[Closed] animal lovers and eating meat

Chewkw - Struggling to see your point here, i think either trolling or a bit dim, this made me laugh though, idiotic

The way I see it unless everyone stops eating meat (which is not going to happen) its still going to be farmed and then get killed so we ought to eat it really otherwise the poor things are going to waste.

I'll buy free range eggs etc, but it doesnt bother me how its killed*, meat is meat. Having said that, I don't eat a lot of meat and I don't like meat that still looks like the animal (i.e. I will buy chicken breasts rather than a whole chicken!)

philsimm,

Of course you will struggle because you do not understand or such concept does not exist in you ... yet.

Do you need to step into the butcher to understand? There are at least 10 butchers in one location where I shop.

So think of the questions and search for the answer yourself after all you are responsible for your own action.

🙂

Got to be a troll...

I still don't get it. Or at least, if I do, I think that I disagree quite strongly.

It seems that you're saying you can eat meat without guilt so long as you personally weren't directly responsible for the slaughter, is that right? To my mind, there's a problem with this logic. The animal was killed to be eaten, you as a meat eater are the target audience here, ergo it's your fault (as a meat-eating consumer) that the animal was killed; it was killed for you, not you personally but you as a carnivore.

You can argue all you like that you didn't personally go to the farmer and go "I'll have that one to go, thanks" but it stikes me as an awfully wishy-washy way of absolving yourself of guilt. You think that meat arrives at the supermarket in bite-sized chunks by coincidence?

It makes far more sense to me to acknowledge where meat comes from, then when you eat it you're making a moral choice and accepting how the food chain works. As a veggie I've no problem with this - we are the top of the food chain and it's natural behaviour after all. "I didn't kill it, so it's alright" sounds like a convenient excuse.

As an analogy, would you buy a stolen bike? You didn't steal it, or ask someone to steal it for you, so when a bloke in the pub approaches you at random and offers you a top of the range full-susser for sixty quid, you can buy it with a clear conscience? It's already stolen by that point so what's the harm?

Buy meat = vote for more meat being made. Not complicated is it?

chewkw, are you for real? I've come across some fairly contrived and ridiculous justifications for eating meat in my time but this takes the biscuit.

The simple fact is that if you eat meat then you're inherently involved and culpable in the killing of the animal, in much the same way that a peadophile is guilty of abuse for looking at dodgy pictures of kids on the internet. Whether or not that culpability is acceptable or justifiable is down to you to decide. But at least have the balls to admit that you've no problem with animals being killed purely for your own convenience or pleasure, rather than trying to shift the blame onto someone else.

I find it bizarre that certain authorities want to blanket-provide Halal food for all children to eat.

What area was it? 7% of the pupils are muslim but the authority is planning 100% supply of Halal.

Crackers.

Somewhere near here would be my guess, sounds like an East Lancs thing.

My local KFC went halal as a trial recently, it went down like Gillian Taylforth in a lay-by.

Whereas several high street fast-food outlets round my way converted to Halal meat and saw their turnover multiply almost overnight...

Don't get your knickers in such a twist over it. Worse things happen at sea.

What area was it? 7% of the pupils are muslim but the authority is planning 100% supply of Halal.

Facts please, if you will kind sir.

Cougar - Member

I still don't get it. Or at least, if I do, I think that I disagree quite strongly.

I think it's a difficult concept to understand as it is not the extremity of one or the other i.e. either you do or you don't.

Note: referring to meat widely available in the supermarket and not animal etc that is in danger or being hunted to extinction or being slaughtered in inhumane ways.

It seems that you're saying you can eat meat without guilt so long as you personally weren't directly responsible for the slaughter, is that right? To my mind, there's a problem with this logic. The animal was killed to be eaten, you as a meat eater are the target audience here, ergo it's your fault (as a meat-eating consumer) that the animal was killed; it was killed for you, not you personally but you as a carnivore.

I don't think a person should beat him/herself up just because s/he eats meat. If a person does not eat meat then it is his/her own choice but the notion of guilt should not be imposed on others that eat meat.

However, those who eat meat must understand their roles in the consumption of meat, the more [u]direct[/u] their involvement the more suffering on the animal and they are totally responsible for their actions.

On the other hand if the meat is on sale/offer and the person has [b][u]no[/u][/b] direct involvement in the procurement of the meat then s/he should not be held responsible for wanting to nourish themselves. The meat is already on sale whether the person likes it or not but the seller (decision maker in meat procurement) is more culpable since s/he is the one selling them and has direct connection to the slaughter house. e.g. If they want to lower cost they buy bulk and slaughter houses slaughter more.

If only those (including the person who procure meat) with direct connection to the slaughtering of the animals understand their involvements and the suffering their impose on the animals then perhaps thing will be rather different. Less procurement of meat, less slaughter, less meat available, less suffering of animal and perhaps "better welfare". But do you think this will happen in the real world? Individual must do their bits so the responsible is on the individual. Eat less meat.

You can argue all you like that you didn't personally go to the farmer and go "I'll have that one to go, thanks" but it stikes me as an awfully wishy-washy way of absolving yourself of guilt. You think that meat arrives at the supermarket in bite-sized chunks by coincidence?

No, it's not wishy-washy because I have not demanded meat in such a way that an animal be slaughtered for my consumption. The meat is already there for sale. If I do not buy them the meat will still be there whether I like it or not. So should I feel guilty? Absolutely not but I do understand the animals endure suffering.

I do not consume beast of burden even if they are freely available to me as a sign of respect.

It makes far more sense to me to acknowledge where meat comes from, then when you eat it you're making a moral choice and accepting how the food chain works. As a veggie I've no problem with this - we are the top of the food chain and it's natural behaviour after all. "I didn't kill it, so it's alright" sounds like a convenient excuse.

Yes, one should know where the meat come from but there is only so much there is to be done in real world. Eat less meat is the answer.

As an analogy, would you buy a stolen bike? You didn't steal it, or ask someone to steal it for you, so when a bloke in the pub approaches you at random and offers you a top of the range full-susser for sixty quid, you can buy it with a clear conscience? It's already stolen by that point so what's the harm?

This is very clear cut. Answer is No.

The key words are [u]stolen, bloke in pub, full-susser for £60[/u] = very dodgy.

Would you take something which is not given to you? I wouldn't.

🙂

I don't think a person should beat him/herself up just because s/he eats meat. If a person does not eat meat then it is his/her own choice but the notion of guilt should not be imposed on others that eat meat.

Agreed.

However, those who eat meat must understand their roles in the consumption of meat, the more direct their involvement the more suffering on the animal and they are totally responsible for their actions.

Cobblers.

The more direct your involvement, the more the animal suffers? What? The slaughterhouse decides to hurt it a bit more if you order it directly?

I must be misunderstanding your point here, because the alternative is that you're talking nonsense.

The meat is already there for sale. If I do not buy them the meat will still be there whether I like it or not.

Yes, and why do you think that is? Because people buy it, because there is a market for it. You buy it, you're part of that market.

This is very clear cut. Answer is No.

Why is it dodgy? You haven't "demanded a bike in such a way that a bike be stolen for your use." You weren't involved in that process. The bike will still be on sale whether you buy it or not.

So why's it clear cut for a stolen bike but acceptable for a slaughtered animal?

dazh - Member

chewkw, are you for real? I've come across some fairly contrived and ridiculous justifications for eating meat in my time but this takes the biscuit.

I did not ask the animal to be slaughtered for consumption nor any direct involvement but what is already available in the supermarket which is very different.

If I understand you correctly ...

If one is to justify slaughtering an animal for consumption = intention to slaughter an animal, follow by action in slaughtering the animal then finally consuming it. The person is fully culpable.

My "justification" = no intention to slaughter an animal (not to demand), no follow up action (no to order) but only buy what is available at the supermarket in moderation. The person is not culpable.

The simple fact is that if you eat meat then you're inherently involved and culpable in the killing of the animal,

The missing elements are intention to slaughter the animal & follow up action (slaughtering). I have none as I only buy what is available in moderation.

... in much the same way that a peadophile is guilty of abuse for looking at dodgy pictures of kids on the internet. Whether or not that culpability is acceptable or justifiable is down to you to decide.

Is this example appropriate?

But at least have the balls to admit that you've no problem with animals being killed purely for your own convenience or pleasure, rather than trying to shift the blame onto someone else.

On the contrary. I am advocating individual responsibility especially those who are directly involved in procuring and slaughtering of the animals and then claiming market demand (consumers want to eat more meat).

😯

Cougar - Member

Cobblers.

The more direct your involvement, the more the animal suffers? What? The slaughterhouse decides to hurt it a bit more if you order it directly?

I must be misunderstanding your point here, because the alternative is that you're talking nonsense.

The key words are: direct, slaughterhouse, order directly.

I have none of the above and I guess majority have not too.

I think you have over claimed the role of consumers there.

Yes, and why do you think that is? Because people buy it, because there is a market for it. You buy it, you're part of that market.

The key words are: people buy it & market.

Again you are shifting towards the masses and blaming the consumers. What if the supermarket started to push more meat to the consumers because they got good deals by buying bulk with lower cost?

Why is it dodgy? You haven't "demanded a bike in such a way that a bike be stolen for your use." You weren't involved in that process. The bike will still be on sale whether you buy it or not.

You failed to apply common sense here.

The key words are: You (I) haven't demanded, stolen & weren't involved.

Yes, the bike will still be on sale but since I am already out of the equation I have no clue as to the situation of the seller and the bike.

So am I guilty? (I might report him/her but say if I didn't)

So why's it clear cut for a stolen bike but acceptable for a slaughtered animal?

It's about intention.

If you know the bike is stolen and yet you buy it then you have a clear intention of buying a stolen good.

Did I say animal slaughter is acceptable? You must re-read my threads carefully.

😕

I'd eat a vegetarian if that makes it more acceptable 😀

What goes on in an abattoir is quite horrific and should be quite properly kept from the public's gaze.
Sorry, but for the majority of this country it's a necessity and as animals aren't born in packets we must put them in them,and to to this ,we first have to undo the animal.Not a pretty sight or process but thats the way of the world
Same applies to the battlefield.We rely on soldiers to keep us safe and protect our interests but you don't see the results spread all over the newspapers or 6 o clock news.
Quite simply.its a necessity and that's that.

Boiled or fried?

if it's got eyes on the sides of it's head it's meant to be eaten, if it looks forward it does the eating. Simple really, I'd not want to offend any higher being/god/deity by ignoring their design and mauling a carrot

Now obviously i can't speak for all,but the majority of vegetarians look quite depressed 😕

Preferably flame-grilled in a bun with blue cheese and salad. Hold the gherkins.

dyna-ti - Member

... thats the way of the world ...

The key words above.

I think the world would be a better place if we could only change ourselves first before trying to change the world.

oh ya ... changing ourselves cost nothing.

🙂

Chewk, you might think you are not culpable by buying ready available meat in the supermarket, but the fact is you are creating a demand, supporting everyone involved in the killing. The money you pay for the meat finds its way back to everyone involved in the chain.

Would you buy a chicken for example from a small farm shop? It is generally a better way of buying meat, higher quality, fresher, but you are directly supporting the 'killer'. If you buy one of the dozen chickens on sale, this will directly impact on the number of animals killed to restock. No different to the supermarket, its just a lot more obvious to see that you have an effect and are therefore associated with the sale.

Taking it a step further, the christmas turkey. You are saying that you would be happy to buy one off the shelf, but not place your order with the supermarket/butcher in advance to ensure you can get a fresh turkey close to christmas?

I think the only way you can distance yourself is that you cannot be held responsible for any miss-treatment during the killing.

I eat meat, but I used to be a veggie and therefore open minded to both sides.

When did eating meat become a necessity?
Within 20 years meat will be an expensive luxury again as the energy required to produce it is too great. But then for some of you when you buy that packet of "meat product with no relationship to an animal" it'll be just that.
Chewkw - you have no understanding of supply and demand do you?

you are shifting towards the masses and blaming the consumers.

You failed to apply common sense here.

Do those five rules come from some 'holy book' or other, by any chance?

Now obviously i can't speak for all,but the majority of vegetarians look quite depressed

I'd perhaps suggest that you can't speak for the majority either. But I'm quite happy, thanks. There are some idiots I'll grant you, but like any demographic it's a minority that give the rest a bad name. In my opinion, etc.

sorry chewkw, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. If you eat meat you are responsible for its slaughter and through your choices you are equally responsible for the way the animal was treated in life as well as in death. As you for one seem wholly incapable of dealing with this concept, you really should either become vegetarian [s]or, quite seriously, seek professional help to deal with your guilt.[/s]

your carefully ordered list of excuses and get out clauses is quite laughable, i honestly do wonder if you were wearing your tinfoil hat when you first put pen to paper, perhaps with thoughts of becoming a cult leader in later life???

The more people i involve in this question the clearer the lines become, some people really dont care what is on their plate or how it got there, if its yummy they eat it, end of.
Some people actually care for thier bodies and minds and eat meat from organic/sustainable/'happy' sources - even the muslims i have spoken to agree that this doesnt include halal meat due to the unnecessary suffering inflicted.
the rest do not condone cruelty to animals at all, and eat only vegetables! The questions of life/pain/intensive farming etc are still relevant but the answers vary between individuals.

Sorry, but for the majority of this country it's a necessity

Obviously the millions/billions of people around the world who eat no meat have missed this. No doubt they'll probably be dead soon.

Same applies to the battlefield.We rely on soldiers to keep us safe...

I would think that was a matter of debate too.

The way I see it unless everyone stops eating meat (which is not going to happen) its still going to be farmed and then get killed so we ought to eat it really otherwise the poor things are going to waste.

Jesus. What is it about these threads that brings out the idiots?

The way we keep farm animals and the way we kill them is disgraceful. If you must eat meat then for gods' sake treat the animal well and kindly and kill it quickly and painlessly. Anything other than that ill-becomes us as human beings.

Re: "necessity";

Individually it's not necessary to eat meat. However, it is necessary that some of us do. The problem with everyone going veggie is that it takes more farmland to sustain a vegetarian diet than it does to breed cattle, and there simply isn't the land to support everyone doing it.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this though,

What goes on in an abattoir is quite horrific and should be quite properly kept from the public's gaze.

In what way is ignorance preferable to knowledge? People should know what they're putting in their bodies, then they can make informed choices. Animal welfare might be a bit higher on the agenda for some people then also.

I'm not about to get all preachy or tree-huggy, so let's look at eggs as an example. People found out how hens were farmed, there was a bit of fuss, and now we have the choice at a consumer level to pay a little extra to cover the increased costs in providing free-range eggs, or we can get cheap eggs if we don't mind that they've come from chickens that have been stapled to the floor.

Choice is [i]good. [/i]And without education, how can we make the right choices?

it takes more farmland to sustain a vegetarian diet than it does to breed cattle

Are you sure about this? I thought it was pretty much accepted that it takes IIRC 7 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat. I suppose your point would make more sense if we assumed the animals ate nothing.

When did eating meat become a necessity?

The Jurassic period, give or take a few tens of millions of years.

I read somewhere (sorry...) that meat became very, very important in the diet of people in medieval Italy because huge numbers fo cattle were being bred for their hides - necessary for military equipment for the constant warfare of the period. People were eating collossal quantities of beef simply because it was there.

[i]I thought it was pretty much accepted that it takes IIRC 7 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat.[/i]

Hmmmm, lots of marginal land used in the production of meat, Welsh hillsides, Yorkshire Dales, Most of New Zealand...Mostly produced without the aid of large quantities of 'grain'. Haven't read all this thread, where's the debate on Industrial Fishing going in relation to cattle production..?

i'm with most folk in the idea chewkw is talking pish!

chewkw - Member
They might be ignorant but then they have no control or direct involvement with the killing. They have not demanded (request for more meat or tell someone to kill an animal for them) the meat purely for themselves.

they don't ask for it cos its there. But i reckon if supermarkets/butchers stop selling meat. there would be alot of people asking for it.

As said supply and demand, simple.

FWIW i've shot, skinned/plucked and cooked then eaten meat before. have no problem with it. and no guilty feeling for it.
Food chain rules, simples.

Are you sure about this?

Sure, no. I've read it in a couple of places now though, not recently enough to remember details unfortunately.

[i]"The way I see it unless everyone stops eating meat (which is not going to happen) its still going to be farmed and then get killed so we ought to eat it really otherwise the poor things are going to waste."[/i]

Row 2, Column 4

[i]"it takes more farmland to sustain a vegetarian diet than it does to breed cattle[/i]"

Row 3, Column 2

[img] [/img]

Ha ha, that's perfect MTG!
😛

Well posted, I was trying (and failing) to remember where I'd seen it posted ...

Yeah, I've heard most of those at one time or another.

"You're a vegetarian and you wear leather shoes! Ha!"

Yes, I don't eat my shoes, you pillock.

How can I demand if I only buy what is on offer/available?

If they are there I buy if not I don't. i.e. there is no demand from me but there is supply. So the equation of demand & supply does not make sense.

So if I do not demand who are they going to sell/supply? Certainly not me but some other maggots I guess.

But you have forgotten the fact that it could be the supermarket pushing the meat to you hence they create the demand themselves rather than ordinary maggots.

😆

I'm pretty much with Zulu Eleven's first post on Halal & Kosher meat. Often the lines between culture, race and religion become very blurred.

What concerns me is that when fast food places etc. offer Halal meat, they often offer it exclusively. I can see why they would, for simple economic & practicality reasons. But I would prefer to eat something that's been slaughtered by the methods that have been codified specifically to minimise suffering to the animal. Most likely codified by a committee who knew an enormous amount about it.

As for only eating certain bits, there's very little waste really - I know a butcher, and there's a reason the mince and shin beef is a lot cheaper - it needs shifting! And of course, if we didn't eat meat, most livestock would exist only in zoos.

[i]" And of course, if we didn't eat meat, most livestock would exist only in zoos."[/i]

Row 2, Column 4

[img] [/img]

Grows me own.

[img] [/img]

This is a bit like trying to justify owning pics of kiddy fiddling isnt it.With Chews logic having those pics is ok because he didnt do the fiddling, and buying them doestn not create demand for more.

Its frankly bollocks.

I like eating meat and I like killing stuff to eat, I dont think you should eat meat unless you are prepared to kill it or at least take responsibility for its death. (according tho TJ my moral compass needs recalibrating but lets face who listens to anyhting he says ) Chew your logic is not logic, its wooly thinking.

How can I demand if I only buy what is on offer/available?

I dont think you should eat meat unless you are prepared to kill it or at least take responsibility for its death

Junkyard to be honest I'm not into veggie baiting, I have respect for vegans/veggies. It boils my piss when meat eaters will not face up the fact that eating meat = killing for pleasure, becasue they cannot accept it. I am happy with my meat is murder ways, I don't see the need try and obfuscate the truth like other carnivores. I feel sure that in the future meat eating will be banned (maybe 50 years) hence I'm eating as much as I can until its too late...

toys19 - Member
Junkyard to be honest I'm not into veggie baiting, I have respect for vegans/veggies. It boils my piss when meat eaters will not face up the fact that eating meat = killing for pleasure, becasue they cannot accept it. I am happy with my meat is murder ways, I don't see the need try and obfuscate the truth like other carnivores.

+1 😀

[img]

width="500" height="375" alt="stalking 2009"[/img]