Do you think this could be true, Jesus recommending us to abstain from meat?

Originally Posted by DebbyM

So Hitler didn't smoke, drink or eat meat....and this means....?

It does not matter what people eat.

Originally Posted by Inesophet

It does not matter what people eat.

I guess my counter to that would be that it matters very much to the animals.

Originally Posted by DebbyM

I guess my counter to that would be that it matters very much to the animals.

And Animals eat plants or other animals. Are they not life? Life must consume Life in order to create more life. That is the very basic Principle of life itself. How is a Animal lets say a goat (YUMMY!) more importend then a Onion? What makes a Goat so special? Because its a mammal? because its close to our own species?

Is the Owl or cat evil for eating mice?

Originally Posted by Inesophet

And Animals eat plants or other animals. Are they not life? Life must consume Life in order to create more life. That is the very basic Principle of life itself. How is a Animal lets say a goat (YUMMY!) more importend then a Onion? What makes a Goat so special? Because its a mammal? because its close to our own species?

Is the Owl or cat evil for eating mice?

Hi Inesophet. Onions have no sense of suffering as does the goat. Look into the eyes of your dog or cat, watch the cow watching you and tell me that they do not have feelings, that they do not suffer.... I watched a video a couple days ago, taken by an investigator who'd travelled from Australia to Indonesia to a slaughterhouse where many of the 350,000 cattle who are born in Australia, end their days. As the steer slipped and broke his leg, and was unable to rise, I watched the killer dig his thumb into the poor creatures eye and repeatedly dig and gouge to the point that I thought surely his eye would be popped out. When that didn't work to get him to his feet, the killer reached over and broke his tail. There was audio and it was possible to hear the moans of that poor suffering animal. It was heartbreaking and sickening to hear and watch.

Tell me, as one human with a sense of the wonder of all life, to another, that the onion or the carrot or the apple, is the same as that pathetic animal. We are humans with an awareness of our unique position in the cosmos (at least some of us have that awareness) and out of that awareness surely we can work up the compassion that can not only mitigate that steers pain but allow him to live free of human inflicted pain and suffering. Our entire human history has been an evolution, not only in body but in spirit. Do we raise the bar on human consciousness or do we settle and assuage whatever minimal discomfort we might have by claiming only 'our animal' nature. And if we choose to settle for the 'animal' pronouncement, then to ask for mercy personally on any level is senseless for if we cannot give mercy, then how dare we ask for it.

As for the owl or the cat, they are not blessed by the same intellect and understanding that we are and to hold them to the same standard as we, is pointless and merely argumentative.

[Lovely]

Originally Posted by Inesophet

And Animals eat plants or other animals. Are they not life? Life must consume Life in order to create more life. That is the very basic Principle of life itself. How is a Animal lets say a goat (YUMMY!) more importend then a Onion? What makes a Goat so special? Because its a mammal? because its close to our own species?

Is the Owl or cat evil for eating mice?

Debby answered your question perfectly but come on...
Do you really not see the difference between an onion and a goat?

Also since you unnecessarily called a goat "YUMMY!" which appears as if your
just trying to upset her and poking at her close held beliefs which is rather childish to me.

[Lightspirit]

Meat is just a cruel flavor and that's all it is. It's not a necessity, it's desire. I havnt eaten it for 5 years so it sure isn't necessity.

We can see the Pain of Mammels because we are related to them more close. But saying that an Plant does not feel pain or suffering is wrong. There where many experiments who proved that quite conclusivly.

Life is Life. And no lifeform is better then another one. Choosing to not eat meat because it takes the life of another lifeform does not make sense. We just shift the flavor of the life we consume. And lets be honest in one point. Plants Produce Oxygene. Insects and animals consume them. We consume them.

That is a perfect circle of life. Veggies are fine, meat is fine. Thats my opinion and i guess Jesus himself would agree with that statement.

[Zero]

I look into the eyes of my pets everyday, and if anything that is what encourages me to continue eating meat. When I see my cats playing with cute fluffy things it reminds me how humans giving animals the emotions they do is not beneficial to either species, not really. Not saying they don't feel, but the fact is they aren't human, and we can never know what they truely experience. When you hear that animal howling in pain it is hard, but you cannot know what that animal is experiencing, at that moment they are likely running on instinct and their thoughts are plain animalistic, they aren't "thinking" and most animals do not process pain as humans do anyway.

Yes I know, I'm sure many will say I'm just saying this to justify my eating habits. But when you spend a lot of time with nature I think if anything you learn to appreciate eating meat more.

Originally Posted by Inesophet

We can see the Pain of Mammels because we are related to them more close. But saying that an Plant does not feel pain or suffering is wrong. There where many experiments who proved that quite conclusivly......

This is a rather wordy explanation and part of a discussion of why the whole 'plants feel pain' hypothesis, in all likelihood, is without merit. I do hope that you read it. I've also included the link where you can follow it for more info that is also interesting and excellent.

http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/...getarian-myth/

skepticalvegan Says:
February 2, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Ive already addressed this elsewhere but… The idea that plants feel pain is simply false and based on outdated and debunked research, it is not supported by modern biologists.
The idea of plant perception stems from a study in the 60s by a Cleve Backster, he used a galvanic skin response meter which measure electrical conductivity, it has nothing to do with the perception of pain just how electrical conductive object is. The paper which was looking for ESP effects was published in a PARAPSYCHOLOGY journal, not a legitimate or respected journal or field of research.
Backster also had no legitimate degree in science and was a general enthusiast of the paranormal and various pseudosciences.

Immune system reactions are different and separate from the reaction of nerve cells which carry pain. Plants lack all the mechanisms of pain and perception, even a rudimentary nervous system. Plants also don’t have an evolutionary reason to have pain perception. Not all biological reactions are forms of pain or perception, to say otherwise is to misunderstand or ignore what biologists actually mean when they say “pain”.

“what makes you any more right than me?”
The fact that the idea that plants feel pain is simply false. The original experiment was extremely flawed and unreproducible and subsequent experiments in the area have failed. The idea that plants feel pain is one rejected by the scientific community, and is primarily promoted by fringe cranks. This argument will get you nowhere.



skepticalvegan Says:
March 18, 2011 at 8:47 pm
“Is “pain” the defining characteristic of something that matters? Plants can be killed because they don’t feel pain, have no nervous system, etc?”
Not so much “pain” as “suffering” of which physical pain is one aspect, but the lack of a nervous system, especially a centralized one, would seem to indicate a lack of ability to experience other forms of suffering such as psychological distress. The lack of nociceptors or any conceivable mechanism for plant sentience leaves us in the position of not knowing for sure whether they can suffer but with enough experimental evidence and evolutionary theories about pain to say we have very little reason to assume plants feel pain and no evidence that they do. To leap from this position to the position that “animals feel pain and plants may too, so harming either one is ethically equivalent” would be quite irrational such as the recent piece in the NY Times seemed to say. I personally think the more rational position in this question given evolutionary theory and our current evidence is to accept the null hypothesis (plants are not sentient), at least until convincing evidence is presented. That being said, yes it is the fact that something is sentient that would make harming it wrong, if it was non-sentient then it simply isn’t an ethical subject, at least in regards to suffering. I’m not really sure I agree with the position of inanimate objects, non-sentient life, land masses, and even abstract concepts and constructions have inherent rights (a position taken by the likes of Derrick Jensen), it is not the river that has rights but rather all the sentient beings that rely on the river.

Originally Posted by Zero

I look into the eyes of my pets everyday, and if anything that is what encourages me to continue eating meat. When I see my cats playing with cute fluffy things it reminds me how humans giving animals the emotions they do is not beneficial to either species, not really. Not saying they don't feel, but the fact is they aren't human, and we can never know what they truely experience. When you hear that animal howling in pain it is hard, but you cannot know what that animal is experiencing, at that moment they are likely running on instinct and their thoughts are plain animalistic, they aren't "thinking" and most animals do not process pain as humans do anyway.

Yes I know, I'm sure many will say I'm just saying this to justify my eating habits. But when you spend a lot of time with nature I think if anything you learn to appreciate eating meat more.

You can't be serious? We don't know what they are experiencing when they are howling as we inflict pain upon them? Or as they stand, shaking and trembling uncontrollably as they watch their fellows being dragged down, restrained, eye gouged and throats sawed open and the smell of blood everywhere, and 'we can't know what they are experiencing? That is absolutely cold.

I do spend a lot of time with nature, have had animals in my home forever, have two hyper sensitive Arab horses that have lived with me for seventeen years, and if anything, it has impressed upon me more, how aware of their own safety and lives animals are. Animals do not stand dully waiting for us to slaughter them, but run at the first opportunity to achieve safety. They are aware, they feel fear, they feel pain, they struggle to save their own lives, all things that you do. That their understanding of their environment might not be identical to yours is moot and trumpeting that they are different in this regard and thus are ours to brutally slaughter is truly only an excuse to justify taking a life needlessly. And for those of us discussing here, in this culture, and in our society, it is needlessly.

According to that argument, if I kill your mentally disabled child, I am morally and ethically innocent. By your parameters as stated, when Robert Latimer compassionately killed his severely disabled daughter, who suffered every day of her life, he should not have been thrown in jail for ten years or whatever the sentence was. If 'how pain is perceived' is the relevant question, then hers was definitely different than yours or mine and killing her should not have been an indictable offense. Or are you now taking the high road and hanging it all on ' we are not animals, we are different, we are special'. Back and forth we go, we are animals, we are not animals, we are animals, we are not animals. Dreadfully consistent in the inconsistency of the argument wouldn't you say? I suppose it all depends on the direction of the discussion at the moment. How much more consistent is the concept of "we don't need to breed and kill them to survive very nicely, so we should not".