If you arent interested in opinions why did you post this? Thats all this is, and clearly you are under the delusion yours makes you superior. Ive answered the question.
I have only stated facts. I hear the opinion that meat tastes good so its worth the imposition of suffering and enslavement. But i would like to know how this fits in with reaching the goal of world peace? The fact is that a world of peace is impossible to reach if the acts of needlessly imposing suffering continues.
What do my dietary habits have to do with world peace (provided I'm careful about who I buy my food from, obviously).
[quote name='"hurb1"'] I have only stated facts. I hear the opinion that meat tastes good so its worth the imposition of suffering and enslavement. But i would like to know how this fits in with reaching the goal of world peace? The fact is that a world of peace is impossible to reach if the acts of needlessly imposing suffering continues.[/quote] I've explained that local farms don't qualify as enslavement and torture when they are free range and killed painlessly. That answered your question. What I don't understand is how this affects world peace. We are meat eaters so why should we deprive ourselves of it?
I asked for a "good reason". The response that meat tastes good enough to impose suffering and avoid world peace is not a good reason. Jeffrey Dahmers opinion that storing body parts in his freezer and eating them was somehow justified did not hold up as a good enough reason in the face of rational analysis of the situation.
Nom is very much a good enough reason. Unless you can think of a reason that it tastes nice isn't a good reason. Can the 'world peace' crap if you're not going to explain it.
Farming animals is the absolute definition of enslavement. Not only is it imposing artificial existence of sentience into a fenced in enclosure but its also imposing death at the convenience of the "owner". (It doesnt matter how big the cage is and how sparkly the chains are) Also we are not meat eaters. Strictly meat eaters are called carnivores. Humans are not carnivores. They have a choice between causing suffering and not causing suffering by what they consume in their diet. This has already been mentioned previously.
You're right. We are omnivores. My point is that we still eat meat. This thread was misleading. I was under the assumption this was a discussion, instead of your desire for us to make you a meat eater.
Look up the term "world peace" on wikipedia if you dont understand it. World peace does not include, and can not be achieved with the endurance of needless enslavement, suffering, and perpetual violent actions of humans that are the result of exploiting sentient creatures on farms.
i do realize that this is not on topic, but, if we substitute "God" in for "owner" who's to say that humans don't live in this type of existence? not confirming or denying the existence of god here.. on topic: i agree with some points on both sides of the debate. yes it is cruel that animals are farmed and slaughtered. but yes our bodies are built to eat a diet consisting of meat and plants. unfortunately, the human race has long ego evolved into a state of dominance over this planet, rather than equilibrium. there are too many of us, living where we are not meant to live. and because of this, the farming of animals is a necessity. if you want "world peace" you got to start at the root of the problem, which isn't that we eat meat, instead; we are an invasive species.
The 'greatness' of a reason will be subjective. My reason for eating meat is because I value the pleasure I receive from eating it more than I value the life of the animal. This is a good reason to me. Of course...I'm sure you won't think the same. ...But I don't care.
Oh, of course. All life on the planet is prisoner to a DNA molecule. We are biological machines owned by our own collection of cells. Our mother and father played "god" by creating us. This however does not justify our actions to further the suffering. The moment a victim becomes a needless murderer he is no longer a victim. Large scale farming actually thrusts billions of feeling creatures onto this planet every year who would other wise not exist and thus not be a prisoner to this system of cannibalizing DNA. The process of evolution works like playing bloody knuckles. There is no winner and loser in reality, there is only unnecessary pain involved with playing. The guy who thinks hes the winner is simply the guy not smart enough to realize that needless suffering purchases nothing and ironically satisfaction arises from this ignorance. But this is way off topic so lets not reply to this post. I suppose the solution to the root of the problem is what you would do to any invasive species. The bug bomb is the solution for pests we know to be negatively effecting the home. But lets get back on topic before i create ammunition for people to quote saying, "look hes crazy".
You've stated your opinion that we should value the life of these sentient beings more than we value the consumption of meat. There is nothing factual about this. And secondly "world peace" is quite vague. Not only do you imply that world peace requires the preservation of the sentient being, you've also suggested that we must subscribe to your version of world peace, which again is an opinion. (In which we don't agree with...)
[quote name='"hurb1"'] At least you have the courage to be honest about your addiction[/quote] Facepalm
No im coming with the universal fact that avoidance of suffering is the most valuable thing to all living creatures. It only appears as an opinion until you experience it. And you see the truth very quick. Weve all seen the extremes people are willing to go to avoid impending suffering. Avoidance of suffering is the engine that drives virtually everything we do. If someone offered to stick you through the eyeball and into the brain with a glowing metal rod how much meat would they have to give you? How much pleasure on your taste buds would it require? World peace is not vague. Im using the term described in the Encyclopedia. Its not my version.
Referring to wikipedia, on addiction "Addiction can also be viewed as a continued involvement with a substance or activity despite the negative consequences associated with it." The negative consequences, or harms on the innocent as a result of the activity of the individual are what we are talking about. Think of second hand smoke.