[Closed] animal lovers and eating meat

Racist!!!!

If you'll be my bodyguard
I can be your long lost pal
I can call you Betty
And Betty when you call me
You can call me Halal

Halal requires the animal to be bled to death does it not? Not the nicest way to die, but hey, pot and kettle spring to mind when it come to different methods of slaughtering animals

Halal is about giving respect and purity to the animal, I dont see a problem in that, if it was "we'll let him drip of blood because it looks frikkin awesome" then there lies a problem.

There is plenty of room for all the creatures of the world........right next to the mashed potatoes and under a load of gravy 😀

No it's basically people with nothing else better to get on with than trying brainwash their ethics onto other like minded "sheep"

If it tastes nice - eat it - end of.

All meat passed fit for human consumption in the UK & EU must be bled to rid the carcass of toxins that form at the point of death.
The only real difference 'tween Halal & Kosher meats & regular meat is the fact it isn't stunned before the killing.

Catch it kill it Eat it
only now we only get to eat it .

Interestingly does it taste any different .

so the halal thing is to get rid of blood so cut the jugular arteries and death is supposed to be 2 seconds then the heart will stop pumping the red stuff out so there must be a fair amount of it left in the meat
as then gravity will take over .

Yep no worries eating it normally killed or Halal / Kosher
do like black pudding though
is that full of the death toxins

Consider these questions as they are about your intention.

1) Did you demand the animal to be slaughtered for your consumption?

2) Did the butcher intentionally slaughtered the animal for your consumption? i.e. they know you like expensive cuts so slaughtered the animal awaiting your patronage.

3) Did you request the animal to be slaughtered for other to consume?

4) Did you sell your animal to the butcher or someone who you know would slaughtered or consume it?

5) Did you slaughter the animal yourself for consumption?

If [b]all your answers[/b] to the above are[b] negative or no[/b] then you cannot be blamed.

But if [b]you answer yes to one or more[/b] then [b]you are to be (or partly) blamed. [/b]

The method of slaughtering is irrelevant since the end result will be the same. i.e. the animal is killed or slaughtered.

The "humane" (or halal - needs very sharp knife to slit throat with one swift draw of the knife & then drain blood clean) way of stunning the animal before slitting it's throat is merely a way to peace our concious that's all.

😐

p/s: I am not a vegetarian nor am I trying to advocate anyone to be vegetarian.

Hadge +1

Happy to eat animals that live reasonably contented lives and are killed quickly.

"merely a way to peace our concious that's all."
I think this is quite important

I'd be willing to bet I've killed more animals than pretty much anyone on this site - through gamekeeping, farming, deerstalking and over a decade in animal research.

I've been in slaughterhouses and seen normal, halal and kosher methods of slaughter, so will speak from a standpoint of personal experience.

[b]In my opinion, in the modern day, in the UK, there is absolutely no justifiable excuse whatsoever for religious slaughter of animals!
[/b]

The origins of both methods of slaughter are cultural, and tied in with well meaning methods of ensuring that only healthy meat entered the food chain, it was not possible to pass off sick or diseased animals, as they would be seen in their true state immediately prior to the kill - a perfectly reasonable cultural norm in pre-medieval Abyssinia, not so in 21st century Britain, where regulations ensure the veterinary inspection of live animals both ante and post mortem.

Like it or not, theres more than ample scientific research that shows that pain and suffering is greater in both intensity and duration in an animal that is subjected to exsanguination without stunning, quotes and links below.

Through many years of killing animals for professional reasons, it has always been at the forefront of my mind that respect and compassion for the live animal, and affording it the most humane death possible go hand in hand - even when having had to perform procedures in accordance with defined, regulated and inspected scientific protocols, the level of patience and professionalism that ensured the best welfare standards were upheld in 99.9% of cases was admirable.

The greatest abuses of animal welfare I have ever witnessed come not from hunting or vivisection, but from intensive factory farming

I would suggest that those who feel Halal slaughter is justified go to a slaugherhouse and actually watch it take place, or preferably take responsibility for the consequences of their choices and go and do it themselves;

Finally, I remain convinced that nobody should eat meat unless they have at least once in their lives killed and butchered it themselves and would happily do it again, as I believe that is the only true way of ensuring people understand the value of life and the grave responsibility that weighs on their shoulders every time they choose to eat a piece of meat

http://www.grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html

the design of the knife and the cutting technique are critical for preventing the animal from reacting to an incision of its throat. In kosher slaughter, a straight, razor-sharp knife that is twice the width of the throat is required, and the cut must be made in a single continuous motion. For halal (Muslim) slaughter, there is no knife-design requirement. Halal slaughter performed with short knives and multiple hacking cuts results in vigorous reactions of cattle being treated in this manner. Fortunately, many Muslim religious authorities accept preslaughter stunning. Muslims should be encouraged to stun the cattle or to use long, straight, razor-sharp knives that are similar to the knives used for kosher slaughter.

Investigators agree that throat-cutting without stunning does not induce instantaneous unconsciousness. In some cattle, consciousness is prolonged for over 60 seconds (Blackmore, 1984; Daly et al., 1988).

WE still slit the throats to kill the animals anyway but we give them an electric shock first, not a lot of difference really!

The way I see it unless everyone stops eating meat (which is not going to happen) its still going to be farmed and then get killed so we ought to eat it really otherwise the poor things are going to waste.

I'll buy free range eggs etc, but it doesnt bother me how its killed*, meat is meat. Having said that, I don't eat a lot of meat and I don't like meat that still looks like the animal (i.e. I will buy chicken breasts rather than a whole chicken!)

*as far as buying in supermarkets / butchers, I'm not endorsing horrible and/or torturous methods of killing

I do have to laugh at people who'll only eat meat that has no visual connection with the animal that it came from.

Flippinheckler, there patently is a big difference, by giving them an electric shock (or a bolt in the brain) they are instantaneously desensitised to the feeling of pain from then having their throat slit and bleeding to death - the animal otherwise feels pain through to the point where its brain tissues are starved of oxygen.

I think that a moral code is a very personal thing. I'd suggest perhaps worrying less about what everyone thinks and work out what you think.

Personally, I applaud those who kill their own food. Couldn't do it myself, but fair play. I do wonder about the people who get squeamish about it, but still eat it. If you're squicky about what meat is, why would you lie to yourself and still put it in your body? Never understood that. Be happy about what you're eating, or don't eat it. See also, thin miserable people on diets.

<-- veggie for getting on for 20 years.

I would suggest that those who feel Halal slaughter is justified go to a slaugherhouse and actually watch it take place, or preferably take responsibility for the consequences of their choices and go and do it themselves;

Not justified at all. Modern method of stunning is far "humane" by comparison. I have seen halal slaughtering of water buffalo (approx 800kg - 900kg in size - big animal) in other country in a traditional way. The animal was visibly stress ("crying") as it knew it was going to be killed. It was a tame one as well and was lead into the woods where the slaughter man was waiting. They tied its legs (back together & front together) and then pulled it down so it lied on the ground. A small hole was dug in the ground between the throat. The slaughter man then came over to perform a prayer after that proceed to slit the throat of the buffalo.

Finally, I remain convinced that nobody should eat meat unless they have at least once in their lives killed and butchered it themselves and would happily do it again, as I believe that is the only true way of ensuring people understand the value of life and the grave responsibility that weighs on their shoulders every time they choose to eat a piece of meat

The burden is [b][u]Not[/u][/b] on those who consume meat as long as they answer [u][b]No to all the 5 questions above[/b][/u].

The burden is on the person who has[u][b] direct (yes to any of the question above) link to the slaughter[/b][/u] of the animal for whatever reason. e.g. the slaughter men who slaughter, the butcher that demand (bulk buy to lower cost) more meat from slaughter house to attract more customer. Customer attracted by the low price increase meat consumption by buying more and demand increase ... vicious cycle.

In a modern world you need not have to kill first before eating meat or understand the origin of meant. No need as meat is obtainable from butcher or supermarket.

However, the ignorance of the origin of meat is of no excuse as information is freely available.

Beast of burden is particularly no no for me as a sign of respect.

Is it wrong that this thread is making me hungry?

Zoolander - Member

Is it wrong that this thread is making me hungry?

No. After all you did not hunt or slit the animal's throat so why waste the meat if they came from the supermarket?

🙄

Sorry chewkw, I think you're well off the mark there.

If (for instance) you buy battery eggs, you are responsible for keeping that type of farming going, plain and simple. Everyone needs to take responsibility for where their animal produce comes from.

My wife wasn't happy when a squirrel trap arrived in the post; but it's in the garden now and I'm hoping it provides a small meal soon.

tree-magnet - Member

Sorry checkw, I think you're well off the mark there.

If you buy battery eggs, you are responsible for keeping that type of farming going, plain and simple. Everyone needs to take responsibility for where their animal produce comes from.

Yes, the welfare of the chickens are important but I buy them on the assumption that the person who breed them do it with concious and ethic. I did not demand them to be ill treated nor did I demand them to be slaughtered for my consumption.

I only buy free range eggs or chickens and even that I have to think twice of where or how the animal are kept. If they are not available I can go without but if there are available I will buy them knowing that they are there. i.e. the supermarket does not intentionally kill it for me.

😯

I have read, and re-read your posts chewkw, and as always...I haven't got a ****ing clue what you are on about.

sc-xc - Member

I have read, and re-read your posts chewkw, and as always...I haven't got a **** clue what you are on about.

Cryptic message. LOL!

It's about intentionally killing animal for consumption and those that want to eat meat yet struggle with their concious.

To test this you need to see your answers to the five questions above.

🙂

chewkw > I'm struggling to see where you're coming from also. It's ok to eat meat so long as the animal died to feed someone else?! Wut?

To test this you need to see your answers to the five questions above.

I haven't eaten any meat/fish/etc for years. Still don't really understand what your'e saying though.

Cougar - Member

chewkw > I'm struggling to see where you're coming from also. It's ok to eat meat so long as the animal died to feed someone else?! Wut?

If your answers to the five questions are no then I see no reason or wrong in meat consumption.

But if you answer yes to any of the five questions then you are partly/wholly be blamed for killing.

🙂

sc-xc - Member

I haven't eaten any meat/fish/etc for years. Still don't really understand what your'e saying though.

LOL! You just have to find the origin of the cryptic message.

Anyway, the notion of meat consumption does not apply to you if you are a vegetarian or vegan judging from your reply.

🙂

My wife wasn't happy when a squirrel trap arrived in the post; but it's in the garden now and I'm hoping it provides a small meal soon.

CountZero - Member

And it's gonna be a small meal. There's bugger-all meat on them bones, and from a description I read, pretty bland, too. Still, two or three in a curry...

The farmers' market try to rip me off for selling them at £4.00 each ...

Squirrel meat is okay but nothing to chew on as it is even smaller than rabbit (£3 each).

👿

If Lionel Richie opened a Muslim butchers what would it be called?

'Halal, is it meat your looking for?'

😆

Brilliant. I had thought about a reply that included criticising lions and that for inflicting unnecessary suffering on their victims, but that has just encapsulated the ridiculousness of this whole thread. Thank you.

'Halal, is it meat your looking for?'

Genius. Simply genius.

I find myself eating meat less frequently but am very choosy as to its origins. Supermarket meat is rubbish, even organic, hence my preference for game and other creatures.

Seem to remember a headline in a newspaper article about cooking squirrel. Makes sense, as does Canadian geese.

I enjoyed my dinner this evening - buffalo burger. 8)

the notion of meat consumption does not apply to you if you are a vegetarian

Just because I don't eat meat doesn't mean I don't ask for clarification on apparant nonsense. And I'm still no nearer.

Far as I can see this is a cross-examination at the level of "is it your fault that an animal died" but I don't get how that applies to the ethics of being carni/omnivorous. What are you saying, it's ok to eat meat so long as it wasn't your fault?

Wait, no, I get it.

It's a convenient way of absolving yourself from guilt. Here's a question six.

6) Was the animal killed for consumption, and did you intentionally buy meat killed intentionally for consumption?

Where you're going with this is, I didn't kill it, someone else did, oh, look, it's meat, what a happy coincidence, tralalala.

Your five questions are flawed. You are part of the chain. IT IS YOUR FAULT.

... Note to everyone else, eat what you like. I'll be under my bridge. (-:

Calm down Cougar!

I'm very calm. (-:

Cougar,

If you are not directly associated (no control) with killing the animal then I do not see any problem in meat consumption but if you do then you are part of the chain. (assuming meat from legal supermarket source)

Again, the five questions are to test one's association with the animal killed for meat consumption.

As for happy coincidence it is just that. The supermarket/butcher sells meat for people to consume daily so there is no stopping that. They are not selling to you nor intentionally wait for you to buy. If you think they are wrong then you do not buy them or consume them and that does not mean others who consume them are wrong. They might be ignorant but then they have no control or direct involvement with the killing. They have not demanded (request for more meat or tell someone to kill an animal for them) the meat purely for themselves.

However, the person who slaughter the animal regardless how ethical their view point is will be the one that should be feeling guilty as is their boss.

😯

p/s: eat what you like but think before you eat.

think before you eat

Ah..... the Buddhist philosophy of "mindful eating".

Yes Buddha like to 'think before he ate'. He did a lot of thinking. And a lot of eating. Didn't do his waistline much good though.

ernie_lynch - Member

Ah..... the Buddhist philosophy of "mindful eating".

Yes Buddha like to 'think before he ate'. He did a lot of thinking. And a lot of eating. Didn't do his waistline much good though.

You mean the fat bold headed happy monk? LOL! That is not Buddha or at least not yet for a very very long time.

😆

Yeah, I mean the Laughing Buddha.

So he's not Buddha then ? ....fair enough.

But did he eat mindfully ?

ernie_lynch - Member

Yeah, I mean the Laughing Buddha.

So he's not Buddha then ? ....fair enough.

But did he eat mindfully ?

All of them eat / live mindfully as that is the very basic prerequisite.

😆

Chewkw - Struggling to see your point here, i think either trolling or a bit dim, this made me laugh though, idiotic

The way I see it unless everyone stops eating meat (which is not going to happen) its still going to be farmed and then get killed so we ought to eat it really otherwise the poor things are going to waste.

I'll buy free range eggs etc, but it doesnt bother me how its killed*, meat is meat. Having said that, I don't eat a lot of meat and I don't like meat that still looks like the animal (i.e. I will buy chicken breasts rather than a whole chicken!)

philsimm,

Of course you will struggle because you do not understand or such concept does not exist in you ... yet.

Do you need to step into the butcher to understand? There are at least 10 butchers in one location where I shop.

So think of the questions and search for the answer yourself after all you are responsible for your own action.

🙂

Got to be a troll...

I still don't get it. Or at least, if I do, I think that I disagree quite strongly.

It seems that you're saying you can eat meat without guilt so long as you personally weren't directly responsible for the slaughter, is that right? To my mind, there's a problem with this logic. The animal was killed to be eaten, you as a meat eater are the target audience here, ergo it's your fault (as a meat-eating consumer) that the animal was killed; it was killed for you, not you personally but you as a carnivore.

You can argue all you like that you didn't personally go to the farmer and go "I'll have that one to go, thanks" but it stikes me as an awfully wishy-washy way of absolving yourself of guilt. You think that meat arrives at the supermarket in bite-sized chunks by coincidence?

It makes far more sense to me to acknowledge where meat comes from, then when you eat it you're making a moral choice and accepting how the food chain works. As a veggie I've no problem with this - we are the top of the food chain and it's natural behaviour after all. "I didn't kill it, so it's alright" sounds like a convenient excuse.

As an analogy, would you buy a stolen bike? You didn't steal it, or ask someone to steal it for you, so when a bloke in the pub approaches you at random and offers you a top of the range full-susser for sixty quid, you can buy it with a clear conscience? It's already stolen by that point so what's the harm?

Buy meat = vote for more meat being made. Not complicated is it?

chewkw, are you for real? I've come across some fairly contrived and ridiculous justifications for eating meat in my time but this takes the biscuit.

The simple fact is that if you eat meat then you're inherently involved and culpable in the killing of the animal, in much the same way that a peadophile is guilty of abuse for looking at dodgy pictures of kids on the internet. Whether or not that culpability is acceptable or justifiable is down to you to decide. But at least have the balls to admit that you've no problem with animals being killed purely for your own convenience or pleasure, rather than trying to shift the blame onto someone else.

I find it bizarre that certain authorities want to blanket-provide Halal food for all children to eat.

What area was it? 7% of the pupils are muslim but the authority is planning 100% supply of Halal.

Crackers.

Somewhere near here would be my guess, sounds like an East Lancs thing.

My local KFC went halal as a trial recently, it went down like Gillian Taylforth in a lay-by.

Whereas several high street fast-food outlets round my way converted to Halal meat and saw their turnover multiply almost overnight...

Don't get your knickers in such a twist over it. Worse things happen at sea.

What area was it? 7% of the pupils are muslim but the authority is planning 100% supply of Halal.

Facts please, if you will kind sir.

Cougar - Member

I still don't get it. Or at least, if I do, I think that I disagree quite strongly.

I think it's a difficult concept to understand as it is not the extremity of one or the other i.e. either you do or you don't.

Note: referring to meat widely available in the supermarket and not animal etc that is in danger or being hunted to extinction or being slaughtered in inhumane ways.

It seems that you're saying you can eat meat without guilt so long as you personally weren't directly responsible for the slaughter, is that right? To my mind, there's a problem with this logic. The animal was killed to be eaten, you as a meat eater are the target audience here, ergo it's your fault (as a meat-eating consumer) that the animal was killed; it was killed for you, not you personally but you as a carnivore.

I don't think a person should beat him/herself up just because s/he eats meat. If a person does not eat meat then it is his/her own choice but the notion of guilt should not be imposed on others that eat meat.

However, those who eat meat must understand their roles in the consumption of meat, the more [u]direct[/u] their involvement the more suffering on the animal and they are totally responsible for their actions.

On the other hand if the meat is on sale/offer and the person has [b][u]no[/u][/b] direct involvement in the procurement of the meat then s/he should not be held responsible for wanting to nourish themselves. The meat is already on sale whether the person likes it or not but the seller (decision maker in meat procurement) is more culpable since s/he is the one selling them and has direct connection to the slaughter house. e.g. If they want to lower cost they buy bulk and slaughter houses slaughter more.

If only those (including the person who procure meat) with direct connection to the slaughtering of the animals understand their involvements and the suffering their impose on the animals then perhaps thing will be rather different. Less procurement of meat, less slaughter, less meat available, less suffering of animal and perhaps "better welfare". But do you think this will happen in the real world? Individual must do their bits so the responsible is on the individual. Eat less meat.

You can argue all you like that you didn't personally go to the farmer and go "I'll have that one to go, thanks" but it stikes me as an awfully wishy-washy way of absolving yourself of guilt. You think that meat arrives at the supermarket in bite-sized chunks by coincidence?

No, it's not wishy-washy because I have not demanded meat in such a way that an animal be slaughtered for my consumption. The meat is already there for sale. If I do not buy them the meat will still be there whether I like it or not. So should I feel guilty? Absolutely not but I do understand the animals endure suffering.

I do not consume beast of burden even if they are freely available to me as a sign of respect.

It makes far more sense to me to acknowledge where meat comes from, then when you eat it you're making a moral choice and accepting how the food chain works. As a veggie I've no problem with this - we are the top of the food chain and it's natural behaviour after all. "I didn't kill it, so it's alright" sounds like a convenient excuse.

Yes, one should know where the meat come from but there is only so much there is to be done in real world. Eat less meat is the answer.

As an analogy, would you buy a stolen bike? You didn't steal it, or ask someone to steal it for you, so when a bloke in the pub approaches you at random and offers you a top of the range full-susser for sixty quid, you can buy it with a clear conscience? It's already stolen by that point so what's the harm?

This is very clear cut. Answer is No.

The key words are [u]stolen, bloke in pub, full-susser for £60[/u] = very dodgy.

Would you take something which is not given to you? I wouldn't.

🙂

I don't think a person should beat him/herself up just because s/he eats meat. If a person does not eat meat then it is his/her own choice but the notion of guilt should not be imposed on others that eat meat.

Agreed.

However, those who eat meat must understand their roles in the consumption of meat, the more direct their involvement the more suffering on the animal and they are totally responsible for their actions.

Cobblers.

The more direct your involvement, the more the animal suffers? What? The slaughterhouse decides to hurt it a bit more if you order it directly?

I must be misunderstanding your point here, because the alternative is that you're talking nonsense.

The meat is already there for sale. If I do not buy them the meat will still be there whether I like it or not.

Yes, and why do you think that is? Because people buy it, because there is a market for it. You buy it, you're part of that market.

This is very clear cut. Answer is No.

Why is it dodgy? You haven't "demanded a bike in such a way that a bike be stolen for your use." You weren't involved in that process. The bike will still be on sale whether you buy it or not.

So why's it clear cut for a stolen bike but acceptable for a slaughtered animal?

dazh - Member

chewkw, are you for real? I've come across some fairly contrived and ridiculous justifications for eating meat in my time but this takes the biscuit.

I did not ask the animal to be slaughtered for consumption nor any direct involvement but what is already available in the supermarket which is very different.

If I understand you correctly ...

If one is to justify slaughtering an animal for consumption = intention to slaughter an animal, follow by action in slaughtering the animal then finally consuming it. The person is fully culpable.

My "justification" = no intention to slaughter an animal (not to demand), no follow up action (no to order) but only buy what is available at the supermarket in moderation. The person is not culpable.

The simple fact is that if you eat meat then you're inherently involved and culpable in the killing of the animal,

The missing elements are intention to slaughter the animal & follow up action (slaughtering). I have none as I only buy what is available in moderation.

... in much the same way that a peadophile is guilty of abuse for looking at dodgy pictures of kids on the internet. Whether or not that culpability is acceptable or justifiable is down to you to decide.

Is this example appropriate?

But at least have the balls to admit that you've no problem with animals being killed purely for your own convenience or pleasure, rather than trying to shift the blame onto someone else.

On the contrary. I am advocating individual responsibility especially those who are directly involved in procuring and slaughtering of the animals and then claiming market demand (consumers want to eat more meat).

😯

Cougar - Member

Cobblers.

The more direct your involvement, the more the animal suffers? What? The slaughterhouse decides to hurt it a bit more if you order it directly?

I must be misunderstanding your point here, because the alternative is that you're talking nonsense.

The key words are: direct, slaughterhouse, order directly.

I have none of the above and I guess majority have not too.

I think you have over claimed the role of consumers there.

Yes, and why do you think that is? Because people buy it, because there is a market for it. You buy it, you're part of that market.

The key words are: people buy it & market.

Again you are shifting towards the masses and blaming the consumers. What if the supermarket started to push more meat to the consumers because they got good deals by buying bulk with lower cost?

Why is it dodgy? You haven't "demanded a bike in such a way that a bike be stolen for your use." You weren't involved in that process. The bike will still be on sale whether you buy it or not.

You failed to apply common sense here.

The key words are: You (I) haven't demanded, stolen & weren't involved.

Yes, the bike will still be on sale but since I am already out of the equation I have no clue as to the situation of the seller and the bike.

So am I guilty? (I might report him/her but say if I didn't)

So why's it clear cut for a stolen bike but acceptable for a slaughtered animal?

It's about intention.

If you know the bike is stolen and yet you buy it then you have a clear intention of buying a stolen good.

Did I say animal slaughter is acceptable? You must re-read my threads carefully.

😕

I'd eat a vegetarian if that makes it more acceptable 😀

What goes on in an abattoir is quite horrific and should be quite properly kept from the public's gaze.
Sorry, but for the majority of this country it's a necessity and as animals aren't born in packets we must put them in them,and to to this ,we first have to undo the animal.Not a pretty sight or process but thats the way of the world
Same applies to the battlefield.We rely on soldiers to keep us safe and protect our interests but you don't see the results spread all over the newspapers or 6 o clock news.
Quite simply.its a necessity and that's that.

Boiled or fried?

if it's got eyes on the sides of it's head it's meant to be eaten, if it looks forward it does the eating. Simple really, I'd not want to offend any higher being/god/deity by ignoring their design and mauling a carrot

Now obviously i can't speak for all,but the majority of vegetarians look quite depressed 😕

Preferably flame-grilled in a bun with blue cheese and salad. Hold the gherkins.

dyna-ti - Member

... thats the way of the world ...

The key words above.

I think the world would be a better place if we could only change ourselves first before trying to change the world.

oh ya ... changing ourselves cost nothing.

🙂

Chewk, you might think you are not culpable by buying ready available meat in the supermarket, but the fact is you are creating a demand, supporting everyone involved in the killing. The money you pay for the meat finds its way back to everyone involved in the chain.

Would you buy a chicken for example from a small farm shop? It is generally a better way of buying meat, higher quality, fresher, but you are directly supporting the 'killer'. If you buy one of the dozen chickens on sale, this will directly impact on the number of animals killed to restock. No different to the supermarket, its just a lot more obvious to see that you have an effect and are therefore associated with the sale.

Taking it a step further, the christmas turkey. You are saying that you would be happy to buy one off the shelf, but not place your order with the supermarket/butcher in advance to ensure you can get a fresh turkey close to christmas?

I think the only way you can distance yourself is that you cannot be held responsible for any miss-treatment during the killing.

I eat meat, but I used to be a veggie and therefore open minded to both sides.

When did eating meat become a necessity?
Within 20 years meat will be an expensive luxury again as the energy required to produce it is too great. But then for some of you when you buy that packet of "meat product with no relationship to an animal" it'll be just that.
Chewkw - you have no understanding of supply and demand do you?

you are shifting towards the masses and blaming the consumers.

You failed to apply common sense here.

Do those five rules come from some 'holy book' or other, by any chance?

Now obviously i can't speak for all,but the majority of vegetarians look quite depressed

I'd perhaps suggest that you can't speak for the majority either. But I'm quite happy, thanks. There are some idiots I'll grant you, but like any demographic it's a minority that give the rest a bad name. In my opinion, etc.

sorry chewkw, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. If you eat meat you are responsible for its slaughter and through your choices you are equally responsible for the way the animal was treated in life as well as in death. As you for one seem wholly incapable of dealing with this concept, you really should either become vegetarian [s]or, quite seriously, seek professional help to deal with your guilt.[/s]

your carefully ordered list of excuses and get out clauses is quite laughable, i honestly do wonder if you were wearing your tinfoil hat when you first put pen to paper, perhaps with thoughts of becoming a cult leader in later life???

The more people i involve in this question the clearer the lines become, some people really dont care what is on their plate or how it got there, if its yummy they eat it, end of.
Some people actually care for thier bodies and minds and eat meat from organic/sustainable/'happy' sources - even the muslims i have spoken to agree that this doesnt include halal meat due to the unnecessary suffering inflicted.
the rest do not condone cruelty to animals at all, and eat only vegetables! The questions of life/pain/intensive farming etc are still relevant but the answers vary between individuals.

Sorry, but for the majority of this country it's a necessity

Obviously the millions/billions of people around the world who eat no meat have missed this. No doubt they'll probably be dead soon.

Same applies to the battlefield.We rely on soldiers to keep us safe...

I would think that was a matter of debate too.

The way I see it unless everyone stops eating meat (which is not going to happen) its still going to be farmed and then get killed so we ought to eat it really otherwise the poor things are going to waste.

Jesus. What is it about these threads that brings out the idiots?

The way we keep farm animals and the way we kill them is disgraceful. If you must eat meat then for gods' sake treat the animal well and kindly and kill it quickly and painlessly. Anything other than that ill-becomes us as human beings.

Re: "necessity";

Individually it's not necessary to eat meat. However, it is necessary that some of us do. The problem with everyone going veggie is that it takes more farmland to sustain a vegetarian diet than it does to breed cattle, and there simply isn't the land to support everyone doing it.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this though,

What goes on in an abattoir is quite horrific and should be quite properly kept from the public's gaze.

In what way is ignorance preferable to knowledge? People should know what they're putting in their bodies, then they can make informed choices. Animal welfare might be a bit higher on the agenda for some people then also.

I'm not about to get all preachy or tree-huggy, so let's look at eggs as an example. People found out how hens were farmed, there was a bit of fuss, and now we have the choice at a consumer level to pay a little extra to cover the increased costs in providing free-range eggs, or we can get cheap eggs if we don't mind that they've come from chickens that have been stapled to the floor.

Choice is [i]good. [/i]And without education, how can we make the right choices?

it takes more farmland to sustain a vegetarian diet than it does to breed cattle

Are you sure about this? I thought it was pretty much accepted that it takes IIRC 7 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat. I suppose your point would make more sense if we assumed the animals ate nothing.

When did eating meat become a necessity?

The Jurassic period, give or take a few tens of millions of years.

I read somewhere (sorry...) that meat became very, very important in the diet of people in medieval Italy because huge numbers fo cattle were being bred for their hides - necessary for military equipment for the constant warfare of the period. People were eating collossal quantities of beef simply because it was there.

[i]I thought it was pretty much accepted that it takes IIRC 7 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat.[/i]

Hmmmm, lots of marginal land used in the production of meat, Welsh hillsides, Yorkshire Dales, Most of New Zealand...Mostly produced without the aid of large quantities of 'grain'. Haven't read all this thread, where's the debate on Industrial Fishing going in relation to cattle production..?

i'm with most folk in the idea chewkw is talking pish!

chewkw - Member
They might be ignorant but then they have no control or direct involvement with the killing. They have not demanded (request for more meat or tell someone to kill an animal for them) the meat purely for themselves.

they don't ask for it cos its there. But i reckon if supermarkets/butchers stop selling meat. there would be alot of people asking for it.

As said supply and demand, simple.

FWIW i've shot, skinned/plucked and cooked then eaten meat before. have no problem with it. and no guilty feeling for it.
Food chain rules, simples.

Are you sure about this?

Sure, no. I've read it in a couple of places now though, not recently enough to remember details unfortunately.

[i]"The way I see it unless everyone stops eating meat (which is not going to happen) its still going to be farmed and then get killed so we ought to eat it really otherwise the poor things are going to waste."[/i]

Row 2, Column 4

[i]"it takes more farmland to sustain a vegetarian diet than it does to breed cattle[/i]"

Row 3, Column 2

[img] [/img]