Humans kill animals then they eat them(true story)

a reply to: Puppylove

It's like you just don't want to admit that in order for one to survive, one has to be disrespectful. Why is it so hard to admit ? There is no respect in killing another sentient being. Is genocide disrespectful, or is it relative and it can be said that genocide is a proof of respect towards the dead meat that resulted, human meat or otherwise ? Why is it that you have to talk about respect once you kill to survive, but when you kill for money or something else it suddenly becomes disrespectful to kill ? Because you have no choice but to survive ? Why the double standards ? You lie to yourself because it's much easier to have your head full of those ideas of beautiful respect and all that, it gives you a better image of yourself, than to understand and acknowledge the dreadful human condition. You have gone so far as to invent this concept of "abstract respect". So can I kick your dog if you have one and will you then thank me for the respect that I have shown towards your beloved companion ?


But now you have gone back to the beginning, and I am not ready to start over.

a reply to: gosseyn

You have no need to kick my dog once again, you've removed context completely. If you were a cop and my dog were to attack you, and you were to kick it rather than shoot it, I might then thank you.

Context matters.

Also once again, killing to survive is a requirement of nature. As such it is in that context neutral by default, whether it's respectful or disrespectful is determined by how you fulfill that requirement.

Nothing that is forced and necessary can be disrespectful until unnecessary actions are added to said thing.

Killing to live is FORCED upon all living things to exist. To call it disrespectful is as silly as saying breathing or drinking water is disrespectful. (both of which kill microorganisms by the way.)

By your definition the mere act of being born or even conceived is disrespectful. The act of being alive in any form, by default disrespectful.

a reply to: Puppylove
Let's just agree to disagree. Your concept of respect is geometrically variable, mine is not. You change your views depending on your needs, I don't. You think killing a sentient being and digest it equals respect, I don't. You don't think killing a sentient being is the pinnacle of disrespect, I do. You think it is possible to somehow redeem the act of killing by having respect for a dish with meaty spaghetti sauce, I don't and I think this is silly.

a reply to: gosseyn

Merely being conceived for more than one second means others are dying so you can live.

You've redefined Disrespect to simply mean being alive.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: gosseyn

Merely being conceived for more than one second means others are dying so you can live.

You've redefined Disrespect to simply mean being alive.

You're the one who is talking about context and suddenly you forget the context : yes, transforming into dead meat a living breathing feeling animal is disrespectful. Or do you think that being alive and being dead is the same thing ? It makes no difference in your eyes ? In the context of killing an animal, respect is to actually let it live its existence, let it feel, etc..

a reply to: gosseyn

So you put an animals life above human life? Because that's what your doing by demanding that humans stop eating ever in order to remain respectful while not also holding animals to the same ridiculous standard.

People need to eat to live, so to do other animals. This is a fact, it is not disrespectful to choose to live. I would hold literally no malice for a tiger or bear who killed and ate me. I'd defend myself, but I'd hold no malice nor disrespect towards them for doing so. Nor would I think any bad of them because, they need to eat or defend/feed their young too. We're both in the same boat forced into this confrontation by nature.

It's nature that's the bad guy here, not us for eating, or any animal who eats us. There is no way for humanity or any other living thing by your definition to exist without being disrespectful. Own a home? Bet you lots of things that lived there were killed to build it. Eat veggies? Bet you that farm was prime living space for lots of animals that are now dead or forced to compete in a new environment with other animals that kill each other. Plants are alive, you kill them to eat too. Other creatures depend on that plant life to live too. Ooh even better when dealing with disrespect, know what happens without predators, animals like deer over reproduce, eat too much, run out of food, and starve to death, a very agonizing way to go much worse than being shot or even killed over hours by a wolf pack, and even worse that's a mass die off.

Your context is, humans killing other animals for food to survive. How is that disrespectful? It's a simple fact of life. Nature created this scenario, the natural order is accountable, not me for eating that deer or that tiger that ate me. We're both making the best of a bad situation. I respect that tiger for killing and eating my ass, because I know, like me, he's just trying to survive in this depraved cold emotionless system called the natural order.

Stop trying to paint humans as somehow bad for choosing to survive by killing to eat in a system where EVERYTHING is required to kill in some manner to live.

a reply to: Puppylove

It's like you don't even read what I type. I don't ask anyone to stop doing what they're doing, if you did read the previous pages, you would know that, but you didn't. I am not asking anyone to starve to death. Do you think I am THAT dumb that I am not aware of everything you have just stated ? You think I live in some sort of bubble or cocoon that I don't know what nature is about ? You're just repeating again and again the same stuff and at this point you're starting to sound naive.

I EAT MEAT MYSELF
I have already said what I had to say many times already and you're not proposing anything of value anymore. Have a nice day.

a reply to: gosseyn

I didn't say you didn't eat meat, I said you said that in order for humanity to not be disrespectful we need to not eat. You've applied a negative to humanity for choosing to survive same as every other being.

Our argument is that, there's nothing negative about humanity choosing to kill and eat other living things since it's a forced requirement. You INSIST that humanity killing and eating to survive which you RECOGNIZE as being COMPLETELY NECESSARY for basic SURVIVAL is somehow disrespectful and thus negative.

You keep completely ignoring what my argument is, and making crazy out of context comparisons. You claim you know what nature IS but rather than placing the blame on nature where it is DESERVED and actual responsibility for this scenario ORIGINATES, you instead place the blame on humans calling us disrespectful for doing what NATURE DEMANDS AND FORCES UPON US AND EVERY OTHER LIVING THING!!!

Our argument is about where blame deserves to fall. You keep insisting on placing the blame on humans and thus calling our actions disrespectful. It's not, plain and simple, it's a forced act done under coercion.

a reply to: gosseyn

A person can respect nature for all that it provides for our survival. It really is that simple. It is not up to the 3rd party (you) to determine what another person admires or respects. Many cultures have ceremonies for creatures they have killed, thanking them for their sacrifice. Many believe the animals have spirits as well and have agreed ahead of time to be sustenance for another. Too much variance is involved in various culture's beliefs to determine whether they respect an animal they have killed or not. It's not as black and white as you have been indicating.

The problem is that you don't seem understand the word "respect". It isn't universal. One person can respect the devil, while another respects god. Hitler was a mass murderer, yet there are folks respect him. A person can respect whatever or whomever they want, regardless of other people's opinions. A lie would indicate that they are saying something that is untrue, but since personal opinion plays a role, a person can indeed respect nature and planet earth. I don't see anything untruthful at all about that.

Basically what I'm saying is that it shows way more respect to kill an animal humanely, utilize all parts, and not be wasteful, than to simply go to the store and support mass production of cows and chickens that are pretty much given the worst lives imaginable just to be raised for food. I just find it silly that one would criticize the hunter, who does everything humanely and efficiently, while at the same time supporting one of the worst, most inhumane industries on the planet and talking "respect".

Are all animals sentient or do you not give a crap about them at all? It seems kind of weird to use the "sentient" argument, while advocating consuming meat in excess. Plus there are various versions of the word "sentient". It can refer to the Buddhist philosophy, or it can refer to self awareness, or it can refer to simple consciousness, or even just the ability to feel and use the senses. This is why folks were asking you to define it. You seem to drop that word quite often, thinking it somehow makes your point viable, but how can you keep repeating that when you directly support an industry that disrespects "sentient" animals and nature on a mass scale.

originally posted by: gosseyn

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: gosseyn

Sadly nature is a bitch and to live means another must die.

Exactly, but where is the respect in this ? Isn't that just a lie ? Do you think there is respect for the animal in this picture ?
Isn't it delusional to post this picture and in the same breath to talk of "proper respect" ? Yes, it is delusional.

A better question is, where is the disrespect in that picture? I sure as hell don't see it.

a reply to: awareness10

Not really, no. Majority of vegetarians choose the diet for health-related reasons, not ethical ones. It wouldn't deter them any more than sentience in mammals deters meat-eaters. That said...

Your article is a far cry from substantiating plants are sentient creatures. The researchers themselves talk about defensive responses to 'ecologically relevant vibrations'. It's about how the plants transmit and receive information. That hardly conveys to me the emotional depth of say a baby elephant clearly mourning the loss of its mother. The article author conflates the study with things the study isn't actually suggesting.

a reply to: Barcs

Thank you.

To clarify my previous responses. I'm not respecting the animal by killing it, I am respecting the animal for what it provides for my family.