Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't add morality to eating meat. It's the arrogance of humanity. Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of time. The livestock species now literally wouldn't exist if humans hadn't cultivated them long ago. Next you're going to ask whether humans should have animals as pets.

Yes, but that was before the advent of modern agriculture. Most people have multiple grocery stores within 15 minutes of them, all with plenty of non-meat options. What’s the excuse now?

The longevity of an action doesn’t define its morality. People have been raping and stealing since the beginning of time. Doesn’t mean it’s morally justified.

Last comment from me on this because you're either trying to bait or you have a hw assignment. Modern industrial agriculture is not nutritious nor does it taste good. Maybe if the produce was as varied, delicious, and cheap in America as found in many other parts of the world, I'd consider a few more meals without meat. Who doesn't enjoy a Chinese hotpot or Korean stew? But those cost a few bucks over there with better quality, yet cost 3-5x here.

However, nothing is as simple and affordable for fitness and strength than meat. Throw in some dairy for good measure. Not everyone can afford to be Hollywood vegan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Is the taste and nutrition of it justified when it ends someone else’s life? There are plenty of other options for delicious and nutritious food.

Someone else? Anthropomorphic much? And there's nothing as delicious as meat. To prove my point, there's no artificial artichoke or carrots made from meat. Yet there's artificial meat made from soybeans and peas. Why would a vegetarian want to eat fake meat if it weren't inherently more delicious?

Is an animal more of a someone or a something? It’s not a thing. It’s a living being. We’re all animals at the end of the day.

I’m not denying that meat tastes good. I’m asking if you think it’s ethically justified to kill an animal because you think its flesh tastes good?

Yes, it's "ethically justified". If lions and polar bears were smarter than us, we wouldn't be at the top of the food chain. I'll stop eating burgers when lions stop eating zebras. The great thing about being omnivores is that we humans have a choice and there is no shame in being a meat eater or a vegan. I don't shame either.

Lions eat zebras because they have to. You don’t have to eat meat. That’s the key distinction. I’m not trying to shame anyone. I’m simply calling out the horrors of the meat industry. I don’t think anyone deserves the kind of suffering and lives that we give to our animals.

Great way to loose weight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Is the taste and nutrition of it justified when it ends someone else’s life? There are plenty of other options for delicious and nutritious food.

Someone else? Anthropomorphic much? And there's nothing as delicious as meat. To prove my point, there's no artificial artichoke or carrots made from meat. Yet there's artificial meat made from soybeans and peas. Why would a vegetarian want to eat fake meat if it weren't inherently more delicious?

Is an animal more of a someone or a something? It’s not a thing. It’s a living being. We’re all animals at the end of the day.

I’m not denying that meat tastes good. I’m asking if you think it’s ethically justified to kill an animal because you think its flesh tastes good?

Yes, it's "ethically justified". If lions and polar bears were smarter than us, we wouldn't be at the top of the food chain. I'll stop eating burgers when lions stop eating zebras. The great thing about being omnivores is that we humans have a choice and there is no shame in being a meat eater or a vegan. I don't shame either.

I have a sensitivity to soy and other legumes. I tend to eat fish over meat however.

Anonymous wrote:You can't add morality to eating meat. It's the arrogance of humanity. Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of time. The livestock species now literally wouldn't exist if humans hadn't cultivated them long ago. Next you're going to ask whether humans should have animals as pets.

Yes, but that was before the advent of modern agriculture. Most people have multiple grocery stores within 15 minutes of them, all with plenty of non-meat options. What’s the excuse now?

The longevity of an action doesn’t define its morality. People have been raping and stealing since the beginning of time. Doesn’t mean it’s morally justified.

You can't add morality to eating meat. It's the arrogance of humanity. Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of time. The livestock species now literally wouldn't exist if humans hadn't cultivated them long ago. Next you're going to ask whether humans should have animals as pets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Is the taste and nutrition of it justified when it ends someone else’s life? There are plenty of other options for delicious and nutritious food.

Someone else? Anthropomorphic much? And there's nothing as delicious as meat. To prove my point, there's no artificial artichoke or carrots made from meat. Yet there's artificial meat made from soybeans and peas. Why would a vegetarian want to eat fake meat if it weren't inherently more delicious?

Is an animal more of a someone or a something? It’s not a thing. It’s a living being. We’re all animals at the end of the day.

I’m not denying that meat tastes good. I’m asking if you think it’s ethically justified to kill an animal because you think its flesh tastes good?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Is the taste and nutrition of it justified when it ends someone else’s life? There are plenty of other options for delicious and nutritious food.

Someone else? Anthropomorphic much? And there's nothing as delicious as meat. To prove my point, there's no artificial artichoke or carrots made from meat. Yet there's artificial meat made from soybeans and peas. Why would a vegetarian want to eat fake meat if it weren't inherently more delicious?

Anonymous wrote:A very good source of protein. And the "meat" dish is typically central to every significant cuisine.

Plant based too!

Anonymous wrote:A very good source of protein. And the "meat" dish is typically central to every significant cuisine.

There are plenty of other sources of protein. Protein clearly isn’t the end-all, be-all to health; if it were; we wouldn’t have so many health issues in our country. Meat being central to certain cuisines isn’t justification of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Is the taste and nutrition of it justified when it ends someone else’s life? There are plenty of other options for delicious and nutritious food.

A very good source of protein. And the "meat" dish is typically central to every significant cuisine.

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?