I was practically a nutrition minor in college.
That is the worst qualification I've ever heard. Oh by the way, I'm a lawyer cause I walked by the law book section in borders once.
I was practically a nutrition minor in college.
So far, the only answer to "Why is it OK to eat animals?" is "Because I want to. Because I can."
On top of that, us raising cattle is probably the best thing that has ever happened for a cow before.
Now a cow doesn't need to worry about finding enough food/water. Now a cow doesn't need to worry about its habitat going extinct. Now a cow doesn't have to worry about finding a suitable partner to reproduce with.
For an unintelligent being (that can be domesticated), being a crucial part of humanity's diet is the best thing that could happen to you.
Ask a calf what a cow provides, and you'll surely receive a different answer.
From the perspective of a human, sure, cows are made for meat. From the perspective of the owner, slaves are also made for cotton-pickin'.
That is the worst qualification I've ever heard. Oh by the way, I'm a lawyer cause I walked by the law book section in borders once.
Dude, wtf. I already said it doesn't make me an expert. All I'm saying is that I have some background in nutrition so I'm not at the fucking idiot level that I would actually think that the body only knows calories and absolutely nothing else. My quote was taken out of context.
Because it's natural to, we evolved to, and animals eat other animals. It is not unethical to eat meat.
Do you realize that this is exactly the same logic that white slave-owners made about blacks? It's scary how archaic you sound.
I was practically a nutrition minor in college. Not saying that makes me an expert, but I know enough.
So you're just an idiot as far as evolution and morality are concerned. Got it.
The difference is african americans are of equal intelligence to other human beings. That is why in my post I said "unintelligent animals".
Are you arguing that cows are of equal intelligence to human beings?
Not sure if trolling, or just retarded
The difference is african americans are of equal intelligence to other human beings. That is why in my post I said "unintelligent animals".
Are you arguing that cows are of equal intelligence to human beings?
Respond to it then. If not, you should have better things to do than argue with a "troll," no?
Cardine, for all you know the cow's are doing equations in their heads while grazing and just don't know how to tell us yet.
I was practically a communications minor in college.
None of your "reasons" are moral claims. You're basically saying, "Everyone is doing it, so it has to be right."
We're NOT like other animals, so to say that eating meat is right because a coyote does it doesn't make much sense. Lions eat baby lion cubs. Does that make it right for a human to eat other babies? Your "natural" argument doesn't hold.
If humans based their morality on what happened in the wild, societies would be chaos.
I love WickedFire, but the one things that just makes me laugh is there is such a "bro" attitude about everything on this forum. If getting high fives from your bros on an online forum is what you consider a valuable use of your time, then I don't even know what to say.
Either respond to my comments in earnest or leave. I can't really understand anything in between as anything other than a complete waste of your own time.
He already did. We are designed to eat meat and animal products. If you don't do so, it takes a very significant effort to not die from malnutrition.
The meat vs. no meat argument doesn't hinge on intelligence. It hinges on the capacity to feel pain and the capacity to have autonomy.
It's wrong to hurt humans that are mentally retarded. Or to hurt babies. Neither of these beings have "intelligence," but we think its wrong to hurt them because of some other reason. Well, THAT "some other reason" is something most animals share. I call it autonomy. You might call it something else.
Cows have preferences, they have autonomy. And by raising them for slaughter, we're violating that autonomy.
Again, the discussion has nothing to do with intelligence.
If I find dogs on the street and start beating them with a lead pipe, I'd go to jail.
If I beat cows with a lead pipe, that's just standard practice. It's behavior control.
Why the double standard? They're equally intelligent.
Where do you think our morality came from, if not from evolution and the 'wild'? If there was an evolutionary advantage to eating our young, we would do it and think it is moral to do so.None of your "reasons" are moral claims. You're basically saying, "Everyone is doing it, so it has to be right."
We're NOT like other animals, so to say that eating meat is right because a coyote does it doesn't make much sense. Lions eat baby lion cubs. Does that make it right for a human to eat other babies? Your "natural" argument doesn't hold.
If humans based their morality on what happened in the wild, societies would be chaos.
The meat vs. no meat argument doesn't hinge on intelligence. It hinges on the capacity to feel pain and the capacity to have autonomy.
It's wrong to hurt humans that are mentally retarded. Or to hurt babies. Neither of these beings have "intelligence," but we think its wrong to hurt them because of some other reason. Well, THAT "some other reason" is something most animals share. I call it autonomy. You might call it something else.
Cows have preferences, they have autonomy. And by raising them for slaughter, we're violating that autonomy.
Again, the discussion has nothing to do with intelligence.
If I find dogs on the street and start beating them with a lead pipe, I'd go to jail.
If I beat cows with a lead pipe, that's just standard practice. It's behavior control.
Why the double standard? They're equally intelligent.