Why do you eat meat?

[Zzarchov]

Tell you what Rawisbetter, go out to the Savannah and see if Animals treat you humanely before they eat you or if they eat you alive? Most prefer to eat alive since it keeps you from spoiling that little bit longer.

Nature is cruel, tough. I support hunting more than farming (modern factory farms anyways) but even If I don't need meat, I would choose too.

No matter what you eat, you are killing animals.


As for meat taking up more resources than farming grain. It does, but the last thing we need in the world is more food. The more food we make the more the population explodes because people don't have any internal moral responsibility to think if they really should have oodles of children. And then we are back to starving and create an even bigger ecological footprint.

What we need is to make less food and control our own damn population growth.

 

[Rawisbetter!]

"but the last thing we need in the world is more food."



Yeah, all those starving children can go to he11. Lol.

 

[karrie]

"but the last thing we need in the world is more food."



Yeah, all those starving children can go to he11. Lol.

Those children aren't starving due to a lack of food in the world, they're starving due to poor distribution of what is grown.

 

[hermanntrude]

rawisbetter, there is currenytly more food in the world than we need to support the population. the problem isnt quantity it's distribution.

 

[karrie]

rawisbetter, there is currenytly more food in the world than we need to support the population. the problem isnt quantity it's distribution.

hermann, you're so smart.
:wave:

 

[hermanntrude]

hermann, you're so smart.
:wave:

u didnt notice "currenytly" then...lol

 

[karrie]

u didnt notice "currenytly" then...lol

Bah, we all make typing mistakes.

 

[Zzarchov]

"but the last thing we need in the world is more food."



Yeah, all those starving children can go to he11. Lol.

No, but i hope their parents do. If their parents or grandparents had have kept their population growth stable, ie, no more than 2 children for two parents, rather than treating children as a status symbol (ie, more is better even if you can't feed them) they wouldn't be starving, because there would be more than enough food.

We produce hundreds of times more food than we did two hundred years ago, yet there are still starving people, because people refuse to take responsibility for bringing life into this world. If you can't feed another mouth, don't create another mouth to feed.

 

[TenPenny]

Animals should have rights. Just because we are superior to them doesn't give us the right to do whatever we want to them. They have just as much right to be here as us.

What is the point to being superior to animals, if we can't eat them?

 

[karrie]

No, but i hope their parents do. If their parents or grandparents had have kept their population growth stable, ie, no more than 2 children for two parents, rather than treating children as a status symbol (ie, more is better even if you can't feed them) they wouldn't be starving, because there would be more than enough food.

We produce hundreds of times more food than we did two hundred years ago, yet there are still starving people, because people refuse to take responsibility for bringing life into this world. If you can't feed another mouth, don't create another mouth to feed.

you've got to be kidding, right? you expect poverty stricken countries to just remain abstinant? Or are you planning on springing to air drop birth control and ship in docs to perform vasectomies? Geez.

 

[Tonington]

No, but i hope their parents do. If their parents or grandparents had have kept their population growth stable, ie, no more than 2 children for two parents, rather than treating children as a status symbol (ie, more is better even if you can't feed them) they wouldn't be starving, because there would be more than enough food.

We produce hundreds of times more food than we did two hundred years ago, yet there are still starving people, because people refuse to take responsibility for bringing life into this world. If you can't feed another mouth, don't create another mouth to feed.

It's not quite that simple. Third world countries without social security have no way to care for the elderly. Who do you think takes care of these people when they are old and sick. Also, much of the malnourishment results from droughts. There is no way they can know what future conditions will be like.

 

[gc]

Animals should have rights. Just because we are superior to them doesn't give us the right to do whatever we want to them. They have just as much right to be here as us.

If a lion eats a zebra, who do you side with....the zebra that has a right to live, or the lion which must eat the zebra in order to live?

 

[MikeyDB]

Yes it's not just that simple...

Every so often a society elects to send its chidren off to slaughter other peoples children and the whole cycle has to repeat itself ....

 

[darkbeaver]

rights are a human notion. and while i consider them very worthwhile, i can't really apply them to a chicken or a cow. although i do think they're worth some respect. it's well worth remembered when u stuff a peice of KFC into your greasy gob, that it was once alive and that you should be grateful for the nourishment as it's a luxury.

Much of that chunk of KFC was never alive and if that junk wasn't on the pseudo-chicken it wouldn't taste like chicken it would taste like the white stuff they're stuffed with. If a chicken is what it eats then KFC ain't in the food bizz.ukeright:Finger lickin good my ass.

 

[Nuggler]

eatin annimules........numm

We usta put up ar own hogs come fall. .22 cal bullet tween th'eyes, throat slit, bled out, inta a vat a boilin watr, scraped, gutted, in haff a our or less. After th bullet it din no nothin else, an it ayt good all yeer, wuz kep kleen and fed grayn, got ta breed (which wuz mor'n ah ken sae fer me at thet tam). An then we got t'eet em.

So ifn ya wants t'eet grass n that, go hed, Ah'll eet me sum pigs n cows n chickens n thet. eh.

Jes don lett meorpaw ketch ya keepin annimules in dirtee kondishuns, in small kages n thet, er we'll hafta point the .22 et you. har har.:snorting:

:munky2:

 

[Nuggler]

lol

What's this doing in the Conservative section.:laughing7:??

The only food they ever eat is what they steal from others.






joke?

Where's the beef??:grommit:

 

[MikeyDB]

Joke?

never been before... when'd they change it?

Conservatives were the womb of the "me" generation.

 

[L Gilbert]

No, but i hope their parents do. If their parents or grandparents had have kept their population growth stable, ie, no more than 2 children for two parents, rather than treating children as a status symbol (ie, more is better even if you can't feed them) they wouldn't be starving, because there would be more than enough food.

We produce hundreds of times more food than we did two hundred years ago, yet there are still starving people, because people refuse to take responsibility for bringing life into this world. If you can't feed another mouth, don't create another mouth to feed.

Ah, but some deity said "go forth and multiply". so people did and did and did and did and did and .......

 

[L Gilbert]

It's not quite that simple. Third world countries without social security have no way to care for the elderly. Who do you think takes care of these people when they are old and sick. Also, much of the malnourishment results from droughts. There is no way they can know what future conditions will be like.

It is simple. It is procreation. Genetically engineered in us. People breed more kids in times of adversity so that one or two might survive.

 

[MikeyDB]

Many hands make light work.

Male superiority among tribal cultures frequently demands many attempts to conceive a male child to be groomed into positions of wealth and power. Agrarian cultures benefit from many more youngsters who can harvest crops. Technologically advanced societies curtail and dramatically reduce their birthrates. Something about having more than you need for yourself but keeping it all in the family...