Dude, there are people I'd kill if it meant I'd get bacon.

Abgemacht +1

Let me elaborate:

Should people hurt animals just for the sake of hurting them? No.
Should we kill animals that are in danger of extinction such as wales and elephants? No.
Should we treat farm animals that are specifically bred to be slaughtered better than some people below the poverty line? No.

Chickens, Cows, etc exist to feed humans. They are domesticated animals that wouldn't even exist if it weren't for humans. If you want to let them roam around a farm, that's great, but not if it means that someone is going to have to pay more for it.

Love the title to this thread!

chickens and cows wouldnt exist without humans...? what do you mean by that?

that's what's wrong with many people, they worry more about animals that don't truly matter than the lives of people. Should we kill every dangerous animal? No. Do we even know every animal? no. So, while we worry about making a bug extinct in California that lives in underbrush, more wildfires occur.

I mean that they are the domesticated version of wild animals that existed a long time ago. Like the dog, which is an animal bred by humans, not created out of natural selection.

okay so killing a domesticated animal is okay because it has been domesticated expressly for the purpose of being killed and eaten? so if we decide to breed animals the food they create, its okay to kill them? always? by that arguement, couldnt we say that if we started breeding elephants for food, it would be okay to kill them? not that agree or disagree, just trying to understand your arguement

yes, we domesticated chickens and pig and cows TO EAT. not to have nice little farm animals to play with. why would we domesticate elephants? That's not even possible. Plus, the meat would be rough, hardly bacon or chicken fingers or hamburgers

Cows, chickens and pigs are all very successful species, from an evolutionary perspective. The secret to the success is that they are docile, good breeders, grow quickly, and taste good. If we stopped eating cows they would probably go extinct (or at least their numbers would be greatly reduced). All animals have to die eventually, but it so happens that farm animals die at the abattoir and that is part of their life cycle, just as antelopes get chomped by lions and hyenas. We humans die too. In the end we are all queuing up for the abattoir (so to speak).

If we had been able to domesticate elephants and if they made good farm animals we would eat elephants. But now most of us have a perception of elephants that would make many squeamish about eating them. I feel the same way about dogs and cats. I perceive them as friends and not as a food source, but that is a question of culture.

The issue is that they are alive. they are animals, they have (at least some) thought, and they definently can feel pain. Would you feel okay if you had to kill a cow? i mean if it didnt just come in a little package at the store?
Yes, we raise these animals to kill them. But how does that justify the killing? We're killing massive amounts of animals a day! However, even that's not the issue. Humans don't _need_ meat, but it tastes great and getting all the other nutrients would be a hassle and thats lame. Im not a vegitarian, and that's not the issue.
THe issue is cruelty towards animals. Meat is cheap because the industry is cheap. And animals arent treated decently. If you want an example, just google "chicken grinder" or "baby chickens being ground up alive". It's exactly what it says it is, and it's disturbing. Male chickens wont lay eggs, and they grow much slower than female chickens. They lose money for the company, so whats the solution? put them all in a meat grinder, while they are still alive.
Basically, i dont have any issues with eating meat because i believe humans are more important than animals. However, i do not believe there is any great excuse for treating animals cruely. There are humane systems for slaughter houses, and thats great. And then there are disgusting practices like dumping thousands of new born baby chicks (while still very alive) into a running meat grinder and Animals need protection against that sort of thing.

I hear you zoeoz, I went to an abattoir once (as part of an economics class excursion when I was at school). I found the experience quite disturbing. I wouldn't eat meat if I had to kill it: that is, living as I do as an office worker in a modern city. I deal with question of animal suffering, but buying free range eggs, and otherwise trying not to think about it too much. I have been a vegetarian in the past, but it didn't work out.

typo... I deal with the question of animal suffering *by buying free range eggs...

I would have no problem eating something I had to kill my self. Are you forgetting a hundred years ago the majority of people did just that? As far as cruelty have you ever watched a pack of wolves bring down an Elk? I don't mean a censered version seen on most animal shows. Sometimes the animal is still alive when they start to rip open the stomic. Death in the slaughterhouse is quicker.

Natural laws seem to dictate that man is an omnivore.

What's more, animals have no code of ethics--why, then, should we extend our ethical standards to them?

I'm not saying slaughter entire species, on the contrary, I'm for conservation--for the most part, I agree with Teddy Roosevelt, conserve the beauty of lands and animals so that they can survive to be shot in future generations--but by the same token I'm not holding a pig to the same ethical standard as I would a person (even if that person happens to BE a pig like Glenn Beck...I KID, I KID, no one flame me or start a war over that...that wouldn't be kosher!) :p

And +1 abgemacht--I may be a Jew, but I want my bacon, damnit! XD

No I realize that. That is why I said "living as I do as an office worker in a modern city". If I were shipwrecked on an island, and the only way I could survive would be by killing animals I would. I don't like the idea killing animals, but I could get used to the idea, but as it happens I don't have to get used to the idea. There are so many other options at the supermarket other than meat.

I may be wrong, but doesn't meat provide man with essential nutirents?

Obviously man CAN survive without meat, as vegetarians and even vegans survive, but my question is--is man healthier/stronger eating meat?

You are absolutely correct Obi. That is why there has never been an olympic champion or professional athlete who is a vegetarian. You can technically survive without meat, but barely, that is why vegetarians are so gaunt and unhealthy looking.

I'll start by saying that I am not vegetarian. On the other hand saying that vegetarians are unhealthy looking is absolute nonsense. In the US, more then 20 % of people are OBESE will another quite good percentage are overweight (I think it was over 30 %, I don't feel like looking it back sorry, it's depressing). This trend is also seen in most indusrtialized country (I am from Canada and we have simliar numbers). I can assure you that if more pople were vegetarians those numbers would crash and people would be a lot healthier. Saying that man needs meat to be healthy is a lie (I'm a medical biologist by the way), we are in 2011, not in 1380. BUT, I agree that eating a reasonable amount of meat (1 portion/day = about the size of the palm of an adult hand, more then 2 portions is way too much, 2 is ok, 1 to 1.5 is better), is a SIMPLER way to stay healthy then being vegetarian, but I wouldn't say a better or a worse way to do so.
And I can't finish my post without mentionning thta even with the best alimentation in the world, if you do not make regular physical exercise, you will not be healthy.

And yes there are a LOT of athletes that doesn't eat meat. Just google it :)

For the nutrients question, only one vitamin B12 is usually low in vegetarian diets. Eating supplements can be a good idea for vegetarians although the vitamin B12 won't necessarily become a problem.

I'm not a vegetarian, but the only pro-vegetarian argument that's ever gotten to me is this:

In not being a vegetarian we assume that a person's life is more valuable than a cow's life, and this is entirely true. So, if a cow's life is worth less than a person's life, how much less? Is a cow's life worth 1/100 of a person's life? 1 person to 100 cows certainly seems like an anti-vegetarian ratio.

Well, the average non-vegetarian eats many, many more than that in a lifetime, maybe even in a year.

If everybody was vegetarian, we would never know food shortage and we could have less ground over-exploited. Most of the grain we produce are used to feed annimals. For instance in France we use 6kg of corn a day to stuff a single goose, to get a single foie gras. How many tortillas could we get instead of a single foie gras? How many mexican families could we feed instead of feeding one of this gooses? Serriously I am fed up with those never ending wheat and corn fields all around.

Meat is food. Mmmmmmmm

@ askninjasks: That's a sucker's arguement. There is no percentage difference. You're either eating dinner, or you ARE dinner.

That being said, the value of a cow's life, while less than some humans, is not so low that it deserves to be mistreated or tortured while alive.

@ chamois: The root cause of starvation, as with almost every other issue of the shortage kind, is due to overpopulation. Without solving there, there will always be people starving. Foie gras isn't the problem.

There's nothing wrong with vegetarianism at all.

Everything that is in meat can be obtained otherwise.

That being said since meat is so ubiquitous I will continue to eat it.
Since I'm a middle-of-the-road kind of guy my approach has been to attempt to reduce my meat intake.

Don't remember where I heard it but I've heard it more than once that meat, pound for pound, is many many times less efficient than other crops in terms of energy use, water use, soil use, etc.

But on moral grounds? No. That's dumb.
The only sense in which it could be considered immoral to eat meat is the sense in which me eating a pound a meat is taking food out of the mouths of 99 poor people (assuming the efficiency ratio is 1:100).

So yeah.

Trip:

There has been lots of starvation that has nothing to do with overpopulation.

Chamois is right: we have more than enough resources to feed ourselves and many billions more, we just do things with dreadful inefficiency.

The world production of food is more than enough to feed the world's population. The issue is distribution not quantity, or in some areas bad farming methods.