- McDonald's -

Completely unsurprising, given your bias.

Posted by: MDG on February 15, 19100 at 18:11:17:

In Reply to: My response to your links posted by Lars on February 15, 19100 at 13:28:25:

: Hi!

: My response to your links, was:

: "Of course you can find abused animals at slaugherhouses (I'm sorry for that!), as you can find abused children in homes (I'm sorry for that too!).

The point of having children is to raise them into adulthood; abusing them is a deviation from that norm. The point of raising "livestock" is to ultimately herd them into a slaughterhouse and slit their throats. That's the norm -- the ultimate abuse. What you fail to acknowledge time and again, however, is that the abuse extends far beyond the final killing: cramped living conditions in factory farms, long transportation ordeals in cramped, airless trucks and trains with little food and water, brutality inside the slaughterhouse (cattle prods rings a bell) made worse by workers who kick and beat the animals, and then finally death by bludgeoning and knifing. That's what you ignore in your zeal to defend the meat industry.

:But I believe that what you need is goodlegislation around breading and slaughtering of animals.

That would certainly help. Unfortunately, such legislation would cut into the meat industry's profits, which is why they fight it. Given their economic power, they almost always win. That's why it's up to the people to stop eating meat out of concern for animals, because the meat industry views animals as commodities, not living beings, which is why they invented factory farms in the first place. In other words, Lars, THEY DON'T CARE.

:Because we (the most humans) will always be normal and that means eating a fare consisting partly of meat. Why? Becausewe're humans and that is what humans eat."

You rattle off your opinion like it's gospel. "We will always be normal." Thank you, Lars, I had no idea you were the ultimate judge of what "normal" is.

: I haven't said that animals always are well treated at slaughterhouses, but I believe that they can be (and that you need a good legislation to ensure it).

See my response above.

:Since I believe that's okey to kill animals to eat, and that it's because we (the humans) have a higher value, it is not the slaughter that make me ill.

Do you think in the grand scheme of thing humans are of a higher value? Do you think the universe cares more about you than about a cow or a fish? Even if you do, if we humans are supposedly so much more advanced than other animals, then why can't we show them mercy rather than cruelty? You have the choice to spare their lives, but you won't. Frankly, you don't sound all that advanced to me.

:It's the mistreatment (if they do get mistreated) and your way to use pictures of mistreated animals that make me sick.

Good! It should make you sick. The truth is ugly, and it's good that you're finally starting to realize it.

: As much as I believe that animals are misstreated out there, I also believe that there are slaughterhouses that doesn't mistreat the animals. Of course you don't agree with me since you think that all slaughter is wrong.

No slaughterhouse is humane. And taking an animal's life is abusive -- in fact, it's the ultimate abuse.

:I know that already! I have seen "good" slaugherhouses, and I have seen animals get slaughtered in private (out in a farm).

While I'm sure that small farms are more humane than factory farms and slaughterhouses, and while it would be a vast, vast improvement if all factory farms disappear and are replaced by the kind of farms you speak of, we'd still be left with the issue of killing animals for food when there is no reason to do so. However, given the demand for cheap meat, I can't picture factory farms going away unless the demand for meat goes away -- perhaps as the environmental consequences of meat production become more apparent, people may finally lessen their meat intake if for no other reason than self-interest.

: One picture doesn't prove that every animal is mistreated, it's only show your bad taste.

I am so sorry Lars if showing you pictures of what goes on in factory farms offends you. Maybe I should have showed you pictures of little girls playing with lambs in a field of flowers and butterflies.

:I can show you pictures on well treated animals, which I think you also have over-there.

Don't forget to photograph them having their throats slit.

:If you think that your pictures is evidence how every animal is treated, I thank you for teaching me how real your evidence is. If you think that every animal is mistreated just because you have pictures of a few, then you don't know what proof are.

Nice try, but aside from the pictures I also provided you written information of how factory farms operate. The pictures merely highlighted the words, for those such as yourself who think it's all being made up.

: I agree with you that the debate is meaningless, but it is meaningless because you twist everything.

You love that word "twist," don't you?

:You should study nutrition at university level. But I guess you're happy with your pictures.

The fact that you studied nutrition and still think eating meat is healthier than being a vegetarian makes me wonder just how valuable your education was. Even though I've showed you all the health benefits of vegetarianism, as well as environmental, social, and ethical reasons for giving up meat,you still persist in your fantasies.

: When it comes to your proofs (references), I have shown the opposite with my references, just showing how good your evidence is. My references is no worse than yours, one of mine is a review (comparing 12 different studies) for instance.

See my link above. In every case, you lose.

: I haven't said that vegetarians are unhealthy. From where have you got that? Twisting my words again?

I'm going to type this slowly, Lars, so you can understand it. You have persisted in saying that one must eat meat to be healthy. Here is one of your typical, erroneous rants: "The scientists and your own body all agrees about the fact that you are coded to eat a "fare"
consisting partly of meat. Their is some essential amino acids and some essential fatty acids that only (natural) can be found in meat." To which I've consistently responded that I and millions of other vegetarians and vegans are living proof that one does not need meat to be healthy, and that one is in fact better off not eating meat. Can you understand this distinction, or should I type slower next time?

:What i have said that meat is (can be) healthy (depending on things like fat-content, etc), and that is not the same as that eating a vegetarian fare is unhealthy. Of course there is millions of healthy vegeterians out there, as there are million of healthy all-eaters. That is my point.

As I've said, a little meat won't kill you, but a vegetarian diet is healthier. It's also certainly healthier for the animals, and far better for the environment. Get it, yet? By the way, I'll save you some time for your next response by letting you cut and paste the follwing: "Twist." "Twisting." "Twisting my words!"

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup