of course studies have been done, but as you have supplied nothing I see no reasonm to do your work for you.

Ahh, using a proverb as an argument. You're getting rather desperate, yah?

When there is truth in in proverb it is not desperate. of course I noticed how you seperated it form the follow comment that did shed light on why it is used.

Congratulations! You have just smashed the foundations of science as a whole! Epidemiology is no longer a respectable field of investigation, because there are 'different interpretations', right? The fact remains that not all interpretations are equal, and generally only one interpretation is equal.

Straw man attack

Now, once again, are you going to address the specific claims in my article, instead of making generalized attacks against the field of science and statistics?

I am not even going to address a biased article, present one form a completely neutral standpoint or admit you are afriad of the truth.

However, in reality, merely because an individual is biased does not automatically invalidate their claims. You're committing a 'poisoning the well' logic fallacy. And the fact remains that my site SOURCED their claims.

Just as I could source another study and completely twist the interpretation. Raw studies without an observer adding his own opinion is a good place to start. Studies where they just show the results.

Once again, stop with the logic fallacies and red herrings, and address the specific claims of my site.

That's touching. However, the fact remains that you believe that intervention is necessary when an individual commits an immoral act. This is what many vegetarians believe. Why do you have a right to force your standards of morality on others, whereas vegetarians do not? Oh wait... their views on morality are inconvenient for your lifestyle.

Small difference there. One is more than frowned upon in human society. it is a crime against humans and humanity. The other is simply gathering a meal, no malic involved.

Because you refuse to admit that you are wrong. Because you continue to rationalize your immoral behaviour, despite the fact that it has been shown to be both morally and logically bogus

How is it logically bogus? Meat is tasty, nutritious, cheaps, and redily available. Logic states that eating it would be perfectly okay. Logic does not care about an animals suffering compared to a human beings. One is the predator it is perfectly logical he prey on the other. So logic is on my side.

Morals is still on my side, as in most of the world it is perfectly acceptabl;e to eat meat. There is nothing wrong with raising livestock. Now indiviuals with aberrant moral codes can and do refuse to eat meat. Do the meat eaters force them to? No. All we ask is similair ethical treatment.

 

[mountainhare]

Firsty of all I said a lot, not most, most were your words.

A nitpick on your behalf. Either way, you've still failed to support your claim that a 'lot' of grain's potential is wasted by human beings. In fact, you've yet to define what you mean by 'a lot'. 50%? 80%? 99%?

Second I was talking 4.5 kilo of grain versus 1 kilo of beef.

A ratio which you have yet to support.

Even you cannot argue that nutritionally meat is the better choice for proteing, B vitamins, iron, copper, and several other vitamins and minerals.

And as I explained, you can obtain these nutrients from plant sources, without so much wastage. You did read my post, instead of just hitting the reply button when you saw that I didn't agree with you, right?

Ad hominem? Where I do not believe I attacked yopu and I did answer your questions.

You didn't attack me here?

"No, I always thought that an intelligent person knew the distinction between survive and thrive. "

You're pretty much implying that I'm not an intelligent person, because I'm demanding that you clarify your bullshit terms.

And no, you didn't answer my question. So let's try again.
Give me a quantative example of 'survive', and 'thrive'. And once again, is a person whose dietary needs are all met 'surviving', or 'thriving'?

No gymnastics event at all. I clarified my terms sufficently for the debate.

Apparently not, since there is still confusion.

Trash? Yes of course studies have been done, but as you have supplied nothing I see no reasonm to do your work for you.

Translation: "I'm not going to provide studies and independent evidence to support my claim, because I know that no credible evidence exists."

When there is truth in in proverb it is not desperate.

Using a proverb as an argument in a debate IS desperate.

MH: Congratulations! You have just smashed the foundations of science as a whole! Epidemiology is no longer a respectable field of investigation, because there are 'different interpretations', right? The fact remains that not all interpretations are equal, and generally only one interpretation is equal.

Scott: Straw man attack

If you're going to cry and whine about straw man attacks, you need to explain why the opponent made a strawman attack.

Quite simply, you used the proverb which claimed that there are three types of lies: "White lies, damn lies, statistics". You then went on to claim that 2 people can look at a clinical trial, and come up with '5' interpretations. You are essentially implying that the entire field of statistics is pseudoscience. Hence, you are attacking the foundations of science as a whole, and epidemiology specifically.

I am not even going to address a biased article,

1. Provide evidence that the claims it makes are biased or false, instead of having the audience rely on your say-so.

2. And once again, merely because an article is biased, does not automatically invalidate its claims.

3.And as I've pointing out continuously, the so-called 'biased article' has referenced their factual claims.
In fact, their claims about animal efficiency are drawn directly from two sources:

5 Agricultural Statistics 1997 (Washington, United States Department of Agriculture, 1997), Table 1-71, p. 8.

7 Alan Durning, and Holly Brough, Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment (Washington: Worldwatch Institute, 1991), pp. 18-20, 25.

So we are not relying on their word, but on other independant sources.

present one form a completely neutral standpoint

No. I'm not obliged to meet your impossibly high standards (there is no such thing as a neutral standpoint), but only to meet the rules of debate. I have provided a respectable article which has referenced its most serious claims. It now falls to you to either refute them, or bow out of the argument.

or admit you are afriad of the truth.

That's rather ironic, given that you are the one who hasn't even attempted to refute the claims in my article. Instead, you have...

1. Screamed "BIAS!", as if that such a tactic is valid in formal debate. Hint: It's not...

2. Attempted to attack the field of statistics as a whole. Hey, if you destroy the validity of the entire field of statistics in one paragraph, then 'obviously' my sourced claims are no longer valid, right?

Just as I could source another study and completely twist the interpretation.

Prove that my article 'completely twisted the interpretation'. What's that, you can't? What's that, you're making another unsupported claim? Oh, nothing new. Move along, people!

Raw studies without an observer adding his own opinion is a good place to start. Studies where they just show the results.

This is bullshit, and you know it. In every statistical study done, it is necessary for the audience to make inferences from the data. You might try to 'twist' this, and claim that this suddenly opens the door to any sort of interpretation. However, some interpretations of data are far more valid than others. I'm not going to waste my time explaining the nature of statistics to you. If you want to get educated, take 'Statistics in Science 101'.

If you feel that my article has made an incorrect inference, then feel free to point out the flaws in their logic. Otherwise, just shut up. You've been ranting for the last 5+ pages, and have yet to produce one shred of evidence to support your conjecture.

How is it logically bogus?

Your entire argument is logically bogus.

Meat is tasty,

And also has a greater chance to give you food poisoning.

nutritious,

And is loaded with antibiotics and steroids.

cheaps,

Bullshit. Probably the only meat which comes close to being cheap are sausages and chicken, and even then pasta and most vegetarian food is far cheaper.

and redily available.

Because we waste grain at a 6:1 ratio to produce it.

Logic states that eating it would be perfectly okay.

Your logic is retarded. Meat can not only be bad for your health if consumed in large serves (due to saturated fat, antibiotics, steroids and bacteria), it is also an incredibly inefficient form of food.

Morals is still on my side, as in most of the world it is perfectly acceptabl;e to eat meat.

Morality was on Hitler's side, because most of the German's supported his activities.
You're actually committing a logic fallacy known as 'appeal to the majority'. Merely because the majority agrees with you, does not make your argument logical, sound or moral.

There is nothing wrong with raising livestock.

There is nothing wrong with raising human slaves.

Now indiviuals with aberrant moral codes can and do refuse to eat meat. Do the meat eaters force them to? No. All we ask is similair ethical treatment

Some Nazi: Now individuals with aberrant moral codes can and do refuse to kill Jews and Slavs. Do us Jew Killers force them to? No. All we ask is similar ethical treatment. Don't interfere in our Jew/Slav killing.

 

[TW Scott]

AYou didn't attack me here?

"No, I always thought that an intelligent person knew the distinction between survive and thrive. "

You're pretty much implying that I'm not an intelligent person, because I'm demanding that you clarify your bullshit terms.

It taikes a very negative mind to take that as implication of you not being intelligent. It could have just as easily been taken that I thought you are intelligent.The second is the way I meant it and any attack you imagined you saw was simply there only in your interpretation.

Using a proverb as an argument in a debate IS desperate.

Why? Why do you think using a proven piece of lore is a desperate act? Becuase it puts some doubt inot your words.

If you're going to cry and whine about straw man attacks, you need to explain why the opponent made a strawman attack.

Quite simply, you used the proverb which claimed that there are three types of lies: "White lies, damn lies, statistics". You then went on to claim that 2 people can look at a clinical trial, and come up with '5' interpretations. You are essentially implying that the entire field of statistics is pseudoscience.

Really, if we we completely logical beings statistics would be a perfect science. However we are not. It is nearly impossible to find any set of statistics that is not skewed to suit the speaker's needs. It's nature of the being, so it quite possible to look at the numbers and come up wiht multiple erroneous conclusions.

No. I'm not obliged to meet your impossibly high standards (there is no such thing as a neutral standpoint), but only to meet the rules of debate. I have provided a respectable article which has referenced its most serious claims. It now falls to you to either refute them, or bow out of the argument.

Yeah there is, but of course you won't even try. A neutral standpoint is easily enough gotten by looking at the partially processed data, the results of studies before they are made into papers and strip mined for useful statistics.

Bullshit. Probably the only meat which comes close to being cheap are sausages and chicken, and even then pasta and most vegetarian food is far cheaper.

Hardly a ballance vegetarian diet that even come close to the levels of proteins and vitamins you need is actually more expensive. Don't believe as any poor family.

Your logic is retarded. Meat can not only be bad for your health if consumed in large serves (due to saturated fat, antibiotics, steroids and bacteria), it is also an incredibly inefficient form of food.

Actually it is an incredibly efficent form of protein, iron, copper, B vitamins...oh wait I have kept saying this and you refuse to listen. Bacteria is only a problem if you do not properly cook your meat. Same with Steroids and Antibiotic which do break down under heat.

Morality was on Hitler's side, because most of the German's supported his activities. You're actually committing a logic fallacy known as 'appeal to the majority'. Merely because the majority agrees with you, does not make your argument logical, sound or moral.

Funny you should make such a comparison, probably becuase you cannot refute what I say and can only perform an ad hominem attack.

Some Nazi: Now individuals with aberrant moral codes can and do refuse to kill Jews and Slavs. Do us Jew Killers force them to? No. All we ask is similar ethical treatment. Don't interfere in our Jew/Slav killing.

Answering if eating meat is moral is along the same lines of

Would you give your life to save an elderly person you did not know?
If you knew a man would commit murder in the future could you kill him given the chance?
If you had to choose between your wife and two women you never see again who would you save?

These questions have a right answer, the answer rests in the person giving it. No one has the right or duty to judge another persons answer to questions like these, to call him immoral, or to question his motives. It rests simply with that person and should be left that way. A person can and should share his moral choice, but he should never preach that it is better than anyone elses.

(he is used correctly above as the gender neutral pronoun)

Thank you
I rest my case

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

[Animals bred for meat] live short and miserable lives, which are ended abruptly to satisfy the whims of people like you.

Okay proove to me their life is so miserable. Can you do it? Prove to me that cattle in the wild have a better, healthier life on the whole than even the best ranch and you may have the inkling of a point. Until then you are simply taking an assumption and making it your main argument.

Try to be a little realistic about this. You ask me to compare "cattle in the wild" with "the best ranch". I say we ought to compare cattle in the wild or on an average ranch with cattle on the average meat-production factory farm.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that cattle on a free-range ranch where they are allowed to live out their natural lives have a reasonably happy and healthy life. If you wish to dispute that assumption, we can discuss that separately.

Now, let's look at the the average factory farm.

Take one example: veal production, since I have mentioned that previously. Here is some information:

Veal is a by-product of the dairy industry. In order for dairy cows to produce milk, they must be impregnated and give birth. Half of the calves born are female, and they are used to replace older cows in the milking herd. The other half are male, and because they are of no use to the dairy industry, most are used for beef or veal.

Within moments of birth, male calves born on dairies are taken away from their mothers and loaded onto trucks. Many are sold through auction rings where they are subjected to transportation and handling stresses. The fragile animals are shocked and kicked, and when they can no longer walk, they are dragged by their legs or even their ears.

Every year, approximately one million calves are confined in crates measuring just two feet wide. They are chained by the neck to restrict all movement, making it is impossible for them to turn around, stretch, or even lie down comfortably. This severe confinement makes the calves' meat "tender" since the animals muscles cannot develop.

Published scientific research indicates that calves confined in crates experience "chronic stress" and require approximately five times more medication than calves living in more spacious conditions. It is not surprising then, that veal is among the most likely meat to contain illegal drug residues which pose a threat to human health.

Researchers have also reported that calves confined in crates exhibit abnormal coping behaviors associated with frustration. These include head tossing, head shaking, kicking, scratching, and stereotypical chewing behavior. Confined calves also experience leg and joint disorders and an impaired ability to walk.

In addition to restricting the animals' movement, veal producers severely limit what their animals can eat. The calves are fed an all liquid milk-substitute which is purposely deficient in iron and fiber. It is intended to produce borderline anemia and the pale colored flesh fancied by 'gourmets'. At approximately sixteen weeks of age, these weak animals are slaughtered and marketed as "white" veal (also known as "fancy", "milk-fed", "special fed", and "formula fed" veal). Besides the expensive veal which comes from calves who are kept in small wooden crates, "bob" veal is the flesh of calves who may be slaughtered at just a few hours or days old. While these calves are spared intensive confinement, they are still subjected to inhumane transport, handling, and slaughter, and many die before reaching the slaughterhouse.

Want more? Check out http://www.factoryfarming.com/.

Why did I choose that site? Simply because it was one of the first on the list when I plugged "factory farming" into Google. Do you the search yourself, and you can choose among 6 million other results. Happy reading! Or not.

 

[James R]

One more general summary, chosen from the top of the Google list. Emphasis is mine, by the way, as for the above.

In just one year, ten billion land animals are slaughtered by the U.S. meat, egg, and dairy industries. Statistically, farm animals comprise more than 95% of all the animals in the country with whom we interact, and that staggering percentage does not even include the estimated ten billion aquatic animals killed for human consumption.

These farm animals—sentient, complex, and as capable of feeling pain and joy as those dogs and cats we welcome into our families—are viewed by industrialized agriculture as mere meat-, egg-, and milk-producing machines. They suffer immensely when profit outweighs their well-being. Yet, despite the routine abuses they endure, these animals aren’t afforded any legal protection while on the farm. More than 95% of them—birds—aren’t even included in the regulations implementing the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which requires other animals to be rendered insensible to pain before they are killed.

Overwhelmingly, farm animals’ lives and deaths are filled with abuses that would be illegal if inflicted on those animals we consider companions.

The vast majority of U.S. farm animals are confined inside barren warehouses, overcrowded cages, or restrictive pens or stalls on factory farms. With an unprecedented number of animals bred and slaughtered, farming practices have become increasingly industrialized, often sacrificing the animals’ well-being in favor of raising more productive or faster-growing animals with the least amount of space and attention that can sustain production.

Source: http://www.hsus.org/farm_animals/factory_farms/

 

[James R]

TW:

Why? becuase I fail to bow down to you and James R. I am ignorant about a few things I will admit. I can be arrogant as that comes with a 187 IQ.

I think you are ignorant of how the majority of meat is produced in the USA, for a start.

Regarding your 187 IQ, I have a couple of comments. First, I would hope that somebody with an IQ of 187 would be able to spot a logical fallacy (such as the false appeal to nature) at 100 paces. But apparently, you cannot. Which makes me wonder...

On the other hand, many people with IQs of that level have high-functioning Autism, or Asberger's syndrome. Among its other features, this often results in a lack of empathy with other people and animals. In your case, this also makes me wonder...

 

[Facial]

Although I eat meat, I have vowed long ago never to eat veal.

 

[Facial]

The more aware and intelligent people nowadays pay much less respect to IQ. In any case, it is irrelevant to the main point of discussion.

 

[QuarkMoon]

I argued with James on this issue before, so I won't get into it too much. But I do have a question, why is killing an animal for food immoral? I'm not going to argue it's necessity because that's not what I'm aiming for. I want someone to explain why animals deserve rights, and why it is immoral for them to be killed.

Oh, and please do so with minimal comparisons to Human on Human acts, thanks.

 

[mountainhare]

It taikes a very negative mind to take that as implication of you not being intelligent. It could have just as easily been taken that I thought you are intelligent.The second is the way I meant it and any attack you imagined you saw was simply there only in your interpretation.

That's quite an impressive bit of gymnastics, but it is quite apparent that you were engaging in an ad hominem attack. I asked for clarification regarding 'survive' and 'thrive', to which you replied that you "always thought that an intelligent person knew the distinction between survive and thrive."

That is a perfect example of a snide, 'over your head' ad hominem.

Why? Why do you think using a proven piece of lore is a desperate act? Becuase it puts some doubt inot your words.

A proverb made up by an anonymous individual is a 'proven piece of lore'?! ROFLMAO!

I hold your so-called 'proven piece of lore' in low regard for several reasons.

1. The statement was most likely made by someone who lacked the authority to make such a statement.

2. The statement is obviously a gross over-simplification of the methods involved in statistical collection and analysis. You can't accurately summarize an entire field of mathematics and science into a sentence. I've explained this in depth, but you continually parrot the same bullshit, ad nauseum.

Really, if we we completely logical beings statistics would be a perfect science. However we are not.

Straw man attack. I never claimed that statistics was a perfect science. However, I do object to you implying that all statistical claims are unreliable, and should be ignored out of hand. Merely because a process may be imperfect, does not make its results useless.

It is nearly impossible to find any set of statistics that is not skewed to suit the speaker's needs.

That's opinion on your behalf. Only one inference of data is correct. If you truly believe that my article 'skewed the statistics', then point out a better interpretation. They provided their original sources... get off your ass and support your claims for once.

It's nature of the being, so it quite possible to look at the numbers and come up wiht multiple erroneous conclusions.

Supposition and conjecture. Merely because something might be possible in general, does not mean that it occurred in my specific case. Once again, put up, or shut up.

Yeah there is, but of course you won't even try. A neutral standpoint is easily enough gotten by looking at the partially processed data, the results of studies before they are made into papers and strip mined for useful statistics.

Of course I won't try. I've already provided statistical data which was referenced to original raw data, and you've conveniently shifted the goal posts. Meanwhile, you have conveniently failed to provide even one source to support your assertions. I fail to see why I should be up to standards which you yourself refuse to meet.

Perhaps when you engage in a little professional scholarship yourself, I might chase down the raw data. Until then, you will be diagnosed with 'pot-kettle-black' syndrome.

Hardly a ballance vegetarian diet that even come close to the levels of proteins and vitamins you need is actually more expensive. Don't believe as any poor family.

Evidence? Or is this more conjecture on your behalf?

Actually it (meat) is an incredibly efficent form of protein, iron, copper, B vitamins...oh wait I have kept saying this and you refuse to listen.

Well, actually, I have been listening. But my rebuttal is that it is NOT efficient, because you require a 6:1 ratio grain. Meat may be a 'good' source of protein, iron, copper, etc, but how much grain did you need to produce this 'good' source in the first place? A rather appropriate analogy. Ethanol is a good source of energy, but it is incredibly inefficient to create, because the amount of energy required to synthesize ethanol is far more than you receive by combusting the ethanol.

Bacteria is only a problem if you do not properly cook your meat.

False. Cooking does not always kill bacteria, and it still won't help if the dead bacteria deposited toxins on your food beforehand.

Same with Steroids and Antibiotic which do break down under heat.

Are you sure about that?

MH: Morality was on Hitler's side, because most of the German's supported his activities. You're actually committing a logic fallacy known as 'appeal to the majority'. Merely because the majority agrees with you, does not make your argument logical, sound or moral.

Scott: Funny you should make such a comparison, probably becuase you cannot refute what I say and can only perform an ad hominem attack.

1. Where did I make an ad hominem attack? I'm merely pointing out the fallaciousness of your 'majority makes right' attitude, via the use of reductio ad adsurdum.

2. And I did refute what you stated, by pointing out that your argumentation was based on an 'appeal to the majority' logic fallacy. I thought that someone with an IQ of 187 would be aware of what an 'appeal to the majority' logic fallacy is, but apparently I shouldn't have made that assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans").

Answering if eating meat is moral is along the same lines of

Would you give your life to save an elderly person you did not know?
If you knew a man would commit murder in the future could you kill him given the chance?
If you had to choose between your wife and two women you never see again who would you save?

No, it's not. Attempting to compare meat eating with those scenarios is fallacious, since those scenarios aren't even parallel.

No one has the right or duty to judge another persons answer to questions like these, to call him immoral, or to question his motives.

That's your opinion, which conveniently remains unsupported. And frankly, this is a red herring. As I explained above, your scenarios aren't relevant to the act of unnecessary meat eating.

Perhaps a more accurate scenario would be a child murdering his parents so that he inherit their fortune, and as a result live a life of luxury. Do you have the right or duty to judge him, to call him immoral, or question his motives?

It rests simply with that person and should be left that way.

You're correct. People should be able to engage in immoral acts whenever they want, without being judged or restrained by others.

You'd find that very convenient, wouldn't you? It bugs you when people point out the immorality of your murder, hmmm?

A person can and should share his moral choice, but he should never preach that it is better than anyone elses.

Then what are you doing on this thread? Pot-kettle-black syndrome strikes again!