Boards Index General discussion Getting serious Barbarism of flesh eating

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8961

    When billions of animals are still being born to be slaughtered, when the environment is being destroyed by agribusiness, when maldistribution of food leads to the starvation of thousands of children around the world, when the activities of the rich and powerful cause untold suffering to marginalized peoples and animals, one may sensibly be pragmatic. There are many reasons to think hard about what one is contributing to when purchasing the products of modern factory farming and many reasons to stop eating animals.
    The view that we should avoid eating meat or fish has ancient philosophical roots. In the Hindu Upanishads (about 1000 BC) the doctrine of reincarnation leads to opposition to eating meat. Buddha taught compassion for all sentient creatures. Buddhist monks were not to kill animals, nor to eat meat, unless they knew that the animal had not been killed for their sake. Jains hold to ahimsa, or non-violence toward any living creature, and accordingly do not eat meat.
    In the Western tradition, Genesis suggests that the first diet of human beings was vegetarian, and permission to eat meat was given only after the Flood. After that, vegetarianism gains little support from either the Jewish or Christian scriptures, or from Islam. Philosophical vegetarianism was stronger in ancient Greece and Rome: it was supported by Pythagoras, Empedocles, Plutarch, Plotinus, Porphyry, and, in some passages, Plato. Pythagoreans abstained from eating animals partly because of their belief that humans and animals share a common soul, and partly because they appear to have considered the diet a healthier one. Plato shared both these views to some extent. Plutarch’s essay On Eating Flesh, written in the late first or early second century of the Christian era, is a detailed argument for vegetarianism on grounds of justice and humane treatment of animals.
    Interest in vegetarianism revived in the nineteenth century, on grounds of health and humanity towards animals. Notable vegetarian thinkers included the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, Henry Salt (who wrote a pioneering volume entitled Animals’ Rights), and George Bernard Shaw, who said that he put into his plays the ideas that he learned from Salt. In Germany Arthur Schopenhauer urged that ethically we should become vegetarian, were it not for the fact that the human race cannot exist without animal food ‘in the north’!
    Since the 1970s vegetarianism has gained strength from three major lines of argument: health, ecology, and concern for animals. The first of these grounds rests on a scientific, rather than philosophical, claim. Ecological concerns about eating meat arise from the well-documented inefficiency of much animal-raising. This applies especially to intensive farming, in which grain is grown on good agricultural land and fed to animals confined indoors, or in the case of cattle, in crowded feed-lots. Much of the nutritional value of the grain is lost in the process, and this form of animal production is also energy-intensive. Hence concern for world hunger, for the land, and for energy conservation provide an ethical basis for a vegetarian diet, or at least one in which meat consumption is minimized.
    Arguments for a reassessment of the moral status of animals have also given support to vegetarianism. If animals have rights, or are entitled to have their interests given equal consideration with the similar interests of human beings, it is easy to see that there are difficulties in claiming that we are entitled to eat non-human animals (but not, presumably, human beings, even if through some accident they are at a similar mental level to the animals we do eat). These ethical arguments for vegetarianism may be based on the view that we violate the rights of animals when we kill them for our food, or on the more utilitarian grounds that, in raising them for our food, we cause them more suffering than we gain by eating their flesh.

    At some time in the future, our descendants will look back in horror at the primitive practice of slaughtering and eating sentient creatures for food, in much the same manner that we recoil from the imagery of a plate of Sweeney Todd’s pies.

    #303226

    get yer head round this one d.o.a if you can read so much at once without your carer that is. :wink: :wink:

    #303227


    I am sick of you people, you’re always right, and if you’re wrong, well you don’t care.

    The only voices you listen to are the ones in your head.

    #303228

    Woah too much to read.. :shock:

    #303229

    Y’know, I really love a nice rare fillet steak ….. lightly grilled for around 20-30 seconds each side and good & bloody in the middle.

    Nothing beats a nice lump of steak and blood running down yer chin !!! Mmmmmmm

    #303230

    Cas

    Why do we need to be bombarded with these facts and figures. We each choose what we prefer to do,,,,if we choose to eat meat, then I don’t see why it should have anything to do with vegetarians or anyone else for that matter. We don’t, or at least I don’t anyway, say that vegetarians are wrong for not eating meat,,,,,why do these pple think they have the ordaned god given right to preach! ?

    #303231

    @cas wrote:

    Why do we need to be bombarded with these facts and figures. We each choose what we prefer to do,,,,if we choose to eat meat, then I don’t see why it should have anything to do with vegetarians or anyone else for that matter. We don’t, or at least I don’t anyway, say that vegetarians are wrong for not eating meat,,,,,why do these pple think they have the ordaned god given right to preach! ?

    It’s about imparting reasoned facts. No-one is asking you to agree. As for having an “ordained given right to preach” – that’s rich coming from you with your bile-spewing anti-Mccann cant.

    #303232

    Cas

    @esmeralda wrote:

    @cas wrote:

    Why do we need to be bombarded with these facts and figures. We each choose what we prefer to do,,,,if we choose to eat meat, then I don’t see why it should have anything to do with vegetarians or anyone else for that matter. We don’t, or at least I don’t anyway, say that vegetarians are wrong for not eating meat,,,,,why do these pple think they have the ordaned god given right to preach! ?

    It’s about imparting reasoned facts. No-one is asking you to agree. As for having an “ordained given right to preach” – that’s rich coming from you with your bile-spewing anti-Mccann cant.

    Lol, i’m not spewing bile about it, i’m just one voice amongst many others, and before you wonder, no, im not a sheep, it is my opinion that they are in part guilty, of negligence at the very least!!

    And if you weren’t preaching then I apologise,,,,,my perception was maybe off,,,,,,ok, hope that clear it up :shock:

    #303233

    Don’t you know cas?

    Vegetarians always have to take the higher ground, they always have to preach and convert us all.

    We all have to be SAVED !!!!!!

    Funny living in Brighton I meet a lot of these nutters, you can see them any Saturday in the shopping centre next to the “socialists worker “ and “the war in Iraq is wrong” pushing there ideas on the rest of us.

    But that is what it means to be free, free to choose.

    Saying that in the past we would have lock these nuts up in a nice hospital, it’s a shame we can’t do that anymore.

    I would say this to all you nuts with your funny ideas, freedom is paid for in blood, but not yours, you always find a way to get out of it.

    No doubt you have better things to do with your time than support the rest of us……….

    #303234

    Surely you are not suggesting that Esmeralda is our very own JC nut and should be locked up in a nice comfy hospital… :?:

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 15 total)

Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!