Vegetarian/Vegan. Ethics and other discussion.

[NicNac14]

A reason that supports eating meat is that it is the largest source of protein outside of acquiring it artificially. Beef, pork, fish, and poultry are all categories of meat. If you are vegetarian, more power to you, but omitting such an important aspect of nutrition is, to me, ill-advised.

I consume meat because it gives me protein and it tastes good. I enjoy steaks, hamburgers, sausages, chicken, and fish (especially tuna and talapia), among other things. Does this mean I support what some of the farmers are doing to the cattle and the chickens? Absolutely not. I do agree that some of the animals are being treated poorly, and what I would like to see is more regulation and quality control implemented on cattle farms to ensure the safety of these animals. Or perhaps an alternate/more humane method of killing the animals? Slaughtering seems like such a harsh word, and the act of slaughtering isn't exactly what anyone would call nice.

In the end, however, animals are not humans and their lives are not equal to ours, no matter how emotionally attached we may become to our beloved pets. I have 2 cats of my own, and as anti-social as they are, I adore them. I certainly do believe that most animals are higher than some other life-forms, like insects, but they are raised for our consumption, with companionship only residing with domesticated animals.

well, referring to the first paragraph, meat is actually not the most nutritious in concern of protein, beans is. any type of nut and bean has alot of nutrition and thus it also contains less fat, calories, an carbs compared to beans and such. I am a vegetarian to a point. I eat meat, rarely. because of the nice taste. yet I eat alot of fish since it has alot of raw nutrients that are rare to get elsewhere.
I agree with geti 67% some of it doesn't bother me.

[Amadeus]

Sources? I can't imagine it would make that large an impact, but I suppose I could be wrong.

[We] noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels--and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide--as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

That doesn't even mention methane produced by cows...it simply mentions transportation and feeding/raising costs.

Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources.

With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority.

The article sums up with the fact that methane reduction is more viable of an option as it has (a) a much lesser effect on the economy than reducing CO2 levels by the same amount (which would involve taking millions of cars off the road, and shutting down thousands of factories) and that (b) methane is a much more harmful gas than CO2 and that going vegetarian is our most effective combatant of global warming.

[EdoI]

I always thought how natural eating animals is: it's a feeding chain. Animals kill each other for eating, why wouldn't we?
But today my biology teacher said how human jaw is a classical herbivore-shaped jaw. It kills the argument.

[Seneschal]

I always thought how natural eating animals is: it's a feeding chain. Animals kill each other for eating, why wouldn't we?
But today my biology teacher said how human jaw is a classical herbivore-shaped jaw. It kills the argument.

No it doesn't...humans are descended from apes, which are herbivores. However, whereas apes are not very advanced in terms of tools, humans, on the other hand, have evolved and developed knives, traps, etc to make up for what we lack in the claws/sharp teeth area in order to hunt.
This argument is very much alive.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I always thought how natural eating animals is: it's a feeding chain. Animals kill each other for eating, why wouldn't we?
But today my biology teacher said how human jaw is a classical herbivore-shaped jaw. It kills the argument.

Humans are omnivores. We don't extract all we need from plants like herbivores do; we need some fats and proteins that plants don't have. It's not like pre-civilization man was whipping up batches of tofu and bottling vitamins. No, we ate fish. And fish is awesome.

[Amadeus]

Regardless of what we were intended to do as cavemen, we've reached a different point in time. We don't draw ash and berry paintings on cave walls, nor do we rub sticks together to make fire. We treat women and men equally, whereas our ancestors did not. We aren't racist nor do we let the sickly die as they have no value to the well being of the tribe. We have become civilized and it is time we act it.
At this point in time, with our technology, the entire planet can survive on a vegetarian meal. Although ancient cavemen had neither the technology nor intelligence and knowledge to plant food, we can now. And we can plant enough of it to survive. Its time we become civilized and start doing what's morally, environmentally, and economically a better choice for the planet.

[capt_weasle]

Regardless of what we were intended to do as cavemen, we've reached a different point in time. We don't draw ash and berry paintings on cave walls, nor do we rub sticks together to make fire. We treat women and men equally, whereas our ancestors did not. We aren't racist nor do we let the sickly die as they have no value to the well being of the tribe. We have become civilized and it is time we act it.
At this point in time, with our technology, the entire planet can survive on a vegetarian meal. Although ancient cavemen had neither the technology nor intelligence and knowledge to plant food, we can now. And we can plant enough of it to survive. Its time we become civilized and start doing what's morally, environmentally, and economically a better choice for the planet.

We could build entire cities made out of cheese, too, but we don't. Just because we could live off a vegetarian diet doesn't necessitate it, not to mention that I do not believe it is even possible to force everyone in the world to follow a similar diet. Humans still need the nutrients from meats that plants just don't have. Also, I feel threatened by being told I need to "become civilized" and follow what you feel to be moral. Vegan Man's Burden?

[Tanner]

Regardless of what we were intended to do as cavemen, we've reached a different point in time. We don't draw ash and berry paintings on cave walls, nor do we rub sticks together to make fire. We treat women and men equally, whereas our ancestors did not. We aren't racist nor do we let the sickly die as they have no value to the well being of the tribe. We have become civilized and it is time we act it.

You've obviously never been a liberal arts college.

[Tanner]

You've obviously never been a liberal arts college.

I daresay you haven't, either.

I have, actually, just visited one. I believe they were filming some sort of montage, though, so my experience may not have been entirely true to form.

Edit: Gah! "Been to a liberal arts college." Sorry, mom. Sorry, dad. Sorry, education system.

[Atilla]

No it doesn't...humans are descended from apes, which are herbivores.

Er, no, they aren't. Chimpanzees are known to hunt in the wild, and sometimes exhibit cannibalism in captivity.

[Amadeus]

Regardless of what we were intended to do as cavemen, we've reached a different point in time. We don't draw ash and berry paintings on cave walls, nor do we rub sticks together to make fire. We treat women and men equally, whereas our ancestors did not. We aren't racist nor do we let the sickly die as they have no value to the well being of the tribe. We have become civilized and it is time we act it.
At this point in time, with our technology, the entire planet can survive on a vegetarian meal. Although ancient cavemen had neither the technology nor intelligence and knowledge to plant food, we can now. And we can plant enough of it to survive. Its time we become civilized and start doing what's morally, environmentally, and economically a better choice for the planet.

We could build entire cities made out of cheese, too, but we don't. Just because we could live off a vegetarian diet doesn't necessitate it, not to mention that I do not believe it is even possible to force everyone in the world to follow a similar diet. Humans still need the nutrients from meats that plants just don't have. Also, I feel threatened by being told I need to "become civilized" and follow what you feel to be moral. Vegan Man's Burden?

Firstly, we don't need to exist on a vegetarian diet...nor does any moral choice need to be made. But ethically, if we are killing millions of animals annually for no reason besides our own comfort and enjoyment, then there is no reason for us to continue. If I squish ants on the side of the road because its fun, or hunt animals and leave the to die because I enjoy it, the death is unnecessary. Although to survive, our ancestors (and other primitive animals) had to hunt, we are no longer at such a point.

Secondly, name what nutrients animals give that can not be found in plants. All the vitamins that animals have is a product of their eating vegetation, or other animals who subsist on vegetation.

And finally, morality is subjective. Although I'm not equating being carnivorous to the Holocaust (I'm not an extremist, mind you) they are both moral tragedies, at least to me. And so saying the Holocaust is a tragedy is equally subjective to any moral statement I make. However, as a commonly accepted moral that killing is wrong, homicide has been banned/made illegal in every country in the world. So please criticize me for upholding a moral which protects millions of living creatures annually.

[capt_weasle]

But ethically, if we are killing millions of animals annually for no reason besides our own comfort and enjoyment, then there is no reason for us to continue. If I squish ants on the side of the road because its fun, or hunt animals and leave the to die because I enjoy it, the death is unnecessary. Although to survive, our ancestors (and other primitive animals) had to hunt, we are no longer at such a point.

The majority of the animals humans kill aren't out of mere enjoyment, rather for food. And most of the people I know who do hunt because they enjoy it use up the rest of the animal and put it to good use (also hunting is much more a social activity to hang out with friends, not just kill an animal for the hell of it and leave a rotting carcass).

Secondly, name what nutrients animals give that can not be found in plants. All the vitamins that animals have is a product of their eating vegetation, or other animals who subsist on vegetation.

First off, vitamin B12 is not found in any reliable, sustainable plant life (other than some deep sea algae or something around that), and is an important factor in keeping us healthy and at lower risk for heart disease and such. Secondly, pure omnivorous animals do not run off of the same nutrients humans do. Fortunately for vegans, B12 can be made through some bacterial fermentation process, but if you argue that the death of millions of creatures is an outrage, then why would you want to murder all of the bacteria, just so you could live comfortably?

And finally, morality is subjective. Although I'm not equating being carnivorous to the Holocaust (I'm not an extremist, mind you) they are both moral tragedies, at least to me. And so saying the Holocaust is a tragedy is equally subjective to any moral statement I make. However, as a commonly accepted moral that killing is wrong, homicide has been banned/made illegal in every country in the world. So please criticize me for upholding a moral which protects millions of living creatures annually.

Killing a human and killing an animal are two entirely different things completely. I would personally kill twenty animals in order to save the life of one person (well, depending on the person in question). If you think that animals are on the same moral ground as humanity, then by all means go and rescue the millions of other starving, beaten, and broken man, woman, and child out there before considering a cow to be more worth your time than them. Through this reason I hope to god you don't support PETA, but that's for another debate. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your side of the argument, but I just worry about the majority of vegetarians/vegans out there who love their dog more than their spouse.

[scythe]

Firstly, we don't need to exist on a vegetarian diet...nor does any moral choice need to be made. But ethically, if we are killing millions of animals annually for no reason besides our own comfort and enjoyment, then there is no reason for us to continue.

What about our own comfort and enjoyment?

[SkyPanda]

We treat women and men equally, whereas our ancestors did not. We aren't racist nor do we let the sickly die as they have no value to the well being of the tribe.

Where did you gain such insight into the behaviours and attitudes of cavemen? Racist cave drawings? ;)

@b_t: the land has been dead for ages. it just got extra ruined by idiot british coming and trying to live like it was britain. this coming from a white australian, with mostly english blood (a bit of dutch) the colonisation of everything was done rather poorly, you cant logically disagree. they based terra nullus on weather there were fences and/or sheep. SHEEP! OUTSIDE BRITAIN! WTH! [/rant]

Actually, I think I CAN disagree. It was a rather successful colonisation, one of the few negative effects being the current existence of eigth grade teachers who think that terra nullius had anything whatsoever to do with sheep.

A cow's life is worth less than a human's life

If you believe that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a cow because it cannot think on the same level as a human, then do you also believe that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a disabled person? Or even a rather stupid person? Sure, it would no doubt be disgusting, but according to the stupid cow theory, it's entirely morally justifiable.

Furthermore, the only reason that cows are fat, useless beasts that sit in a field all day and chew grass is because humans have messed around with their dating life for thousands of years. If it weren't for you meat-eating bastards, I might have had a nimble, buffed, intelligent dinner companion tonight with which I could have discussed the labor budget.

[scythe]

Even incredibly low IQ humans are far, far more intelligent (more importantly, conscious) than any animals outside the great apes and dolphins (both of which I'd argue do deserve special treatment). More importantly, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's natural to make exceptions for the disabled; not so natural to make exceptions for an entire species.

[Amadeus]

The majority of the animals humans kill aren't out of mere enjoyment, rather for food. And most of the people I know who do hunt because they enjoy it use up the rest of the animal and put it to good use (also hunting is much more a social activity to hang out with friends, not just kill an animal for the hell of it and leave a rotting carcass).

Whoa wait up there. You just contradicted yourself. Humans don't kill animals out of enjoyment, but people hunt for a social activity, which is a fun activity?

And don't you derive pleasure from eating meat? I sure did. Both these are forms in which animals are killed for enjoyment. Nutritionally, we don't need to kill animals. There's plenty of vegetation for everyone, in fact it takes 10 times as much food to feed a chicken over its lifetime for slaughter than it would be to eat some pasta with equal calorie value. Which means, food prices would drop 900%. Also, vegetarians have been proven to live an average of 3 years longer than omnivorous humans. So since its economically, nutritionally, and ethically better to go vegetarian, why do we eat meat?

Because it tastes good. Because we enjoy it.
_

Concerning Vitamin B12, Wikipedia says

A common synthetic form of the vitamin, cyanocobalamin, does not occur in nature, but is used in many pharmaceuticals, supplements and as food additive, due to its stability and lower cost.

Whoa! Its cheaper, and it does the same thing! Oh and wait, we don't have to kill millions of cattle each year to get to it.
It also says "sources include nutritional yeast, fortified soy milks, and fortified energy bars". Its out there. In eggs also, as I'm not a vegan.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12
_

Killing a human and killing an animal are two entirely different things completely. I would personally kill twenty animals in order to save the life of one person (well, depending on the person in question). If you think that animals are on the same moral ground as humanity, then by all means go and rescue the millions of other starving, beaten, and broken man, woman, and child out there before considering a cow to be more worth your time than them. Through this reason I hope to god you don't support PETA, but that's for another debate. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your side of the argument, but I just worry about the majority of vegetarians/vegans out there who love their dog more than their spouse.

I agree completely with everything you said. I would kill one hundred animals to kill a good moral human. However, I hope you realized or will realize the point of my prior instigating statement was only to demonstrate that morality is completely subjective, and that we nonetheless create laws based on commonly accepted moralities.

_

What about our own comfort and enjoyment?

Should a minor convenience come at the lives of millions of animals? At food prices and world hunger? Global warming? I'm perfectly fine as a vegetarian... junk food and carbs seem to work fine for me.

_

If you believe that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a cow because it cannot think on the same level as a human, then do you also believe that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a disabled person? Or even a rather stupid person? Sure, it would no doubt be disgusting, but according to the stupid cow theory, it's entirely morally justifiable.

Furthermore, the only reason that cows are fat, useless beasts that sit in a field all day and chew grass is because humans have messed around with their dating life for thousands of years. If it weren't for you meat-eating bastards, I might have had a nimble, buffed, intelligent dinner companion tonight with which I could have discussed the labor budget.

Well said. Pigs are smarter than dogs, but how many dogs are eaten in America? Last time I checked, they were spoiled pampered pets Americans spent billions on annually which get groomed and dressed up like barbie dolls. Not eaten. And yet, pigs are smarter, with cognitive abilities of a three year old toddler. Would you eat a three year old? Last time I checked, there aren't many cases of parents cannibalizing among their young children. Or those who are mentally retarded.

Even incredibly low IQ humans are far, far more intelligent (more importantly, conscious) than any animals outside the great apes and dolphins (both of which I'd argue do deserve special treatment). More importantly, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's natural to make exceptions for the disabled; not so natural to make exceptions for an entire species.

Really? Check your sources. Because you're dead wrong. Even mice have been proven to run mazes and solve problems such as opening lock mechanisms faster than toddlers and the developmentally delayed. And pigs are a lot smarter than mice.

On a second thought, apes which are popularly eaten in Africa, are even smarter than pigs. Gorillas (which are illegally killed for their precious hands used for coffee-table decorations among the rich) have learned sign languages and feel human emotions. But they too are killed, by bush hunters and tribesmen.

[capt_weasle]

Whoa wait up there. You just contradicted yourself. Humans don't kill animals out of enjoyment, but people hunt for a social activity, which is a fun activity?

No, I said that most of the animals we kill is for food. I was just making a side note about when people do hunt for social enjoyment.

And don't you derive pleasure from eating meat? I sure did. Both these are forms in which animals are killed for enjoyment. Nutritionally, we don't need to kill animals. There's plenty of vegetation for everyone, in fact it takes 10 times as much food to feed a chicken over its lifetime for slaughter than it would be to eat some pasta with equal calorie value. Which means, food prices would drop 900%. Also, vegetarians have been proven to live an average of 3 years longer than omnivorous humans. So since its economically, nutritionally, and ethically better to go vegetarian, why do we eat meat?

I was specifically talking about hunting animals for sport, not necessarily the eating. But yes I do enjoy eating meat, and I'm not stopping any time soon. You see, you can still live up to those extra three years with *gasp* diet and exercise! Having a balanced diet that includes meat isn't dangerous by any means. It seems the health argument is aimed toward people who eat chicken-fried steak three times a day.

I agree completely with everything you said. I would kill one hundred animals to kill a good moral human. However, I hope you realized or will realize the point of my prior instigating statement was only to demonstrate that morality is completely subjective, and that we nonetheless create laws based on commonly accepted moralities.

Unfortunately the morality in question deals with the death of humans, not of animals. Until vegetarians become the majority, there won't be any laws regarding animal slaughter (though this does lead into animal cruelty, but I agree there should be laws against it, so nothing to debate there).

What about our own comfort and enjoyment?

Should a minor convenience come at the lives of millions of animals? At food prices and world hunger? Global warming? I'm perfectly fine as a vegetarian... junk food and carbs seem to work fine for me.

I wouldn't say the meat industry is a "minor convenience." It is a huge convenience for me to be able to go to the local store and pick me up some steaks. If the majority of the world lives off of an omnivorous diet, I think it is much more than minor. Also, the meat industry doesn't cause world hunger. In fact, it very well could solve it. The issues surrounding world hunger have much to do with politics and corruption and education, not because people like to eat meat.

If you believe that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a cow because it cannot think on the same level as a human, then do you also believe that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a disabled person? Or even a rather stupid person? Sure, it would no doubt be disgusting, but according to the stupid cow theory, it's entirely morally justifiable.

Furthermore, the only reason that cows are fat, useless beasts that sit in a field all day and chew grass is because humans have messed around with their dating life for thousands of years. If it weren't for you meat-eating bastards, I might have had a nimble, buffed, intelligent dinner companion tonight with which I could have discussed the labor budget.

Wow, that was completely offensive. First of all, saying that just because it may be more acceptable to kill and consume cows does not in any shape or form suggest that people would find it acceptable to kill and consume retarded folks. One, you just created the "stupid cow theory," not the rest of us, so no, I do not find it morally justifiable by any means. As scythe put it, a human is far more incredible and complex and conscious than a cow. Furthermore, I highly doubt that cows would have evolved to the point of being as intelligent as humans, or even chimpanzees for that matter. We discover entirely new species constantly, and are any of those that smart? No, so what makes you think a cow would have developed any differently?

Well said. Pigs are smarter than dogs, but how many dogs are eaten in America? Last time I checked, they were spoiled pampered pets Americans spent billions on annually which get groomed and dressed up like barbie dolls. Not eaten. And yet, pigs are smarter, with cognitive abilities of a three year old toddler. Would you eat a three year old? Last time I checked, there aren't many cases of parents cannibalizing among their young children. Or those who are mentally retarded.

Pigs may be smarter than dogs, but pigs have many qualities that lure people to hold a preference of dogs, such as being rather ugly as adults, being undeniably tasty (although a dog could be, too, but I wouldn't know), and spreading that damn flu. Also put into play the canines roll as being companions to man has been around for an incredibly long time. And once again, you cannot compare a pig to a child, because they are on entirely different levels of cognitive potential than pigs.

Even incredibly low IQ humans are far, far more intelligent (more importantly, conscious) than any animals outside the great apes and dolphins (both of which I'd argue do deserve special treatment). More importantly, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's natural to make exceptions for the disabled; not so natural to make exceptions for an entire species.

Really? Check your sources. Because you're dead wrong. Even mice have been proven to run mazes and solve problems such as opening lock mechanisms faster than toddlers and the developmentally delayed. And pigs are a lot smarter than mice.

I think it's incredible that you think it would follow for a human to eat their child because some mice can run a fucking maze. I do not give a damn if a pig is smarter than my children at three years old. It's because they're three fucking years old! They will grow and mature into functional, intelligent adults, whereas a pig will not. I don't eat something based on it's intelligence. I eat something based on it's standing as something popularly consumed for thousands of years. Maybe if I were traveling through India or China or wherever they eat strange things and try a bite of monkey or camel eye. People find different things appetizing through a tradition of it being consumed in that general region.

[SkyPanda]

More importantly, you're comparing apples and oranges.

There are obviously major differences between a cow and a baby (baby, because I agree that even a mentally deficient person is more intelligent than a cow). However, are you able to explain how any of these differences affect the morality of eating one or the other, in the context of intelligence?

It's natural to make exceptions for the disabled; not so natural to make exceptions for an entire species.

How many mentally disabled people will I need to gather before you consider it morally acceptable to kill and eat one of them? Surely its not a matter of numbers.



capt_weasle, you've mixed up your quotes, I wasn't the one talking about mice, that was Amadeus :P Mind fixing that up?

[Amadeus]

Pigs may be smarter than dogs, but pigs have many qualities that lure people to hold a preference of dogs, such as being rather ugly as adults, being undeniably tasty (although a dog could be, too, but I wouldn't know), and spreading that damn flu. Also put into play the canines roll as being companions to man has been around for an incredibly long time. And once again, you cannot compare a pig to a child, because they are on entirely different levels of cognitive potential than pigs.

Are you implying that we should eat pigs because they're ugly? What about ugly dogs? Or ugly people for that matter.
And regarding cognitive potential, what if your three year old was mentally retarded. Not much potential there tbh. Say your child would never get smarter than they were at three? Should they be put to death because they're stupid? What if they're attractive, because as you said before, people only kill ugly creatures.

I think it's incredible that you think it would follow for a human to eat their child because some mice can run a fucking maze. I do not give a damn if a pig is smarter than my children at three years old. It's because they're three fucking years old! They will grow and mature into functional, intelligent adults, whereas a pig will not. I don't eat something based on it's intelligence. I eat something based on it's standing as something popularly consumed for thousands of years. Maybe if I were traveling through India or China or wherever they eat strange things and try a bite of monkey or camel eye. People find different things appetizing through a tradition of it being consumed in that general region.

They eat dogs in the Philippines. And as previously stated, monkeys in Africa. Does it mean something is right just because it is tradition? Or because everyone else was doing it?

[capt_weasle]

Are you implying that we should eat pigs because they're ugly? What about ugly dogs? Or ugly people for that matter.

You completely missed the point of my post. I was saying that people prefer dogs as pets over pigs because dogs have the evolutionary advantage of being cute. And will you stop it with the lousy comparisons? There is no way in hell that anyone should follow that reasoning. That is the slipperiest slope you have ever pulled, son.

And regarding cognitive potential, what if your three year old was mentally retarded. Not much potential there tbh. Say your child would never get smarter than they were at three? Should they be put to death because they're stupid?

Nope.

What if they're attractive, because as you said before, people only kill ugly creatures.

I never said that. I never even said we kill pigs because they are ugly. Re-read my post please, thanks.

They eat dogs in the Philippines. And as previously stated, monkeys in Africa. Does it mean something is right just because it is tradition? Or because everyone else was doing it?

Of course it doesn't, but I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the fact that many a people don't factor in intelligence when deciding what to eat, thus the popular consumption of animals whom we tend to like over here in the US as pets.

[Amadeus]

So tell me then. What is your criteria/on for which animals die? Because its not taste, intelligence, or the 'cute factor', and to be honest, I can't think of anything else.

[capt_weasle]

Depends on the animal. I don't rely on just one criteria to decide if an animal should die, that would be stupid. Besides, there are many more factors besides intelligence, taste, or being cute that determine whether certain people would kill any given animal, such as size, population, reproduction rates, marketability (you won't be able to sell certain parts of the animal - such as the brains - very well depending on where you are trying to sell it), and the like. If you really think it's wrong to kill a cow because it has some grand scheme of life that it wants to conquer, then I feel pretty bad for you. A cow really is only good for grazing, pooping, and being eaten, because if it didn't have such a great value in those categories than it probably wouldn't have survived for as long as it did.

[the_happy_taco]

It's genetics, what were our ancestors used to doing, hunting and gathering, thats why we have that teeth structure perposly set the back for chew ing plants and the front to rip meat off bones

plus its the cycle of life, u don't see cheetas or other carnevors stopping and saying, wait i could be killing inosent lives, i should stop eating them. the food change would fall apart, all carnevors whould die off from starvation, smaller species would overpopulate and drain the world of natural resources like plants, then they would die off from starvation, then there wouldnt be anything to fight about because we would all be dead from oxygen depreization

and guess what, we all die sometime in the universal timeline, most animals dont have a long life period and when u dont kill them for food and set them to the wild ur just delaying the inevitable, many die soon after anyways from disease and other causes

[Amadeus]

It's genetics, what were our ancestors used to doing, hunting and gathering, thats why we have that teeth structure perposly set the back for chew ing plants and the front to rip meat off bones

plus its the cycle of life, u don't see cheetas or other carnevors stopping and saying, wait i could be killing inosent lives, i should stop eating them. the food change would fall apart, all carnevors whould die off from starvation, smaller species would overpopulate and drain the world of natural resources like plants, then they would die off from starvation, then there wouldnt be anything to fight about because we would all be dead from oxygen depreization

and guess what, we all die sometime in the universal timeline, most animals dont have a long life period and when u dont kill them for food and set them to the wild ur just delaying the inevitable, many die soon after anyways from disease and other causes

1. As stated previously, ancient man couldn't survive without meat. Thats why he was wired to be an omnivore. But now, we can survive without meat.
2. Cheetahs couldn't survive without meat. Humans can.
3. We're going to die in the end too. So let me come over to your house, and I'll kill you and your family? Because I mean, you're gonna die anyway. Might as well have some fun.

[SkyPanda]

As I type this, I am hurriedly trying to fix the potential confusions that may be caused by me attributing the wrong quote to the wrong person!