You're very persistent - IF I do bother to argue against this ridiculous point will you please finally shut the **** up?
Self experimentation eh. Being a veggie won't neccessarily improve your general health but I'd imagine some do feel better for the switch. I don't think I would. I'm a lover of food and if deprived of certain things I could see myself becoming very grouchy. You could argue the toss all day long about which is healthier, non vegetarian or vegetarian. A healthy diet can be achieved either way. McCoys. I would have went for the T Bone Roysters myself!
For the benefit of PleaseNotPoll and his thinking bypass -and as I have a spare 1/2 hour or so right now, so here goes;- 1. In the first place, the argument still stands, in that what does not exist cannot be mourned for or missed as it simply does not have an existence in the first place (for more info on this issue, please refer to Sartre, Kafka, Rousseau etc). 2. If there were no meat-eaters, there would still be maintained stock for the preservation of global biodiversity, so domestic farmed animal and bird stock would not cease as a species. 3. These animals only live and exist because we eat meat, they are bread for a purpose, but as others have stated –what kind of a life is that? Pigs have lost the ability to support their own weight, turkeys are penned into such stressful environments that they resort to cannibalism; domestic poultry are so confined they cannot stand or flex their wing muscles. Further they are pumped with artificial hormones (some of which are consumed by people to our own detriment) to make them gain weight unnaturally. Other domestic stock are confined to the extent where they cannot exercise. Illustrations of the cruel and outrageous treatment of farmed animals can go on and on on to the extent that you come to the inevitable and logical conclusion that they are better off not having a life at all. 4. To equate this to human suffering where human populations may have been better having no existence is perfectly valid; rather than using an extreme and perverse illustration such as that of Mr Fritzl, consider the denial of abortion rights meted upon Philippino people living in urban squalor. By reducing the family size in some of these shanty town dwelling folk will improve the quality of life of those of a smaller and more viable family unit in terms of health, opportunity etc, so they would in fact be much better off having non-existent brothers and sisters. 5. As stated therefore your argument –and, as far as I can work out, your only argument, that these creatures would never be called into existence in a world filled with veggies is not only weak and facile, but virtually void of any tenable logic. To go on … 6. If we cannot accept that these animals have a right to be treated in a manner that provides them with a life without suffering, then you would have to call into question our entire sense of humanity and self-worth. 7. To say, well that’s the point, they should be treated well is simply unrealistic, as animals are ‘produced’ for profit, so the demand for meat and the price competition that exists on national and international markets means that they are condemned to suffrage. A good illustration of this is the outbreak of foot and mouth disease a few years back and the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of animals in order to attempt to control it. These animals were perfectly fit for human consumption and the key reason for their slaughter (along with containment) was that their weight gain would be slowed to the point where the cost of rearing would far exceed their sale value. 8. Ethical and organic farming may exist, but this is merely a preserve of the most affluent. The rich can appease their conscious by buying more expensively produced meat, but this does not resolve the issue. 9. Add to all this the added costs in terms of additional chemicals (to produce feeds), transport, energy in rearing animal stock. This also uses protein that could be for human benefit denying them a potential more nutritious diet based on things such such as fish, beans and nuts, which are fed to animals to the detriment of human health in LEDC countries. 10. Further, land clearance causes environmental degradation in regions such as the rainforests in Brazil for cattle ranching and overgrazing, soil erosion, deforestation in many other parts of the world where pastoral stock far exceed the land carrying capacity, reducing the ability of some of the most vulnerable people to secure future food supplies. For MANY reasons, the non-existence of domestically reared stock is better off not being called into existence at all. Happy now?
1. What does mourning have to do with anything? That would apply to absolutely any living creature, so this point is either irrelevant or you think everything's better off having never been born. 2. The species may not cease to exist, but the numbers would be massively reduced, probably to near extinction levels. How is that a good thing? 3. This is an argument for ethical farming and not vegetarianism, as has already been discussed. Create and apply the right laws and it goes away or is vastly reduced, at least. 4. Reduced numbers and improved conditions? That sounds like exactly what I'm advocating, as opposed to your virtual genocide. 5. You've offered nothing here at all, except your failure to understand my extremely obvious point. I can't really help that. Sorry. 6. Humans don't live a life without suffering, let alone livestock. A life with minimal suffering and a number of positives is both desirable and achievable. 7. Suffrage? Do you really think that they should be allowed to vote? (Your post is actually a complaint about euthanising sick animals, which makes no sense.) 8. Why doesn't ethical, organic farming resolve the issue? You've made this claim without any explanation. If it's possible and achievable, then why not insist on it? 9. So don't produce livestock in LEDC countries, then. Problem solved. 10. See 9. Happy now? If I can debate Fan's wild and wacky take on religion for dozens of pages, then I think I can manage one answer from the Vege's Propaganda Handbook. You really haven't got a clue, have you?
And circumvents valid points, firing made-up answers from his own arse, "He's like TFWNN ...I'll give him that"
Dumping red meat and associated products would be a good start considering it's potential health implications. I'm thinking of doing it myself - it shouldn't be too hard as I don't touch dairy anyway. The ethical and environmental bonus points a person gets from not eating meat can very easily be negated depending on the source of the food you do eat. We're unlikely to eat beef sourced from the Amazon basin but are quite likely to consume palm oil (probably unwittingly - it can be disguised as part of an oil blend simply called 'vegetable oil' under current trading guidelines) which is one of the biggest culprits for deforestation and habitat loss. Soy is a ****er too.
Malaysia too where the palm oil industry has almost totally annihilated any remaining indigenous forests, however, your point is I feel somewhat moot. Meateaters are just as capable of consuming cooking oil and soya in equal quantities as any lefty hippy pot-smoking vegetarian and the reduced ecological footprint from a veggie/vegan/pescetarian diet is still valid
Just as capable indeed, but I'd argue that you'd be more inclined to gravitate towards certain soya and vegetable oil products as a result of avoiding animal based products (soya as a substitute to milk and yoghurt or vegetable oil spreads as a substitute to butter for instance). I guess my point is that the environmental concerns of diet go far deeper than whether you eat meat or not, though of course that doesn't suggest that it's pointless becoming a vegetarian. It's better to go without. I'd also argue however that the moral side goes deeper than the feelings of the butchered animals and effects on the environment, and it's only us who can actually afford to be picky based on these two reasons. I find it hard to blame the guy who needs his ****ty little cattle farm from reclaimed forest land to stay alive.
It does make sense, but vegetables do get boring after time. There is only so much salad and pasta that i can eat. A good balanced diet requires protein, something you don't get much of if you're a vegetarian. Red meat is a good part of your diet, so actually, it's better to be an omnivore.
