Shellfish may feel pain when cooked

[CaptainCrunch]

I wonder if somewhere in the universe a planet populated by super intelligent lobsters are having a debate on their version of the internet about the practice of dropping humans in a pot of boiling oil before they eat them. And one Lobster states that if Human's could eat them they would. However it would look something like "Skrreeee Skreee Slrreeee"

I think that would be awesome.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, laws are an artificial construct in and of themselves. Homosexuality is a crime in many countries. You can't seriously base your ethics solely on what is legal vs illegal within a given border.

Ethics are also social constructs based on where we live and interact. In this case, in this land, people do not think it is unethical to eat meat while they do think it is unethical to kick a dog. You can make your comparison between meat eating and dog kicking if you are in such place where there is a significant proportion of liked minded peers who would tolerate someone would kick a dog. Unfortunately, I do not know of such place where this comparison would be accepted.

DA, it is a great thing that you have managed to live your life without meat in order to live a principle. However, people here are attacking you not because of your vegetarianism, which is well-meaning, but because the general tone and examples you choose to defend your decision come across at a minimum pious, and at worst a troll trying to get a rise out of people.

I agree with you on a point though, people do eat meat because they enjoy it. I certainly do. We humans have evolved that we have many ways to get our daily nutrients. To take your arguments to the extreme, we wouldn't have to eat at all, but instead be hooked up to feeding tubes and IV nutrient systems. It would even be more environmentally friendly than a plant based diet. Similarly, and maybe better examples to use, it's the reason why people buy fancy cars, or wear fancy clothes, drink a variety of different beverages. All these thing are nice to have but there are more environmentally and socially acceptable options.

Part of the life experience is to enjoy things, and meat is something a large majority of the human population enjoys.

To go back to your dog kicking false equivalent, meat eating has an evolutionary basis, satisfies a basic human need, and is socially acceptable. None of those things can be said about dog kicking, and this is why people are calling you out

Lchoy

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

*EXACTLY*. So long as you have no problem with me kicking my dog, we're all good.

Meh, to be honest, I don't care at all. You can kick your dog till it dies for all I care if you take pleasure in that. Just be prepared to face the consequences of the law.

[moon]

Originally Posted by JazzyFlame

I do feel meat eaters are indimitated by them.

This is a joke right?

Why would anyone be intimidated by a Vegetarian?

[V]

Dog kicking satisfies my basic human needs.

I finally found someone on my side of that argument. Thanks DA!!

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't really get the dog kicking example either. I think a better comparison is the custom/belief that dog meat tastes better if it has high levels of adrenaline going when it is killed.

They don't get that adrenaline going by playing frisbee. There are, apparently, lots of methods to make it happen, many of them akin to being thrown in a pot of boiling water.

I assume everyone who says "that's the lobster's problem" or "we are the top of the food chain" or "lobster cooked that way tastes good" is perfectly fine with this. All those arguments apply to this one, far as I can tell.

I'm no vegetarian either. I'll be eating a part of a cow or a chicken for dinner, so maybe it makes he a hypocrite to say it, but boiling a sentient animal alive in a vat of water seems to be a needless cruelty when there are more humane ways to do it, and still have a lobster dinner.

[puffnstuff]

Want to know if someone is a vegetarian/vegan? Don't ask, they'll tell you...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JazzyFlame

nutrition comes from plants. Vegetables provide far greater nutritional value then meats. Hence the daily recommended minimum vegetable servings by health canada instead of a daily recommended meat servings criteria.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...egetables.html

If plants are so nutritious, why do we need to eat so many of them?

To get 1500 calories from romaine lettuce, you'd have to eat more than 8 kg of the stuff. Brocolli and kale are both around 4 kg.

[keratosis]

Originally Posted by GGG

Anyway I am very comfortable eating meat and outside of commercial chicken operations dont see excessive suffering. And I would argue that small farmed grass finished beef, real free range chickens, and non industrial pig operations might be the animals that suffer the least over the course of their lives compared to their wild counterparts.

I have to agree with the industrial aspect of food production. I do tend to find that food produced "slower" just tastes better to me.

I also find, I feel less energetic when I limit my animal proten intake.

Some people just don't do well on a purely vegan diet. I read a book a while back, that resonates with me.

"Eat Right for Your Type." Was the name of the book. Changed my life. And got my wife off my back.

Sent from the road.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It is possible to live life without meat, but people choose not to because they ENJOY eating meat more.

It's possible to live in a cardboard box, eat freegan, and ask that when you die, your body be mulched and used as organic fertilizer. By doing so, you would have the least possible impact on the natural world and cause the least amount of suffering and habitat displacement. Yet here you are, wasting precious electrons on the internet, living in a some kind of permanent dwelling, and greedily consuming hundreds of kilos of plants a year, and therefore you are clearly as immoral and selfish as the rest of us.

Unless you are a Jain, the argument of convenience applies to you as well as anyone else. Merely by existing in our society, you are using resources you don't "need" to survive. You are drawing an arbitrary line as to what is acceptable to want as a minimum standard of living, and expecting the rest of us, who draw the line elsewhere, to applaud your moral stand. But we won't, because it's hypocritical BS.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jammies

Merely by existing in our society, you are using resources you don't "need" to survive. You are drawing an arbitrary line as to what is acceptable to want as a minimum standard of living, and expecting the rest of us, who draw the line elsewhere, to applaud your moral stand. But we won't, because it's hypocritical BS.

I remember a friend of mine who told the story of Joe and Steve. Joe recycled nothing.. everything went into the trash. Steve on the other hand recycled his bottles, plastics and papers, but couldn't do the composting because he couldn't find a way to do it without drawing bugs.

Joe would look over the fence and laugh at Steve. He said Steve was a hypocrite. Steve believed in consuming less resources and was doing what he could to reduce his ecological footprint... but what an ass. He was tossing away all these compostable materials. Joe on the other hand didn't give a rats ass about the environment and therefore wasn't a hypocrite at all, no matter how much trash he threw to the curb each week.

By taking ANY moral stance that involves degrees (I will give more to charity because I feel the poor deserve a hand up; I will volunteer more because the community needs more people to pitch in) makes the person automatically a hypocrite. If you want give $1,000 to the United Way... why not $2,000? Or are you a hypocrite and don't REALLY believe that the poor need a helping hand? We all draw a line. And while Steve may be a hypocrite, I'd rather be him than Joe.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I remember a friend of mine who told the story of Joe and Steve. Joe recycled nothing.. everything went into the trash. Steve on the other hand recycled his bottles, plastics and papers, but couldn't do the composting because he couldn't find a way to do it without drawing bugs.

Joe would look over the fence and laugh at Steve. He said Steve was a hypocrite. Steve believed in consuming less resources and was doing what he could to reduce his ecological footprint... but what an ass. He was tossing away all these compostable materials. Joe on the other hand didn't give a rats ass about the environment and therefore wasn't a hypocrite at all, no matter how much trash he threw to the curb each week.

By taking ANY moral stance that involves degrees (I will give more to charity because I feel the poor deserve a hand up; I will volunteer more because the community needs more people to pitch in) makes the person automatically a hypocrite. If you want give $1,000 to the United Way... why not $2,000? Or are you a hypocrite and don't REALLY believe that the poor need a helping hand? We all draw a line. And while Steve may be a hypocrite, I'd rather be him than Joe.

Steve is sad because he has a crappy neighbor. Who seems to be living the happier life?

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Want to know if someone is a vegetarian/vegan? Don't ask, they'll tell you...

I only tell if I'm asked.When you keep ordering certain stuff at restaurants and avoiding meat at get-togethers, people eventually notice.

Only saying it here because it seems to be part of the conversation.

[jayswin]

Jesus Christ, Devil's advocate is doing what he does best in this thread.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Jesus Christ, Devil's advocate is doing what he does best in this thread.

Huh. Well clearly you're not talking about making reasonable comparisons.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Huh. Well clearly you're not talking about making reasonable comparisons.

Annoyingly playing Devil's Advocate. His username is certainly apt.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Annoyingly playing Devil's Advocate. His username is certainly apt.

His name is Devils' Advocate. Note the location of the apostrophe. He is a NJ fan. He is not playing Devil's Advocate here, he is equating eating meat to kicking dogs in some lame attempt to illustrate that meat consumption is animal cruelty. It's a lot easier to just come right out and say that it's cruel to eat meat than it is to try to get people to think that dog kicking is is as necessary as eating.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, laws are an artificial construct in and of themselves. Homosexuality is a crime in many countries. You can't seriously base your ethics solely on what is legal vs illegal within a given border.

I think the "plants feel pain" bit was covered a few pages back, but that's how these threads tend to go.

"PLANTS FEEL PAIN TOO"
"No they don't, and most certainly not to the extent that animals do and even if they did eating plants would mean less suffering.."
"BUT PLANTS FEEL PAIN TOO!!"
And around we go....

I am sure you are more than aware you are defending animal rights by advocating voilence against animals. It is hypocritical, and now moot to carry on any sort of intelligent conversation with you. Laws are created by the masses to strengthen social structure so hypocrites such as yourself cannot gleefully go around kicking pets for the pure joy of it.
I am sure you are also aware of the base sociopathic foundation your comments are sitting upon with regards to the law but that is a whole other can of worms.

Im done with this thread.

[GGG]

A better question to meat eaters would be would you eat a dog (raised to be eaten not as a pet) or is the fact that it is a dog makes it somehow more special). For me I would eat dog butchered humanely and raised as food. But if you wouldnt eat dog then can you justify eating cow?

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by GGG

But if you wouldnt eat dog then can you justify eating cow?

Yes I can.