InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Thank you, Doogie Howser."

The Bri-Bri (bri) wrote in hardball,
@ 2005-07-07 12:51:00

Current mood:

curious

Food.
Is it wrong to kill animals for our food?

(Post a new comment)

	tempest 2005-07-07 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	Hell no. Animals are food, not friends. :-P If we weren't meant to eat them, then why do they taste so good? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hmm. bri 2005-07-07 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	I do believe in eating animals for food, but to your comment to "why would they taste so good?" -- Sometimes things that are wrong are still good to us like premarital sex, drinking excessively, or doing drugs. (Reply to this) (Parent)

thedolphingirl
2005-07-07 05:26 pm UTC (link)

No.

We're omnivores. It's natural for us to eat both plant and animal. It's what we're supposed to do.

I mean, not everything in this world is flat out right or wrong. It's not "wrong" for a lion to eat antelope and it's not "right" for an antelope to die to be eaten. It's not right that grass should have to die to feed a buffalo any more than it's right or wrong for the buffalo to later die to feed a cougar or wolf, they are things that just "are".

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	bri 2005-07-07 05:37 pm UTC (link)
	I agree with you on that. :-D (Reply to this) (Parent)

	gypsy_eyes 2005-07-09 03:35 am UTC (link)
	no,its not ok, considering as its not a NEED. we can live perfectly healthy lives w/o killing animals, so why dont we?because of greed. (Reply to this) (Thread)

tempest
2005-07-21 04:37 am UTC (link)

First of all, I realize I'm a little behind on this topic, but I thought I'd say something.

How do you account for animals killing and eating other animals? I'm no expert on animal anatomy, but I imagine animals could probably get by without eating meat too; they probably don't NEED it either, but they still kill. It certainly isn't greed either; although I think animals could probably be greedy, it's fairly obvious that certain animals are designed to kill, and it's fairly obvious that other animals are designed to avoid being killed, which, once again, proves that killing animals is natural and to be expected.

It is also scientifically accepted that human beings are omnivores; we're designed to eat plants and animals.

The only other thing I've got for now is purely opinion: I don't recall ever coming across a vegetarian who was particularly happy, but I certainly cannot speak for them all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

alkalphoe
2005-08-15 10:23 pm UTC (link)

That's not entirely true.

People with the blood type O are (supposedly) the descendants of the hunters and gatherers, and are suited to be especially omnivorous, while those with the blood type A are the farmers, and can live on just vegetables.

If type Os lead a strict vegan diet, they can often feel not well and lead to very serious condtitions, but if they even add yoghurt or other animal proteins, they can make their diet much more healthy.

And humans are indeed omnivores, and meat is an essential part of a healthy diet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

jacks_sickness
2005-07-10 12:00 am UTC (link)

Without killing though we'd have a surplus of animals which means cutting down more forests to make room for them thus further destroying the environment. I approve of killing animals I just don't approve of the way they are treated before killed or the way they are killed.

And to add on to the "animals taste good" thing, so do humans. They have a chemical in their bodies that make them addictive. little fact for ya..

(Reply to this) (Thread)

pleasurepoints
2005-08-23 07:26 am UTC (link)

But animals are closer to the environment they live in. Thanks to trade, humans can live almost anywhere and still have access to food, water, and housing. The animal population in a certain area will drop if it's short on resources or there are more predators than prey. There's really no danger of there being an animal surplus [especially if we cut down forests].

Yeah, the only animals that are essential to us are the ones we eat, but we wouldn't raise them on farms if we weren't going to eat them. We control how many of them there are--shoot them up with hormones if we want more of them, increase the number we kill in a day to cut down their numbers, and I bet we would start eating animals that we normally wouldn't eat if someone came up with a convincing enough ad campaign.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	gypsy_eyes 2005-07-10 01:13 am UTC (link)
	there wouldn't be a surplus if people didn't breed as many of them as possible speeding up there growth with hormones to meet the demand of people who eat meat.that's half the problem. (Reply to this) (Thread)

alkalphoe
2005-08-15 10:29 pm UTC (link)

Let's run a little scenario here. Let's say that every human in the world becomes a vegitarian. So, we stop raising animals to eat. Which means that animals that have been bred to be eaten are out on their own. Look at pigs. They're not particularly skilled in hunting or gathering, because they've been raised by humans for the past few thousand years. They don't give milk likes cows or goats, so humans wouldn't continue raising them. No, they'd just go out on their own, and the whole population would die out because they can't run, they can't kill, and they're CERTAINLY not being protected by humans! So, by raising them to be eaten, we are preventing some species from becoming extinct.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	pleasurepoints 2005-08-23 07:29 am UTC (link)
	The ones we raise for food might as well be extinct. We've removed them from the natural world, and why would it matter whether they were killed and eaten by us or killed and eaten by other animals? There'd still be wild pigs, though..and maybe some dormant instincts that could help them survive. (Reply to this) (Parent)

jacks_sickness
2005-07-11 02:14 pm UTC (link)

Good point but there would still be a surplus by just breeding on their own. Look at deers for instance. We don't breed them they breed by themselves and every now and then theres a surplus and open season is declared to decrease the population. I don't like it but I see that it is necessary. Just like war. It's necessary to decrease the human surplus population.

I hate the fact that animals can't protect themselves. That they are at the mercy of humans to do what they wish with them. Its not fair but its how the world works.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

gypsy_eyes
2005-07-11 06:00 pm UTC (link)

that is just how the world works because thats how we MAKE IT WORK. deers wouldn't be considered too many deers if they had more land, the land we took away from them.and war is not necessary to decrease the human population.war is about money ,corupt government,and hatred as a means of resolution.its not some sort of tool for economic equilibrium.there are many ways to decrease population, or provide for them.its more economically reasonable to be vegetarian that to eat meat!the acreage it takes to feed cows could be used to grow soy products , thus cutting out the "middle man" and feeding more people w/ less land.which, is better for the environment!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jacks_sickness
2005-07-11 06:21 pm UTC (link)

Thats true. The grains used to feed chickens and cows could go to feeding hungry children in India and such thus decreasing world hunger. Theres no way though that we could develop a system that could support the continously booming population if we had world peace. Well yeah there is a way but I doubt everyone in the world would agree to it. Death is necessary for life to continue. Its the food chain. grasshopper eats the grass the toad eats the grasshopper the snake eats the toad the bird eats the snake the bird dies and returns to the ground where the grass grows and we begin again. for every death there is a birth but without death there is continous growth making the balance of life become unstable. Both animals and humans die for the good of others. I think the whole world peace thing though has gotten us a little off the subject so we should probably either agree to disagree and just stick to the animals or take it to another subject. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	gypsy_eyes 2005-07-11 06:30 pm UTC (link)
	true.so to sum it all up , my opinion: eating meat is wrong and people often justify eating meat(aka killing animals for no reaoson) with misinformation and exuses instead of facts.because the only fact is poeple dont need meat, so killing animals is out of cruelty and greed.unecessary death is wrong. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jacks_sickness
2005-07-11 06:48 pm UTC (link)

I agree. The way they kill the animals to make the products we eat is horrible and cruel and I believe that if they do continue to kill animals for food they should do it in a way that is more painless for the animal. I don't like the idea that the animals suffer their entire lives and are kept in tiny warehouses where they can't take a step or lift a wing. Every living creature deserves some degree of respect and thats what I admire about the Native Americans. When they killed and animal they thanked it for sacrificing its life and they used every part of the animal. Its unfortunate that this practice is not continued today. I try to see the positives and negatives in both sides. I think that I could live as a vegetarian and I would be one today if it weren't for my parents. I'm just trying to see both arguments and I agree with you fully on a lot of the things you pointed out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	plastic_penguin 2005-07-12 02:53 am UTC (link)
	no.. its called the 'circle of life' :-D (Reply to this)