June, 05, 2013

Legitimate Murder

Share17

Name: Julline Lagorio
Member of: Applicant Panellist
Joined: December 2012
Julline's Full Profile

It has taken me fifteen years of eating meat, and two years of being vegetarian, to realise it: cooking meat smells like burning bodies. Why? That’s exactly what it is.

Photo by Beth Towers

“Meat is Murder” is a famous song by “The Smiths”. Never could a title be truer: killing animals so that humans can enjoy lunch is legitimate murder. The smell of cooking meat may as well be the stench of “Breast of Human” or “Leg of Family Member”. But it “tastes good” and people are selfish.

Somehow, that makes it alright.

Consider this: humans “taste good”. Could I hunt, kill, cook, then eat people? Imagine doing so: would you gut the human’s “waste”, boil the meat, then sit down at your table with a fork, ready to dig into the death of a sibling, parent or friend? Nobody would. Six million Jews were killed in WWII. There was outcry, and the holocaust is still remembered – taught in schools; there is little disturbance among meat-eaters over trillions of animals being slaughtered every week. The reason: meat “tastes good”.

Does it though? There are many ways to cook meat, all of which make eating it a more palatable experience, all of which leave a house smelling of burning bodies. If meat were so good, why fry or roast it in oil or layer it with spices? Why not eat it raw? There is an obvious answer: meat is not appetising – the spices are.

It occurs to me that this article is graphic – I make no apology. Unless a person is unaffected by the reality that meat is murder, they shouldn’t eat it. This was a major factor in my decision to become vegetarian: if I were in the wild searching for food, I couldn’t kill an animal. To chase, murder, gut, then cook a life would make me sick – I would know what preceded eating “Breast of Chicken” or “Leg of Lamb”; I would have seen the animal suffer.

Most people feel uncomfortable seeing suffering: a pet’s death causes upset; an animal being killed for a meal should too. Seeing Bambi die creates tears; an animal being slaughtered for a meal should too. A horse or deer on a dinner plate makes many feel guilty; another animal being murdered for a meal should too. People won’t eat pets or “cute” animals, yet will eat the ones they are used to eating. I propose a reason: society has bred us to eat certain meat, to disregard the thought that farmers kill certain animals, but only certain ones; any new animal’s murder makes us consider the issue. Then the gap between murderer and consumer lessens – then we understand the atrocity.

There are, of course, arguments against vegetarianism. People ask me why I eat plants; if they have feelings. Biology states that plants don’t have a CNS, meaning they don’t feel pain as animals (who have a CNS) do. I understand this as: “I’ve seen animals whine in pain; I’ve never seen a plant cry.” Many excuse their murder-count, saying the animal is already dead – we cannot do anything to stop it. Think logically: the animal is killed for the consumer; if there weren’t consumers, there wouldn’t be murders.

Health risks are associated with vegetarianism – many equate vegetarianism to malnutrition. However, on average vegetarians live ten years longer than meat-eaters, vegans fifteen. Vegetarianism is also an excellent way to tackle harsh economic circumstances: many families in Africa eat for less by leaving meat out of their diet; it takes much less energy and water to grow crops than it does to raise animals (crops must be grown for their consumption). The benefits of vegetarianism are endless.

The circle of life is another opposing argument – “the food chain works that way so we should continue eating meat”. Let’s reapply this principle: many political systems “work” as dictatorships so they should continue thus; South Africa “functioned” under Apartheid for fifty years so we should have continued to oppress people on grounds of race. No. As human beings, we have consciences and the moral capacity to reflect on these scenarios and criticise them. As consumers, we have the power to stop farming; to end legitimate murder.

Share17

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars (126 votes, average: 3.31 out of 10)
Loading ... Loading ...

Want to get featured on the site? Click here to send in an article.

154 Comments

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook


Or enter your name and email to post as a guest

  1. Juwairia Yunus

    hang on how is this person comparing eating meat to the holocaust!!!!!

    Share
  2. Phillip Hart

    I am sorry, but I reject Julie’s argument made that the slaughter of animals is comparable to the Holocaust. To start with, the Holocaust in no way whatsoever benefited anyone; it was the work of a group of seriously deluded men who were so brainwashed by their own propaganda that they would stop at nothing to achieve their goal. There is no way on earth that such a horrific event can be comparable to anything else. Further, the fact that the author writes about eating humans implies that everyone who eats meat is a cannibal. Whilst I cannot speak for all non-vegetarians, I myself am not a cannibal. It is one thing to kill a pig for pork chops. It is entirely another thing to compare eating meat to eating a family member or a friend.

    In nature there are examples of carnivores, e.g. snakes eating rats. Are we all of a sudden going to have to tell snakes to stop eating rats and to instead eat grass? Will lions now have to eat leaves from a tree instead of hunting for their prey? It is a natural part of our species to eat meat

    People in Africa also do not eat meat not out of choice but out of necessity- in a land where there is often food scarcity, there is not enough food for them let alone cattle. Given the opportunity to many people in Africa would keep animals, as they provide a regular source of milk (provided they are female) and would eventually provide a source of meat. The Plains Indians of North america (before the US nearly exterminated them) relied so heavily on Buffalo for their survival that their camps (teepees) were designed to follow the heard of buffalo.

    So I reject the argument that eating meat is like eating humans- NO IT ISN’T. Eating meat is one thing, cannibalism is an entirely different and sinister crime. Comparing the use of animals to the Holocaust is just morally wrong and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding and respect for a sensitive period in history.

    Share
  3. Liga Lida Spera

    As long as there is a choice what to eat, its fine to say that eating meat is awful,poor animals. I am 100% sure that no one would cry if it was a matter of survival. Every living creature, including humans, cannot fight their insticts.

    Share
  4. Robert Bentley

    Personally I enjoy a rare bloody steak in Gauchos. I also love to eat Rabbit, Duck and Veal which are most likely perceived as cute but as meats by themselves (without spices or sauces) they are exceptionally tasty!

    Share
  5. Fiona Metcalf

    I can’t believe you just compared eating meat to the holocaust. Wow.

    Share
  6. Selene Fernandez Alberti

    have you looked at our teeth? humans are omnivores, biologically engineered to eat both meat and vegetables. it´s nature not murder. now the WAY in which the meat is harvested, that is a different story,

    Share
  7. Coral Allon

    You have strong opinions which I respect; however, food chains are a part of life – humans and animals. Carnivores and herbivores, humans are no different to lions, tigers and other predators. You can’t stop those animals eating meat because that is how they survive. Human’s have a choice and an opinion, but eating meat doesn’t make us bad or murderer’s, obviously if it’s being bought in the shops – it’s what the people want.

    Share
  8. Ellese O\'keefe

    How do you know what a burning body smells like, anyhow?

    Share
  9. Ellese O\'keefe

    I could relate the idea of not eating meat because of it being ‘murder’ to the idea of humans not having sex because of it being ‘sinful’. Humans are adapted to eat meat because we require the protein and energy from meat, and there is less waste (that we excrete) from eating meat than from eating plants. Similar to how we are adapted to have sex to reproduce, it’s natural, just like eating meat. You cannot disrupt nature.
    I’m not a cannibal but I do not think that humans should be treated much differently to animals; after all, we are just a big lump of meat and bone. Cannibalism is still in existence in some parts of the world, some would call it survival of the fittest, we need to eat to survive.

    Share
  10. David Cappleman

    Then should we stop dogs eating meat? We have evolved to eat meat, we have also evolved to enjoy it.

    Share
  11. Sophie Pace

    So this may be one of the more ridiculous articles I’ve read. Firstly you claim we cook meat because it tastes better and it’s the spices we enjoy. Whilst you have a point – I certainly enjoy spicy chicken – the main reason we cook our meat is avoid food poisoning. Salmonella isn’t fun! Secondly, rare steak – absolutely delicious. Some people may disagree but in my opinion the only way to cook steak is by having the chunk of flesh on my plate without being touched by a frying pan or spices.

    The next idea of not eating a pet… My dad killed his rabbits for food. They were cute, they were cuddly. And they tasted good.

    Third the health risks. These are very real, as supplements have to be taking in order to provide the nutrients a normal diet would have in the meat. I have friends who have developed physical issues due to a lack of protein. One of said friends spent several weeks passing out until she decided to eat meat again.

    I’m not going to deny meat is murder but honestly? How many species would have died out centuries ago if not for humans farming them?

    Share
  12. Emily Boycott

    In my opinion, humans are supposed to eat meat. You wouldn’t stop a cat eating meat, or a bear, same principle. It is not cruel to kill and eat an animal, what is cruel is allowing an animal to suffer up to that point in battery farms or harsh conditions. We should keep the animals we eat in decent conditions right up until the slaughter. If a side effect of that is that the price of meat rises, so be it, we probably eat way too much of it anyway.

    Share
  13. Jacob Mikurenda

    I disagree with this article in general but in particular with the very last point that’s made. Humans are adapted to eat meat. It goes back to our primal instincts where we were designed to eat whatever we could whenever we could and the very fact we have the cognitive ability that enables us to out-think and therefore capture and eat prey proves this. Dictatorships are an unnatural occurrence which is why they rarely last longer than thirty years (with the odd exception) as are any other forms of oppression. (i.e. apartheid). This is why humans have eaten animals since as long as anyone can remember and although we don’t kill purely to survive anymore, we kill to turn a profit as well, it is still a part of human life that we have always eaten animals and always will eat animals. Regardless of how much we may love them as pets, you have to ask yourself the question, while we don’t want to and will never kill pet animals so long as we have a choice, what would we do if it was a choice between us and them to survive?

    Share
  14. aaron symons

    I also disagree with this as we are specialised to eat meat. if we were not we would not have teeth that are designed for eating meats. we need a balance of meat and vegetables, meat is important for us as it contains protein for our bodies and we need it in our diet.

    Share
  15. Remy Gill

    I disagree with this too because to be honest most animals eat other animals because its in our diet,it contains nutrients that we cant get from fruit or vegetables so we have to get it from somewhere. If we weren’t meant to eat meat then we wouldn’t and our bodies wouldn’t be specialised to eating meat and adapted to it,its just a decision.

    Share
  16. Philip Kear

    I disagree with this. The simple fact is that meat provides us humans with the dietary needs which we require. For thousands of years human intelligence has lead us to become top of the food chain by conquering other animals and claiming what we desire – much like every other animal in the animal kingdom. It is only recently that people have decided to grow this conscience and thrust out the opinion that they ‘love animals’ . I pretty sure if a cow was chasing you, trying to kill you – you’d be grateful if I ate it.

    Share
  17. Luis Soule

    i really don’t think like this, i like meat and i like vegetables, we need meat to survive, the vegetarian perhaps they need complements of what they are not eating from the meat i guess, but it is natural, it is the circle of life, you are totally wrong about this.

    Share
  18. jodi leigh brown beaumont

    I do understand your point of view, however I feel if the animal is honored and respected and all of its body is used instead of wasted then it is perfectly ok to eat meat. Yes you may say it isn’t fair that the animals life was taken from it but that happens in nature as it is a part of survival.
    I think it is perfectly fine to have the view you have yet I do believe that everyone can have their own views and live their life however they like as long as it is in the constraints of society.

    Share
  19. Bianca Wong

    I disagree with the fact that you’re comparing humans with animals, because we are not, we are far more superior than them, despite the fact that we coming to discover the intelligence behind marine mammals such as Dolphins. However, If eating meat is classed as ‘murder’, then what what do you call animals eating other animals, are they as murderous as us? You have cannibalistic animals such as sand tiger sharks that have been documented eating their own young, it’s all about survival of the fittest, human’s have been eating and hunting animals to eat before it was even recorded, but not because it tastes or smells like human flesh, it’s for basic survival, if it was the fact that it smells and tastes like human flesh, then why did our ancestors continue to eat meat, if it is morally incorrect?

    Share
  20. Alice Doolan

    I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans etc etc however we eat meat for a reason. There are valuable nutrients in meat that help our body to function and as an ethics student, i believe that as long as that animal has had a respected life then it is fine for us to kill it to eat. We farm these animals on a mass scale for a reason. If their population as a species was low then i wouldn’t eat them, but we need it and until we find a healthy alternative allowing us to gain the same nutrition without killing the animals then I’m afraid we’ll have to keep killing animals.

    Share
  21. reece ascroft

    It is only natural to kill animals for food. Other animals in the wild do it without a second thought and neither should we it may seem cruel to say but we are at the top of the food chain for a good reason.

    Share
  22. Chana Bernstein

    I’m going to start this comment by stating that I am a vegetarian, and my opinion is therefore not biased against you for making that choice. However, for me it is a personal decision and not one that I feel the need to impose on others.

    I completely disagree with your proposal that killing animals is akin to murdering human beings. We are different from animals on so many different levels. It isn’t just our intelligence that sets us apart from other animals. We are capable of making choices that are not just based on instincts that have evolved over time. We are capable of choosing options that may seem worse in the short term, but that we know will have the best long-term benefit. We are capable of putting others above ourselves and suffering discomfort to help others in ways that may be of no benefit whatsoever to ourselves. Yes, animals have a CNS that enables them to feel a few basic, primal emotions: comfort, fear, pain. But there is no way an animal is going to wake up one morning and appreciate the complexity of the world around it, or try to change its environment just because it can, or learn something new just for the sake of knowledge. We are different. Special. And yes, it’s true that with great power comes great responsibility. And maybe we don’t always use that power in the correct way, but overall, we have accomplished some absolutely phenomenal things.

    So, perhaps you are right, and killing animals is immoral. But putting aside whether or not you have the authority to make that call, you absolutely cannot equate killing animals to murdering humans.

    The Holocaust was a terrible tragedy. 13 million innocent people were brutally slaughtered, every single one of whom had hopes, dreams, fears, people they loved, and above all, an infinite world of potential. The numbers are staggering, impossible for us to grasp, and perhaps that is why you are able to compare real people to animals whose entire purpose in life was to end up on somebody’s plate. You just can’t connect with the idea that every single one of those 13 million was a living, breathing human with a life just as complex as your own. But I plead to you: please do not ever make a comparison like this again. The Holocaust is NOT a subject that should be made light of.

    Finally, I just wanted to address your point about the upset caused when a family pet dies. It’s true that we get upset at this, but isn’t it strange that the level of upset is nowhere near that reached when a human family member dies? How peculiar that you can live with a dog for 15 years, yet, miss it less than if you lose a baby whom you have known for a few days? The answer lies back with that fundamental difference between humans and animals. While a human’s death is tragic because we can empathise with them and mourn for everything that could have been, when an animal dies our sorrow is purely selfish. You don’t cry because your dog will never be able to achieve something amazing. You cry because YOU can no longer have the opportunity to look after it.

    You’re right that vegetarianism has many benefits in terms of health, environmental impact, and perhaps moral choice, but you need to reconsider how you argue your point. It isn’t right to just assume that your way is the correct way and that everyone else should follow it.

    Share
  23. Ashley Gray

    I will never become a vegetarian. God says that it is ok to eat meat and I think I place his opinion a lot higher than any person. Meat is good for you, it gives you lot of things which are vital.

    Share
  24. Paul Evans

    Enjoy your choice, but don’t go trying to argue the rest of the world into it, it makes you just as annoying and self righteous as Johovas Witnesses coming door to door.

    Stop ‘legitimate murder’? I won’t even talk about how stupid that phrase is, but stop pointless preaching. Leave me to my Burger and I’ll leave you to your salad. Jeeze.

    Share
    • Oli Coetzee

      This is so true. Thank you for sensible people…

      Share
  25. Abbey Headland

    Yes, eating meat is killing animals, but it is not murder. It is a part of nature. One organism eats another- some eat plants and others eat animals, some eat both. Just by looking at our canines show that we have evolved to eat meat, we are by nature omnivores. Of course in an ideal world there would be no suffering of any kind. But this isn’t an ideal world, it is a world where:
    We farm animals that would be extinct without us, and selectively breed them to make them ‘tastier’.
    We artificially create our own food, like yoghurt or Quorn because we can.
    We test on animals so that we don’t have to suffer ourselves, and sometimes just to look ‘pretty’.
    We domesticate wolves, and now they are labradors, pugs, or poodles, some of us even dress them up in silly outfits.
    We think we’re the most intelligent beings on Earth beause we have technology, schools etc. and don’t know how any other species thinks.
    But we are only human, we have our flaws, and we want to make our own species’ lives better- Its basic survival instincts.

    We cn also be kind, compassionate, loving. We strive to protect endangered animals from ourselves. We attempt to wrong our mistakes. We destroy so many habitats just so we can get paper, but we try to make that more sustainable. We eat meat, but we can’t really stop the mass production or we wouldn’t be able to afford enough to live without malnutrition.
    Why do we eat certain meat? Because it is easy. We have selectively bred it to specifically fit our needs. Also, many people think of pets as family- so by extension eating dogs to a dogowner would probably be half as horrific as eating humans in their eyes. Plus, if you really want to you can eat almost whichever animal you want. But once again it is much easier to eat a chicken than go looking for somewhere that sells horsemeat (unless you went to Tescos last year).
    If you don’t want to eat meat that’s your choice, its certainly more ethical. Just don’t blame me for having sausages for breakfast. Its callled the food chain.

    Share
  26. Nick Mclean Thorsen

    Were top of the food chain, those animals below us in the food chain eat other animals. Humans have been eating meat since they first came around, Im pretty sure when they’re eating meat there not thinking, “Oh this smells like burning flesh, i can’t eat this.” There thinking if i eat this i will survive, being a vegetarian back then wouldn’t get you very far, you need the protein, you wouldn’t survive through the tough times during winter.

    Share
  27. dan bayliss

    eating meat is not murder in my eyes, at the end of the day I can understand why some people believe in being vegetarian and I have nothing against them, however if we all stopped eating animals and meat we would not only be not getting the nutritional value that eating meat gives us but there would be too many animals living and there wouldn’t be enough space. also if we didn’t eat some animals then other animals would become extinct because that’s the way the food chain works. at the and of the day we are at the top of the food chain and that’s the way it should be.

    Share
  28. Jonathan Phillips-Swaray

    The definition of murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. To say that people who are killing animals in order to survive is a bias opinion simply because you’re now a vegetarian. Murder in society is classified as a human unlawfully killing another, we eat to survive some people use meat and alternatives and others only use the alternatives it’s just a way of life.
    We are all human just because I may use beef as a protein supplement and you use nuts (purely example) but it doesn’t mean that I’m a murderer and you a saint.
    We all must be open to opinion and change then embrace them as they come, making such outrageous statements isn’t a way to get your point and view across effectively; with some topics a little subtlety goes a long way

    Share
  29. Skye Jones

    I don’t think its fair to condemn eating meat as ‘the wrong thing to do’, aslong as the animals upbringing and death is as humane as possible I believe it’s the individual’s choice on their choice of diet. The comment about cooking meat smelling like “burning body” is pretty hard to justify, how would you know what that smells like? ‘Cooking meat’ smells different in different ways you cook it.. Nowadays animal right activist have brought about the most humane methods for killing the animals and even if the vegetarians stop eating meat it really doesn’t change anything… of course if the individual is happy being a vegetarian that their choice, just like omnivores.

    Share
  30. caitlin clutton

    if god didn’t want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat then? I know thats silly but animals are a subordinate species, human evolution has exponentially increased due to the high levels of protein (in red meats) that our brains needed to evolve/grow. Granted now we have the means to live a meat free lifestyle what with all those rank meat substitutes, but my view is that if people want to eat meat let them. take out the health factors- its their choice. as long as the animal is reared and killed in a humane and stressless manner then i see no problem. i personally do not eat much meat, just a bit of fish here and there- and the fish trade, thats the sickest and most cruelest of the lot in my opinion. fish are every much animal like as a cow or a hen. people just don’t think of them as animals because they aren’t as cute. I’m ranting and my points are all over the shop. to conclude.
    1. meat is not murder.
    2.a regulated amount of meat in your diet is healthy.
    3. living off vegetables is not necessarily as healthy as people believe
    (and they have sadder lives…i did!)
    4. forcing yourself to be a vegetarian is ludicrous and lunacy, eat what you crave.
    5. again my points are on a tangent.
    i stop.

    Share
  31. Jamie Sweeney

    Humans are omnivorous and so eating meat alongside vegetables is part of humans’ balanced diet. We don’t judge wolves as murderers because they hunt their prey for food, so we shouldn’t judge each other for doing the same thing. As secondary consumers we have a biological birthright to eat other animals. Besides, plants are living things too so where do you draw the line? At animals because they feel pain? There are humane ways of providing meat en masse.

    Share
  32. Ben Chivers

    Humans have evolved to eat meat over thousands of years, it is not socially ‘bred’ into us. Millions of people die every year of starvation who do not have access to meat which is highly nutritious and is something our bodies are specifically designed to eat. I suggest you go to a poverty stricken nation in the third world, give some fresh meat to some starving children and then tell them not to eat it because it is ‘murder’. You can then watch them die of starvation whilst you sit upon your extremely misguided high horse eating a banana.

    Share
  33. Beth Brockman

    Murder? This is human nature. Part of survival, if we didn’t eat certain animals, they wouldn’t be farmed and therefore most likely we wouldn’t have half the animals we do now.

    Share
  34. Hazal Erdogan

    “Legitimate murder” Animals hunt, kill, slay other animals just like we do. it’s a part of nature and survival. Survival of the fittest is what I say

    Share
    • Elidh Devlin-Alce

      Animals kill other animals when they can, and when they need to. They kill only to survive, and eat the whole, or most of the prey. Humans on the other hand can survive easily on a vegetarian diet, and eat much more meat than would be necessary even if we couldn’t. I wouldn’t have a problem with catching and killing an animal in order to survive, but keeping one in captivity it’s whole life, just cause you’d rather have a bacon sandwich than and cheese one, is ridiculous.

      Share
  35. Keri Flynn

    Humans are designed to eat both meat and vegetables. We have canines to prove this. We are omnivores and therefore if we eat meat, alongside a healthy diet, this will not affect the extent of our lives. Whenever I purchase meat or animal produce, I make sure that it is free range so that I can be sure that the animal that it came from had a full and happy life. I refuse to buy anything that has been hunted as this is a cruel way to slaughter an animal. Vegetarianism is a life choice – one that should not be forced upon others and insensitivity compared to the holocaust.

    Share
  36. Tasha Long

    It’s totally different! Animals are here to hunt and be eaten!

    Share
  37. Lena Adams

    The way you’ve worded this article makes it sound like eating meat is a gruesome thing that shouldn’t be allowed in society. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but i have to disagree with it. Eating animals is all apart of the natural food chain; and has been for many centuries. We may not need the meat but its apart of society at this current time.

    Your point is about the fact that meat smells like burning flesh; well i have to again disagree about your opinion because usually when you do cook meat different kinds have different distinctive smells that would most probably never smell like cooked human flesh. Even if this was true it wouldn’t really out people off. For example its common in China for people to eat dogs; this to an extent is what i am against (the consumption of domesticated animals) but this wont stop it happening as people are entitled to their own rights of what they eat.

    Something significant would have to happen in the world for all humans to go veggie or vegan.

    Share
  38. Kieran McCrory

    Ps why do you know what burning bodies smell of?

    Share
  39. Kieran McCrory

    ‘ Legitimate Murder’ did anyone else expect a different topic? I mean of course meat can be considered murder if you want to view it as such. However, in my eyes there are more pressing, important examples of legitimate murder: war; famine accentuated by the greedy masses; drought caused by the riches reluctance to invest in infrastructure that doesn’t help them… There could be more examples given but I believe there is none more poignant than war. War occurs across the world, away from western eyes and on some seemingly barren land thousands of miles away. We celebrate the people who go to other countries to murder. This is the loss of human beings lives over pure greed, not for food and not to eat. So i beg the author and any other vegetarian writing about ‘legitimate murder’ don’t just talk about the animals being killed for food and medicine and some clothing amongst other uses, talk of the more serious issue of man killing man for benefits known to none other than the super rich elite. Don’t insult the lives of thousands of innocent humans and the memories of their families by viewing the death of animals as a more important theme for legitimate murder.

    Share
    • Julline Lagorio

      Red Herring Fallacy: when a person argues an entirely different topic and/or expresses the view that something else in the world is worse and therefore needs our attention more.

      I’ve learned/changed a lot since writing this (and am currently working on a revised, less refutable and less offensive version of “Legitimate Murder”) and so am not responding to comments anymore. However, I would point out that your comment is a clearly fallacious one (see my definition of a Red Herring Fallacy, above).
      Perhaps your point was in fact that I titled the article misleadingly, in which case I would argue that many articles are titled misleadingly, especially opinion-based articles.

      Share
  40. Rhioni Davies

    Everybody commenting on this saying that they are worried about how the author knows what burning flesh smells like seems to be forgetting that meat IS flesh. Meat is a euphemism for flesh and it has five components: BLOOD, FLESH, VEINS, MUSCLES and TENDONS. That is what you people are ingesting.

    Milk is a secretion that oozes from the mammary glands of another species which is absolutely full of pus and blood by the way.

    Beef is cow flesh, egg is a period that has come out of a hen’s ASS etc.

    But of course nobody wants to eat chicken period for breakfast or cow flesh for dinner and have a lovely glass of pus filled cow secretion before bed so we make up these little euphemisms so we don’t have to think about what we’re actually putting into our systems.

    People need to wake up and connect the dots. GO VEGAN.

    Share
  41. Emily A\'Court

    Completely over dramatic. Our ancestors have been eating meat since the beginning of our existance and have retained their health doing so. Animals do not have concious understading like humans do and although I do empathise with the fact that they have the capacity to feel pain, eating bacon is entirely different to eating a family member as you mentionned above. You will never get through to people if you insult their humanity and bombard them with crude pictures and offensive assumptions.

    Share
  42. Rhianna Greenley

    If some mammals had the chance they would eat us in their habitat, it’s the same thing. You ate meat, why? Because it’s available. Human meat is not available in supermarkets (I hope not anyway!) so we don’t go around killing our own species to eat, we look for other sources of food as we need a balanced diet, and as a vegetarian I am sure you need to take supplements as you cannot live healthy without the nutrients and protein that meat provides us with. I am not saying theres anything wrong with being a vegetarian but you need to think of the other side of the story before accusing the meat eaters out there as “legitimate murderers”, I have the understanding that the definition of murder is the “Unlawful killing of a reasonable PERSON in being”.
    It’s the circle of life.
    Happens between animals and humans, vegetarian or not it will still happen.

    Share
  43. Alana Kiss

    Thank you for this! Meat eaters are in such denial

    Share
  44. rebecca knight

    I understand where you are coming from, however I am more concerned that you actually know what burning flesh smells like so you can compare it to cooking meat.

    It is possible that it was an innocent comparison however I have to disagree because there is a difference between MEAT and FLESH. for example I have read in many places that the human flesh being burnt is foul, it smells almost toxic where as if you were to cook chicken, bacon or beef it smells delicious and mouth watering.

    Share
  45. For the record, I am vegetarian

    I must admit that I don’t share your terribly dramatic view but I don’t really care enough to put together any sort if argument on the issue. However, I am concerned that you know what burning flesh smells like. (Unless you’ve just assumed that meat being cooked smells the same as flesh, or by your logic meat, being burnt in which case I would like to suggest that perhaps you are wrong. I have read that burning flesh smells very offensive where as i know from ecoerience thar bacon being cooked smells heavenly.)

    Share
  46. Becca Oliver

    I feel as though people should have the right to choose whether or not they are vegetarian, I live with 3 vegetarians, and there are only 2 of us who are not. Additionally, my best friend is a vegetarian, along side her Mother.
    I eat the same things as they do most of the time, however if I want to go out and eat some chicken nuggets, they do not have a problem with that. It is a lifestyle choice whether or not you eat meat, or do not eat meat, and no one should have the right to call meat eaters monsters for eating meats. Animals eat other animals, it is part of the food cycle. I understand that people who specifically like animals do not want to eat meat, however that does not mean the rest of us should not. We do not force meat eating upon you, and therefore you should not force a vegetarian lifestyle upon us

    Share
  47. Louise Herron

    I’m vegan (because I choose to be vegetarian and I’m dairy intolerant) I have SO much more energy than meat eating friends do.

    It tastes good is such a poor, pathetic, selfish and inhuman view.
    Like meat eaters give a damn about their nutritional intake and lecture us on it. I’m way more aware of what I eat and I don’t put crap in my body.

    Share
    • rebecca knight

      I understand where you are coming from however what would you do if you were in a situation and there was nothing to eat but meat, I only ask because it happened to a friend of mine and he was forced to eat meat or starve.

      Share
    • dan bayliss

      that’s your own opinion at the end of the day, you’re right some meat eaters just say the excuse about nutrition just to have an argument, but has been proven that meat gives certain nutrition that no amounts of other food will give you, so in my opinion you seem very narrow minded and need to broaden your horizon!

      Share
  48. Matthew Davis

    You should probably read up on evolutionary biology. Eating meat ultimately gave us a better source of nutrition and allowed us to survive in harsher climates. This in turn allowed us to turn our efforts to other things such as art, music, science, and technology. You don’t see cows developing these higher forms of cognitive function because they are too busy munching grass every waking moment. You’re right though; it’s legitimate murder, and I do try to pick free range items so at least they have a respectable quality of life. Enjoy your lethargic existence, even if it lasts 10 years longer than mine. Welcome to the food chain.

    Share
  49. arthur caulfield

    If you live on Lima beans and bean sprouts, and i live on Lima beans, bean sprouts, and chicken, and we live the same life style, I am undoubtedly going to be healthier than you and my consciousness is clean because, unfortunately for you, we are animals, we kill and we are animals, but you don’t complain when a lion kills a deer…
    I don’t “WANT” you to eat meat, i just suggest you do, for your health.

    Share
    • Alana Kiss

      Humans don’t have to eat meat, we have the choice to do the moral thing, whereas other animals do not. Also, vegetarians are on average a lot healthier than meat eaters on average. You might be healthier than the average, but then you would be the exception.

      Share
  50. Joshua Strange

    Meat – Protein – Required substance for the body.
    I agree with you on the fact that:
    Meat is Murder. Tasty, tasty murder.

    Share
  51. Ben Brophy

    The argument here seems to completely revolve around smell and taste, the scientific fact that we need meat to survive and develop correctly seems to have been ignored here???

    Share
    • Dina

      I haven’t had any meat for six months (not because I think there is anything wrong with it but I’ve been in england the whole time and I am not eating european meat, that’s just gross) and yet I’m still alive, my haemoglobin count is 122, which is perfectly healthy despite the fact that I’m pregnant (which can often cause a drop) and my baby is doing very well (even slightly above average size for it’s age) so clearly, we don’t actually need it.

      Share
  52. Anthony Jeffree

    The arguments against meat eating in this article are utterly nonsensical. Meat mustn’t taste good else why would we spice it sometimes? The exact same can be said for anything that can be spiced, including anything on the veggie menu. And I’ll take my bacon as it is, thanks. The issue is that we’ve evolved to eat meat, it’s good for us so our brains reward us when we ingest it, so perhaps in today’s society we eat it in excess. However, the argument against it that it smells ‘like burning bodies’ is ridiculous. Would you deny yourself flu medicine if it smelt bad (it does). What about the cure for something like Scarlet Fever, would you deny it to the population purely based on scent? So I hope we agree that ignoring a food item’s benefits due to smell is silly. Okay, on to the suffering of animals. We eat animals rather than humans because they can’t suffer as much as us, they don’t have the capacity for it biologically, but they can come close. I’m also pretty sure that cannibalism is bad cultural practice in a natural selection sense for bodies as large as ours. Now we’ve cleared that up, I totally agree that having to kill the animals is lamentable. But swearing off them and trying to make everyone else do the same will be ineffective, and doesn’t solve the problem. It would be like the Catholic Church trying to get everyone to swear off sex because it’s evil, or because it gives them AIDS. Oh, wait, they tried that. And it failed miserably. The solution is to realise that sex isn’t sinful, but to try and make it safe for everyone (condoms etc). Apply the same here. Eating meat isn’t objectively evil, but the suffering of animals is unfortunate, so what can be done to mitigate the animal involvement? The answer, as usual, lies in science. We now have the technology, on a small scale, to culture meat tissues the same way you might grow a bacterial colony. Just tissue, growing totally on its own, no Central Nervous System. I say rather than preach vegetarianism, put your voice behind this research. Tell your friends about it, donate to it, for the only sustainable way to feed everyone their proper dietary requirements suffering-free and climate-change free (look up how much methane dairy cows produce).

    Share
  53. Jade Taylor

    I stopped eating meat years ago because I found out what horrible conditions most of these animals are kept in and in some cases its really inhumane but I don’t view people that eat meat as murderers, that is such a ridiculous unfounded view. Humans are just part of the food chain so to call us murderers is to call Lions, cats and Wolves murderers as well. I don’t see a problem with people eating meat so long as the animals have been treated well during their life and were killed as humanely as possible.
    This made me laugh “There are many ways to cook meat, all of which make eating it a more palatable experience, all of which leave a house smelling of burning bodies. If meat were so good, why fry or roast it in oil or layer it with spices? Why not eat it raw? There is an obvious answer: meat is not appetising – the spices are.” WTH burning bodies?! when has she ever smelt a burning body I know I haven’t, to address the question of why don’t we eat raw meat? Well we don’t eat raw meat because of the possibility of bacteria being in it, we cook it to make it safe like we cook rice to make it safe to eat – we don’t cook it for the sole reason of making it more appetising as she suggests.
    I don’t know what she was trying to achieve with this “article” but whatever it was she sure as hell has not achieved it.

    Share
    • Angharad Drew

      Seriously, I have no problems with vegetarians or vegan let me put that out there, in fact I was a vegetarian for a few years and my mum and brother are currently vegetarian. We don’t cook meat to make it more palatable, the majority of the time we cook it to kill of bacteria, parasites and toxins that may be lurking in the food (a fact that also applies to some vegetables, BTW i’m a microbiologist so I’m not talking out of my arse). There are several varieties of meat/fish that we do not cook (sashimi, steak tartar, carpaccio, etc) and many people enjoy their steaks rare (I prefer mine blue :D). Admittedly some meat is produced from animals kept in horrid conditions but many people are much more aware of this and now buy free range only. Again with milk and eggs this applies. In fact I have my own chickens, and let me tell you they are treated as extensions of the family and the eggs are all the more delicious for it. Oh and egg laying chickens are very rarely just killed for their meat when they stop laying because they aren’t breed for their meat, just in the same way that meat chickens aren’t used for their eggs (meat chickens often lay fewer eggs than those that are breed as egg layers). Please get your facts straight before putting your opinions out there. How often do you see meat eater with signs in the street saying that you should eat meat, the answer very rarely. However a number of vegetarians and vegans are very pushy when it comes to their food beliefs.

      How many vegetarians think before they buy vegetables from abroad that have likely been farmed by underpaid workers? Is this not as immoral as eating a battery farmed chicken?

      We as humans are designed to omnivorous, but it doesn’t mean you have to eat meat. It’s a decision just like any other. Why is it acceptable for vegetarians/vegans to push their ideals in other faces, when it is frowned upon for religious groups to do the same thing?

      If you truly believe that eating meat it cruel and we should just leave animals to their own devices then I hope you haven’t been vaccinated against polio. I hope your cosmetics products, and all components of them, are animal cruelty free. I hope the next time you get a severe infection you don’t treat it with antibiotics. I hope that next time you have a migraine/are in pain you don’t take any form of pain relief.

      I want to reiterate I have the utmost respect for vegetarians/vegans, but please do your research before pushing your opinions on other people. Better yet, get on with your own life and allow others to get on with theirs.

      Share
  54. Rhioni Davies

    I’m a vegan and whilst I think it’s great that your abstaining from eating meat, I strongly recommend that you consider a vegan diet. You’re on the right path to being cruelty free but by consuming eggs and dairy your are still contributing to the problem because the animals are still being enslaved, treated horrifically and are still slaughtered for meat once they are deemed unproductive. Here’s and excellent website with all the information you need! http://www.adaptt.org/

    Share
  55. Kevin Madden

    Animals taste all different. maybe our great great great ancestors ate chicken,lamb,cow but not dog,cat or horse. Therefore we are ‘adapted’ to like such meats. If an animal were to die his body would decay and rot, eating these animals is just reusing their bodys, in order to fill our hunger. So i fail to see how bad you think it is.

    Share
  56. Ben Weber

    We are meant to eat meat, not eating meat can lead to negative health impacts, as we evolved to consume meat. The only problem with it is producing enough meat for everyone damages the environment. If you consider eating meat murder, I suggest you go and perform a citizens arrest on a dog or a cat, as they are even more carnivorous than us.

    Share
  57. Lukasz Malec

    That sucks about the internet – everybody can say whatever their say and their dumb opinion is as visible as a legitimate one.

    It’s food, it’s meant to be eaten, if in Europe we weren’t freaking out about it so much I would totally try a dog – animal like every other and can be eaten.

    Share
  58. cara

    I’m a vegetarian but if you compare eating meat to the Holocaust, you just show yourself to be ignorant and insensitive.

    Share
  59. Ruth Dickson

    The definition of murder is ‘the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another’, so eating meat simply is not murder! I do agree that meat eaters should be able to face their food and be able to prepare it themselves, but if you can do that you’re fine by me! And comparing the consumption of meat to the holocaust cheapens the suffering of those who endured it, and cheapens your cause at the same time.

    Share
  60. Ali Kondwilkar

    Humans have both types of teeth.
    We are designed to eat meat.
    We are at the top of the food chain.
    The only entity that is above us is God.
    God says you can eat certain types of meat.
    As long as you slaughter them humanely.
    Moral of the story: Meat does not equal murder.

    Share
  61. Andrew Haywood

    This is the least eloquent article I have ever read on the subject. A child could construct a better argument than you have. If you have any ambitions to go in to journalism or writing of any kind, abandon them now.

    Share
  62. Richard KElly

    I try to be as empathetic and tolerant of other views and beliefs as possible, but this frankly sensationalist article is full of conjecture. To compare the “murder” of animals to the mass genocide and persecution of the Jews is a Plath-esque absurdity. Not only could that be construed as offensive to Jews, but offensive to humanity, I am personally offended.
    You talk as if animals are equal in all ways to Humans, and yes we have the capacity to form close bonds with our pets whilst being able eating meat, what a moral dilemma! But I don’t care for my Mother the same way I do for my pets.
    Many creatures of the animal kingdom have no qualms killing and eating not only other species but each other, granted we are of a higher intelligence and have a responsibility to farm sustainably and prevent the unnecessary pain and harm of animals but to deny a very base desire of the human race to eat meat is ridiculous. You have the gift of being able to choose not to eat meat, but don’t condemn those that do. Many people in the poorer parts of the world would relish the chance to enjoy the sustanence that meat provides.
    Also we cook meat because it kills germs and is more digestible, the reason it tastes better is because as a race have become accustomed to cooking meat from a very early age and know no different. We have evolved to eat meat and less greenery, hence why we have canines to bite, and as they’ve become obsolete not everyone has wisdom teeth which would’ve been used to chew hard to digest foliage. I could go on but I feel I’ve made a point, whilst your article didn’t lack in passion it lacked it fact and logic.

    Share
  63. Megan Ward

    I was a was a vegetarian from the age of 7 (for a couple of years I did eat fish) up until August last year at the age of 19. One day I just no longer saw the point, if you eat high grade welfare assured meat you can be safe in the knowledge the animal did not suffer. Yes we have been directed into only eating some meats as opposed to others but so what? That’s life meat is meat, the world isn’t. Going to change why go against it. At the end of the day we are all animals. And it is animalistic behaviour which occurs natural in nature to kill for nutrition.

    Share
  64. Dave

    By claiming that eating meat is equivalent to eating people you are overstating your case. Imagine you were in a burning building and had to choose between rescuing your five year old human child or your pet hamster. Trying to rescue both would be impractical and whichever one you leave will almost certainly die. Who would you save? I think that most people would agree that this is a no-brainer and yet if that is so then you would have to concede that a human life is worth more than an animal’s. Now whether a human life is worth so much more than an animal’s that eating meet is justified is another question however by overstating your case you lose any legitimate point you may have.

    Share
    • Vegan Sarah

      That’s the most stupid thing i’ve every read. Ofcourse an animals life is worth just as much as a persons and if I had to chose between saving a human child or a pet hamsters I would find it a very difficult choice. I would only save the child because the law says I would have to. Luckily it is not going to happen in real life. Only evil people eat meat.

      Share
      • Anthony Jeffree

        In reply to ‘vegan Sarah’ if you’d have serious trouble choosing between your own five-year-old child and a hamster then I suggest you probably have serious sociopathic issues. The child feels so much more suffering than the hamster ever could, and the child has the potential to bring much more wellbeing to humans and animals it knows for the rest of its life. Ignoring evolutionary pressures, the clear moral precedent is on saving the child.

        Share
    • Sophie

      I think the point the writer was making (and the point the majority of vegetarians are making) is that wanting an animal to die for your plate is not justified. Allowing an animal to die in a life-or-death situation i.e.a house fire in order for your children to live is a completely different situation and no comparison can or should be made. One choice is sensible, the other ignorant, greedy and more importantly, unnecessary in our civilised and advanced country.

      Share
      • Dave

        But, Sophie, if that’s the point that the author of article wants to make then why use over the top language comparing eating meet with eating family members? My point was simply that letting an animal die is not as immoral as letting a human die and therefore eating a ham sandwich is not as immoral as eating your brother or sister. I’m grateful that you haven’t tried to compare me to Hitler et al in your comment but feel the need to respond the zealous vegans, such as the author of this article, who do.
        Now as it happens I’d also disagree that eating meat is unjustified. Animals get killed as a result of eating vegetables (through pesticides, destroying natural habitats for farmland, getting caught in farm machinery during harvesting etc) Why is killing animals directly not justified whilst indirectly killing them o.k?

        Share
  65. Romilly Close

    Frankly I can’t believe you just compared eating meat to the Apartheid and the Holocaust! Nice bit of false equivalency wrapped in racist, anti-semitic sentiment

    Share
    • Sophie

      The writer is obviously very passionate about her subject, but I agree with you in the fact that she took some of her comparisons a little too far! I would just like to defend the Vegetarian Community and say that many of us encourage eating less meat and more plant-based products by promoting the benefits and I personally do not advocate this kind of speech where those who have chosen other diets are shunned. Vegetarians with these extreme views unfortunately contribute a great deal to our bad name and I would like to end by reassuring the meat-eaters out there that we are not all angry hippies with extreme views!

      Share
  66. Raphael

    What utter twaddle, I’m not going to lie I didn’t read all of it (I couldn’t stomach it). But I did get down to the bit on how we cook meat and yes it is more palatable. But honestly I like my steak hot, bloody and fresh from the beast it came from. Its NORMAL to eat meat. What isnt normal is to have these silly extremest ideas. DO WHAT YOU WANT, THINK WHAT YOU WANT, BUT DO NOT PUBLICLY THROW YOUR IDEALS AROUND FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO SEE.

    Share
  67. Ozzy

    This article goes way beyond ridiculous (however I would give credit to you for your clear effort).
    Lets imagine a society where no meat is eaten of any animal. So firstly, we have over crowd of animals because you cant really give them contraception! Secondly, if all humans decide to eat plants, etc (and since we have more authority in this world) the poor animals will not have much food to eat since humans are being selfish and ate all their food. Thirdly, not only would humans lack nutrition but very bland food! Finally, your argument is very flawed with regards to the natural way to the Apartheid system in Africa only existed for a certain time whereas humans since the beginning of time have been eating animals.
    Also, I would never eat a human, just like a tiger would never eat a tiger so the base of the argument is even more flawed :/

    Share
  68. Jasmin

    how frequently do you burn human bodies?

    Share
  69. Ragnar Kristjansson

    Quite frankly, not a single valid point is raised in this article. It is a soup of your own elitist opinions and total lack of understanding of this issue. Please fact check before you throw this garbage onto the internet for all to see. Vegetarians live a whole ten years longer?? Source please. Also, I’d take a look at the huge negative environmental impacts of crop farming, as well as the associated body count. I’m sure you care about rabbits, field mice and the like as well, or are you only concerned with the deaths of certain animals? I smell hypocrisy, and it smells worse than your so called burning bodies.

    Share
  70. Daniel R

    I don’t have a problem morally with murder with good cause. If am hungery then killing another animal for food is fair enough with me. As long as much of the body as possible is put to good use and respect is shown. My main problem with modern times is the amount that goes to waste and how disconnected people are. I’ve done fishing before and when I have the time someday am going to go hunting, probably with bow,arrows and traps. That way I’ve got my hands dirty and completed the full cycle myself the old way. That’s the way it really should be but the way things are its very difficult and inconveinent to do so which is really the root cause of this entire arguement.

    Share
  71. Cameron Hector

    I really don’t agree with very much on this article, well-written though it might be.

    Firstly, comparing eating meat to murder is pointless. Carnivorism is a natural part of nature, why should it be wrong that we eat meat when thousands of other species do?

    Secondly, as a species we evolved to eat meat as a response to our environment – meat is more calorie-rich than the vegetation so we evolved to eat meat. Also, the eating of meat has led us to where we are today (due to the amino acids that promote brain growth) so actually, your ability to make this point at all, much less on a computer, comes from millions of years of meat-eating.

    Killing members of your own species is stupid. Comparing it to hunting for food is therefore a stupid argument.

    As someone else mentioned, the cooking of meat is more often than not a way of making it more edible. It also enhances the flavour – akin to putting a sauce on a salad. Do you mean to tell us that you would deny yourself the salad simply because by putting a sauce on it you are no longer tasting only the salad?

    Society hasn’t bred an acceptance of eating certain animals – we are sad if our pets die because of an emotional bond with the individual animal. Meat-eater or not, if your dog dies you’re sad because it is your companion. I’d also like you to explain how lambs – famed for going well with mint sauce – can’t be seen as ‘cute’ animals.

    Just because animals RESPONDS to pain doesn’t mean it experiences it as we do. To equate human experience with animal experience is foolish, there are inherrent differances. This doesn’t legitimise mass-killing, but the animals bred for food would not exist at all if not for the industry. You veggie-types think you’re doing the animals a favour by promoting meat-abstinence, but what you’re actually doing is condemning trillions to non-existence.

    I’d like to see your sources for the “Vegetarians live longer” crap, because that’s a correlational finding – there is no proof that vegetarianism is in fact the cause of the longevity. I also highly doubt vegans live 15 years longer, as their nutritional intake is highly stunted.

    My final point is that if you want intelligent people to care about your argument, don’t write a one-sided, impassioned rant about the evils of meat. No-one cares.

    Share
    • Julline L

      “why should it be wrong that we eat meat when thousands of other species do?”
      If other species jumped off cliffs, would you? Clichés aside, just because other species do things, it doesn’t make it right for our species. Take the oppression of females: other species see no problem with this, yet many humans do.

      As for the point on nutrients, we can get the same nutrients from vegetables and other food sources.

      “Killing members of your own species is stupid. Comparing it to hunting for food is therefore a stupid argument.”
      An interesting point, though you don’t say why killing members of our own species is stupid.

      (I’ll reply to the rest, later)

      Thank you for saying the article was well-written and thank you for your comment :)

      Share
    • Julline L

      “As someone else mentioned, the cooking of meat is more often than not a way of making it more edible. It also enhances the flavour – akin to putting a sauce on a salad. Do you mean to tell us that you would deny yourself the salad simply because by putting a sauce on it you are no longer tasting only the salad?”
      What I’m saying is that a raw cabbage or banana on a plate causes no disturbance; a dead animal on a plate would, because it would bring the animal’s death (and therefore the value of its life) a lot closer to home. Also, raw chicken is repulsive, nobody I know would eat it, whereas raw cucumber is not in the least revolting – is this perhaps an indication of whether we are naturally inclined to eating each thing? I certainly think so.

      “Society hasn’t bred an acceptance of eating certain animals – we are sad if our pets die because of an emotional bond with the individual animal. Meat-eater or not, if your dog dies you’re sad because it is your companion.”
      Surely that’s even more reason for vegetarianism: there is potential for any animal to be a pet and therefore potential for sadness in any animal’s death. If this is the case, why eat something with which you could have had an emotional bond?

      “I’d also like you to explain how lambs – famed for going well with mint sauce – can’t be seen as ‘cute’ animals.”
      Lambs and deer were actually in my mind when I spoke about cute animals. Many people have said to me that they couldn’t eat those animals because they are so cute or innocent. These were the people to whom I was referring, when I made this particular comment.

      “Just because animals RESPONDS to pain doesn’t mean it experiences it as we do. To equate human experience with animal experience is foolish, there are inherrent differances.”
      If you were to give me examples of these differences, I could perhaps concede.

      “This doesn’t legitimise mass-killing, but the animals bred for food would not exist at all if not for the industry. You veggie-types think you’re doing the animals a favour by promoting meat-abstinence, but what you’re actually doing is condemning trillions to non-existence.”
      As I’ve said, the meat industry would slowly diminish and, with that, farmers would breed less and less animals. It’s not as if there’d be a mass kull.

      “I’d like to see your sources for the “Vegetarians live longer” crap, because that’s a correlational finding – there is no proof that vegetarianism is in fact the cause of the longevity. I also highly doubt vegans live 15 years longer, as their nutritional intake is highly stunted.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk
      http://www.thestar.com.my/Lifestyle/Health/Nutrition/2013/06/05/Vegetarians-live-longer-and-prosper.aspx
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/vegetarians-death-premature-longevity-live-longer_n_3380781.html
      “My final point is that if you want intelligent people to care about your argument, don’t write a one-sided, impassioned rant about the evils of meat. No-one cares.”
      MY final point is that if “No-one cares.”, why are you responding to my article? Surely you’d just brush it aside, if you didn’t care.

      Share
      • Michael O\'Donnell

        Hmmmm, an interesting set of arguments and counter arguments but overall its all wasted.

        Firstly anyone who cares about being a veggie, is already a veggie, anyone who doesn’t care, isnt one. This means that, alot of hot air has been wasted on expressing a desire for change when, lets be honest, nothing is going to change. Now my turn to contribute to the hot air festival.

        Lets look at the first part of this. Burning bodies and what not. Well to back your point up, many firemen cant eat pork due to the smelly of a human is very similar to sweet pork. So we have now eliminated pork from the menu, however. What about all the other meats? Beef, chicken, lamb. These do not smell like pork, therefore not like burning bodies. What im trying to say here is, please dont use such sweeping statements, especially when there are alot of people who will have smelt a real burning body due to unfortunate accidents.

        Lets look at another section, ah yes. Murder. Murder is when a person premeditates the killing of another person. Seeing as by person we mean a member of the human species then we cant murder animals. Anyhow, lets look at this slightly differently, lets say instead of killing the animals, we let them live full lives, they die naturally, then we eat them. Are we still bad people for eating meat? because unfortunately you have condemned all those people who do just this. And people do do this, Ever heard of people eating road kill? Or the left overs from animal vs animal fights in the wild? So in this littel twisting of your words, i have eliminated a reason for your argument, the suffering component. Unless of course your now gonna say that eating the body prevents them from going to animal heaven…….

        Right so now animals live full lives etc and we eat them after natural causes. Wait ou ask, why still eat them, what about veggies. Well heres the thing. science, as you liked to quote near the end, dictates that humans can not produce amino acids. we must injest these. Now lets look a t plants vs animals here. Animals are made of stupid amount of amino acids. I cant be bothered to quote numbers but im sure plants dont quite contain as much. This means to get our guideline daily amount we would need to eat ridiculous amounts of plant matter. Currently we barley feed the human population, if everyone suddenly had to eat plants, then we would not be able to feed the human population.

        15 years, think of all the things you can do in 15 years. Its a pity that your lying. If this was true then, why does 90% of nutrition and medical experts say that a healthy diet requires high protein substances then they give examples of meat.

        Personally i think this is a troll just to see how many people they can get to argue or agree with them just for the sake of annoying the greater community, however. One final thing i would like to say. no matter what you reply to this comment, it will be 100% invalid becuase you used the killing of the jews as an argument point. sorry love but, there are some lines you dont cross

        Share
    • Sophie

      one of many if you (and others) are interested: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261382.php

      Share
  72. Nora

    I am a meat eater as I believe anything in moderation is reasonable which is no longer the case for many. I think there has been a major desensitisation towards meat in the past century with many city children not understanding that their burgers come from a living animal. I feel that in order to meat you should take responsibility for the live you take and be willing to slaughter (with aid to insure the least suffering possible) and prepare and animal in order to eat it. This would give greater value to meat eaten as well as respect. This is just as people who are unwilling to work for money should not spend it.

    This does not directly address you blatant accusation but this is my position on the matter.

    Share
    • Julline L

      “people who are unwilling to work for money should not spend it”
      Very true! That’s what I was saying, when I spoke about my not being able to harm animals. Thank you for your comment :D

      Share
  73. Cal Price

    Interesting argument but one I strongly oppose.

    Firstly, how can you possible equate eating family members with eating animals? There is just nothing to equate these two things on so many different levels. Even comparing eating animals with eating any human is far-fetched because of the difference between animals and humans; one that Immanuel Kant said was that humans have a unique ability to use powers of deduction and reason, and are autonomous therefore as opposed to animals who aren’t and are therefore excluded from any moral community. You may not agree with this so take another famous moral argument from a Utilitarian perspective (based on “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”, as animals are sentient and can experience happiness) that eating meat is wrong only if the animal suffers, which I do happen to agree with, but if the animal has been raised well and killed quickly and painlessly (as many are, especially in farms priding themselves on being ‘free range’ or ‘organic’ or with other such terms) and another animal is brought into the world so that the balance of happiness is still the same then this is not immoral.
    Also, you say that we should “stop farming”, but then we lose the majority of the animals that are being raised to be eaten. These animals, sheep, pigs, cows etc are being raised for their produce and if we no longer required their produce then we would no longer require them.

    The article is very well-written though, I just don’t happen to agree :)

    Share
    • Julline L

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
      It’s very possible that animals do have a sense of morality. As for eating animals and eating humans, they’re entirely comparable: both are animals who have meat and could be killed for it, should we choose to do so; both smell like burning flesh when they cook; both acts of killing are grotesque.

      As for the utilitarian principle, I don’t really agree with that for several reasons: What constitutes happiness? How do we measure the amount of happiness? What if happiness is not the desired outcome of any activity? What if one animal is a happy animal and is very content in its way of life, then it dies to be replaced by another animal who is generally a lot less happy about things? What if the numbers of people and animals unhappy with the meat industry outweight the numbers of those happy with it? Etc…

      As for losing the majority of animals, it would be a gradual decrease in the numbers of meat-eaters, which farms would allow for over time. It’s not like the animals would become extinct — there would be less and less bred until an eventual end to farming, after which point the animals would exist in the numbers for which nature allowed.

      Thank you for the compliments :D

      Share
  74. Adam Mcareavy

    Hey, how do you know if somebody is a vegetarian?

    They take a “holier than thou” approach to all aspects of their life, they believe we should care what they think as they force their silly points (and some salad) down your throat, their points are exaggerated and ridiculous and oh yeah, they’ll tell you. Guess what? The meat industry isn’t going anywhere, it’s been here for a few thousand years, it’ll be here for a few thousand more and despite your complaining you haven’t changed a single person’s life. Poorly written article with no attempt to give the other side of the argument whatsoever, you’ve got a great future in tabloids!

    Now off to enjoy a well done sirloin and beer.

    Share
    • Julline L

      What a reasoned response…
      Your response is just a string of insults but I’ll try to reply in the best way I can.

      Firstly, I don’t think I’m superior in any way to any other animal — part of me being a vegetarian is that I realise that two lives are of equal value and there is no distinction on grounds of “worth”.
      Also, the rising number of vegetarians and vegans would disagree that the meat industry isn’t going to change. The numbers of meat-eaters are declining and, as they do, the meat industry does.
      As for not giving the other side of the argument, of course I wouldn’t do that — it was a persuasive piece.

      Thank you for your comment.

      Share
  75. Andrew

    While I think you make some good points, it’s clear that your passion on the subject may be making your points a bit hard to digest. Who wants to freely convert a lifetime of innocent eating into a lifetime of crushing guilt once you force their ‘realisation’? The chant of ‘meat is murder’ may be what you truly think, but using it only lessons the amount of people you could potentially convert. Mr Morrissey of The Smiths has probably put off as many people from vegetarianism as he has turned towards it with his radical words. Many more would probably have joined the vegeterian movement if the difference in mindset wasn’t so marked. Why make it out to be such a dramatic, moralising, life changing stance when in reality it is only a simple dietary change? There are probably plenty of people that don’t eat meat, yet care little for the wellfare of animals or the title of vegetarian.

    Share
    • Julline L

      Andrew, have you ever seen anybody win a debate without passion? All good arguments come across as passionate, yet reasoned. As long as the passion of the argument does not compromise the reason and evidence for it, I don’t think it matters if it’s passionate.
      As for the “radical” nature of the phrase “meat is murder”, I personally do not think it is at all radical — just true. However, it has been pointed out to me that it is likely to sway some people in the opposite direction.
      As for the difference in mindset, I don’t know anybody who doesn’t eat meat yet cares little for animals. I think that’s an unfair assumption to make, without any evidence. The point in vegetarianism is that it IS a massive change in mindset: for most, it is the realisation that an animal is as concerned with his/her life as a human is with his/hers and that the lives are equal and should therefore be treated as such. It is not a simple dietary change — if it were, why would it be so difficult for any vegetarian to eat meat again, once becoming vegetarian? It is so difficult because the switch to vegetarianism (and therefore the switch back) is a change in mindset. If it were such a simple dietary change, it would be easy to switch back.

      Share
      • Andrew

        Passion isn’t a bad thing, agreed, but when converting someone to vegetarianism they surely have to be made to feel bad before they can change their ways and feel good about it, no? Remember that the majority of meat eaters didn’t make an active decision to start. They would have been fed meat long before they even understood where it came from, so at most you can blame the suppliers. Also, I warn you against quoting Morrissey on the subject, as his angry statments always generate a shocked backlash. Don’t throw your lot in with the man who said the Norway massacre was ‘Nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s’. When you mention the holocaust you come dangerously close to breaking Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies. Don’t get me wrong, youre heart is definitely in the right place, but if your approach was milder I think you’d find more agreement!

        Share
        • Julline L

          “when converting someone to vegetarianism they surely have to be made to feel bad before they can change their ways and feel good about it, no?”
          You’re entirely right — but that’s why passion is needed.

          “Remember that the majority of meat eaters didn’t make an active decision to start. They would have been fed meat long before they even understood where it came from, so at most you can blame the suppliers.”
          I understand that the majority of meat eaters didn’t decide to start. That’s where the gap between consumer and murderer comes in. I do blame the suppliers (especially those of cow and chicken — can’t wait to go vegan!) but I think people should be aware of what happens for the meat to be on their plate.

          “Also, I warn you against quoting Morrissey on the subject, as his angry statments always generate a shocked backlash. Don’t throw your lot in with the man who said the Norway massacre was ‘Nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s’.”
          Honestly, comparing numbers, he’s right. If one considers the life of an animal as equal to the life of a human, it is clear that what happens in McDonald’s IS worse.

          “When you mention the holocaust you come dangerously close to breaking Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies.”
          I have been told about Godwin’s Law before (and frankly don’t agree that nothing could be as bad as the holocaust — though I do realise it is a sensitive topic). When I spoke about the holocaust, there was no comparison: I stated that there is outrage over the slaughter of humans but not other animals and I questioned the reason.

          Share
  76. Andrew Adshead

    We cook meat, not to make it palatable but to make it edible, over thousands of years our gut has changed and we have become susceptible to forms of bacteria cooking eradicates these making the food safe to eat. It also adds variety of flavour to a diet, our palates and diets have evolved to a point where eating is no longer just a necessity but also a pleasure, we have discovered many ways to adapt food stuffs(meat and vegetables alike), spicing, cooking, preparation etc. to add variety to our diets and in turn our lives. Yes, in that respect it can be perceived as frivolous but that activity is not reserved solely for meat. On your transition to veganism I’m sure that you won’t abandon the variety of ways in which you can prepare your food.

    The debate on Omnivorism/Vegeterianism/Veganism always leads me to pose the question, in pursuit of sustaining humanity what activity isn’t murder? Farming practices around the world destroy habitat for our own gain, many species of animals (animals we don’t consume) are on the verge of extinction because of our need for land. Swathes of forests and jungle are destroyed everyday to produce farmland for animals, grain production, soya production (a large culprit, partly due to animal feed but also our increasing reliance on the product for our own consumption), and that doesn’t even include our reliance on wood for furniture and paper production. It seems, to me at least, somewhat hypocritical to single meat eaters out as murders when farming practices for all forms of food production are just as guilty.
    We live in a time where we fly fruits and vegetables half way around the planet so that once seasonal varieties can grace our supermarket shelves all year round, often at the expense of the ecosystems and local cultures where they have been grown. You only have to Google the ethics of purchasing Quinoa to see the damage western society is inflicting on on developing countries and their wildlife. Production methods are also becoming increasingly harmful with certain pesticides being directly linked with the decimation of the bee population.
    I like to eat meat but I also like to eat ethically, I’m on a limited budget and it is difficult, and with the majority of the world’s population being on limited income it’s difficult to instil into peoples minds but I do believe that the answer to food production with minimal impact upon the planet we share with so many others, is to eat food that is in season and preferably produced as locally as possible. I understand the logistics of this prove somewhat impossible but it is something we can all take on board at some level.

    Share
    • Andrew Adshead

      After reading through some other replies in this debate I would like to add the following points.

      Firstly, regarding your thoughts that all humanity should stop eating meat, certain tribes and cultures (particularly those in the Arctic Circle) have diets that are more or less just meat, their geographical location means that they cannot grow crops and vegetation is sparse. I think it is rather judgemental to impose an ideology on those people that they cannot comprehend let alone adhere to.

      Secondly, on animal morality (or the lack of) there is plenty of evidence that many species of animal have some form of moral compass, granted it is an insular one, beyond protecting their offspring to protect their genetic line, there are many examples of behaviour which would imply some form of morality in the species. For example elephants have been known to wait with their dying calves even if it means losing contact with their herd, so that their young do not die alone, putting their own lives at risk in the process. And perhaps more relevant, elephants and some pack animals have been observed to banish individuals from their groups if a member has killed one of their own.

      Share
      • Nick

        Animals of all shapes and sizes perform social actions that we could view as morality. The distinction is best explained by this expert quote from a Telegraph article on the subject:

        “I don’t believe animals are moral in the sense we humans are – with well developed and reasoned sense of right and wrong – rather that human morality incorporates a set of psychological tendencies and capacities such as empathy, reciprocity, a desire for co-operation and harmony that are older than our species.”

        Even if we could communicate ideas to animals rather than just tasks, there is no reason to assume they would ever develop what we could call ‘morals’.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

        Share
        • Julline L

          Sorry! It hasn’t taken me a day to read that article, just to get over cramp (seriously o.O).

          In response to the views on animal morality, I read the article and it’s some really exciting stuff! I agree that they probably don’t have the reasoning skills that we do and their morality is probably more of an instict — they could save another animal from pain in a moment based on instinct but I’d like to see them reasoning over euthanasia or vegetarianism! Whatever their moral capacity, the point still remains that animals other than humans and herbivores wouldn’t really become vegetarian. Firstly, we can’t communicate the idea of it to them; secondly, they live differently from us so they (like Andrew’s example of those in the arctic circle) would be hard-pressed to become vegetarian. In other words, I’m saying that it’s easier for us to adopt vegetarianism because we live in a society in which we have many food sources so do not need to eat meat.

          And if other animals do have a sense of morality (which I guess makes sense, since we are animals and most of our species have a sense of morality), then surely that gives the case for vegetarianism more weight because the animals are more like us and it’s even more like eating one of our own… Mmmhmm :)

          Share
    • Julline L

      Your point on preparation of food is true. However, consider this: an unprepared, dead tomato is on a plate. I know I wouldn’t be phased by it. If an unprepared, dead chicken is on a plate, people will find it extremely unappetising because the gap between the consumer and the murderer lessens. That’s what I meant to allude to when I said about eating it raw.

      As for humans taking too much land, this is entirely true. It’s probably the best point anybody has made in the comments section. :) I do feel, however, that being vegetarian/vegan reduces that need for land, as Matthew Procter said. I think the best way to reduce pressure for land is not to reproduce. Deforestation, animals’ extinction, etc. are all problems caused by over-crowding. If we didn’t live so long/there weren’t as many of us, the world might be in a better state.

      Share
    • Julline L

      As for imposing my ideology, I did state that veganism/vegetarianism for all is very idealistic. I realise this. However, I wrote this article to make people (who have perhaps never considered it) think. I don’t expect indigenous people to eat no meat but it’s entirely possible to do so in “civilised” areas.

      I’ll reply to points on animal morality along with Nick’s comment. :)

      Share
  77. Alice Owen

    Julline, I think your article presents a good argument and is refreshingly strong, especially with the shocking photo. However, as a meat-eater, I think, like others, that meat consumption is ingrained in the natural food chain. I have read that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should, but I feel it is all relative to the amount that we are consuming and the level of variety we all believe we require. It is true that in the animal world, it is literally a dog-eat-dog world; the story of the predator and the prey is one with which we all identity If ‘all human life is sacred’ as some people have suggested, then should we condemn a polar bear for ripping apart a seal? On a further note, provided we are talking about exploitation for human demand, should we all stop buying wooden furniture because it’s ‘legitimate murder’ of a tree. Of course, I know a tree is not an animal but it marks the same principle of abusing nature and resources for our own selfish intentions. We all have wooden furniture, yet I doubt anyone is converting solely to plastic décor because it is morally wrong to destroy forests in order to ‘make the home look nice.’ I think it’s fair to say that we have to decide where to draw the line.

    I think the real issue rests with the greed and selfishness of consumers, and not with the fact that we eat meat in the first place. I won’t be made to feel guilty about eating meat where animals have been treated well during their lives. I agree that we, as humans, have gained morality and thus, have influenced the way in which our meat is sourced; now, it is almost impossible to buy a tin of tuna that is not ‘dolphin-friendly’ so surely, if we have the responsiblity to shape our food production, we have the right to eat what is so natural and nutritious for us. Also, if meat is providing something (protein) for us, we should feel rest assured that we are giving back to the environment, through farming and maintenance of the land. I think the problem comes when we look at the sheer amount we consume. Supermarkets throw away so much meat every day, which is wrong; we shouldn’t abuse the food-chain for our own over-indulgence as this effectively means that animals have died in vain. We should re-assess our habits, yes, but this shouldn’t mean cutting out an entire food group from our diets completely. Everyone knows where meat comes (actually, maybe not children, who recently announced that cheese comes from plants in a survey), so let’s not be ignorant, but I think we are capable of carefully selecting our methods in producing meat, and ultimately, enjoying it. As for the unnecessary loaded meat burgers on Man vs Food, however, I think we can safely avoid.

    Share
    • Julline L

      If I had chosen the photo, I actually wouldn’t have chosen that one cuz I’m very squemish. Thank you for the compliments! :)

      “meat consumption is ingrained in the natural food chain.” I think it certainly WAS. However, if you were to go out into the wild, hunt down an animal, take its life before its time and then have it for lunch, could you? I know I’d feel absolutely terrible — I was upset for hours today over a squirrel being roadkill — as I said in the article. This is why I don’t think it’s natural (at least for me) to eat meat.

      “should we condemn a polar bear for ripping apart a seal?” I don’t think so, because they don’t have the moral capacity to think about it.

      As for your comment on the forests, I’ve never thought about that. I’d probably buy furniture that had already been used so that it wasn’t destroying more trees. And then probably plant five trees in my back garden so as I wouldn’t feel guilty. :L

      I agree that if meat were sourced humanely it would make meat consumption a lot more ethical. However, most meats aren’t sourced humanely: look at battery hens (whose beaks are cut without even painkillers) or cows (who are pumped full of hormones to induce milk production and who can get painful inflammation of the mammary glands from it, before they are sent to be slaughtered).

      Share
  78. Brett Anderson

    I read this as I chomp down on some lovely rare Sirloin Cow.

    Share
    • Julline L

      Great. I’m pleased to see you’re so self-important you value your own lunch above an animal’s life.

      Share
      • Brett Anderson

        What can I say?, I’m an egotist.

        Share
        • Julline L

          …Thank you for your comment.

          Share
  79. Elizabeth

    Sorry but I cannot take a vegetarian seriously when they say meat is murder, or they don’t eat meat because it is cruel to animals. As Matthew points out below, consuming dairy or eggs is surely equally as cruel?

    I try to limit my consumption of meat and actually went vegan for a month as a new years challenge (it was difficult, I was tired all the time). My sister has been a vegan for almost 10 years and just quietly gets on with it. I have done quite a bit of research into the vegan diet and as there is no way it can provide adequate levels of vitamin b12 I can only conclude it is not a natural diet for humans to follow.

    Food for thought?

    Share
    • Julline L

      That would be a fair comment if I weren’t planning on becoming vegan. I realise how cruel the dairy industry is and I (as most people do) know all too much about battery hens.

      As for the argument about health risks, I understand why many people believe that to be the case. However, as I pointed out in the article, vegans live up to 15 years longer than meat-eaters. That’s because, when done correctly, vegans don’t eat very many unhealthy foods because they contain milk, egg or meat. It’s also because vegans often plan what to eat so as they do get enough and that makes their lifestyle much healthier than those who eat anything and don’t have to plan (they’re more likely to lack some things or overdose on others).

      Thankyou for your comment. :)

      Share
  80. Chris

    The disappointing thing about the internet is that has given a voice to those who really should just keep quiet.

    Studying law I would have thought you should known things like legal definitions, as in the legal definition of murder. Killing an animal whether right or wrong can’t be considered murder by definition.

    As to whether killing an animal for food is right or wrong, it doesn’t matter, it won’t change. I enjoy eating meat as do most people and why you would think that you or anyone can change their minds to a practice that has gone on for thousands of years is beyond me.

    By the same respect would you agree that all carnivorous animals should chill with all the killing and switch to some lovely plants. If so I would like to see you being the one to explain this to Mr Lion or Mr Crocodile.

    I am extremely glad I didn’t go to Glasgow Uni

    Share
    • Julline L

      I’d firstly like to thank you for all the support. Really, it means so much to me and I’m sure it’ll stay with me for years to come <3<3<3

      Sarcasm aside, I do understand that murder is only illegal when applied to humans — hence "Legitimate Murder".

      As for animals "chilling with all the killing", that’s entirely unfeasible. Also, humans have moral consciences and can survive healthily without meat (so, in my opinion, humans should be vegetarian) but, until animals develop moral consciences, I don’t expect them to do so.

      Share
  81. Rach

    Pah! Someone’s obviously done one semester of Ethical Philosophy and thinks they’re a bloody expert on the matter! While I agree MORALLY it’s wrong to eat animals in developed countries because we’re no longer hunter-gatherers, but I am too selfish to give it up – and yeah, it’s because it tastes good. And she’s probably right in saying that by that logic, people must taste good too – yeah, probably! Honestly, it wouldn’t be my 1st choice, but I honestly think I’d try anything once. But how the hell can you compare eating animals to the Holocaust? Nobody ATE the Jews – it was a million times worse! They were humiliated, stripped of all their belongings and dignity, starved, tortured, worked to death, experimented on and murdered with the ultimate intention of completely eradicating them from history. How the FUCK could you compare that to me eating ma dinner? It’s offensive to me and to Jewish people. Do us a favour and shut the fuck up before you open yer gub and make retarded comparisons to shit you know nothing about!

    Share
    • Julline L

      Firstly, I’d like to clarify: there was no comparison between the holocaust and killing animals; my point in using it was to demonstrate how meat-eaters are horrified by slaughter of humans but not animals.

      “While I agree MORALLY it’s wrong to eat animals in developed countries because we’re no longer hunter-gatherers, but I am too selfish to give it up – and yeah, it’s because it tastes good.”

      All you’re saying, there, is that you don’t follow your conscience. And please don’t ever eat a person o.O

      Share
  82. Matthew Procter

    I seriously respect vegetarians and vegans for the choice they make. In opting to not eat meat – aside from not having children – it’s one of the most environmental choices a person can make. It reduces demand pressure on land and Keeps food prices lower for the rest of us.
    That being said it doesn’t give you the right to sit on a moral high horse and exclaim that Meat is murder, naively attempting to guilt trip everyone else into your beliefs, whilst feeling smug in the process – (that is without politely being told to be quiet and stop raging on the internet).
    The thrust of your argument stems from this ‘Unless a person is unaffected by the reality that meat is murder, they shouldn’t eat it.’ Well, thanks for that opinion. Most people who think that the ‘reality’ is actual reality are already vegetarians – in which case your preaching to the converted. (it isn’t reality – which is why you spend the rest of the article citing un related advantages of being vegetarian)
    If, however, you’ve written this line to induce a sentiment of guilt – congratulations – go join the catholic clergy – it’s their speciality. The ‘fact’ is, most people know how their meat is reared and killed, and are not particularly ecstatic over it, yet repeatedly go back to buy meat.
    It’s similar to people who buy cigarettes, very few believe smoking will give them any health benefits, but they continue to smoke. And they have every right to in a free country, and I don’t believe they should be badgered by a moral class who think it’s wrong. Similarly If a person was to buy their clothes from an unethical store, they ought not to be castrated by protestors who think it’s a sin, nor by a government pandering to the wants of the moral self righteous.
    Nor should People who buy meat be ‘guilt’ induced by people such as yourself, without of course people like me asking you to stop.
    I will leave you with this, if you state that Killing animals for human consumption is so wrong, why are you not a vegan? I shall assume you are aware of the killing of millions of cattle during the process of making milk (and therefore all dairy products), and in industrially producing eggs.
    Or are you – like so many of the self righteous – a hypocrite?
    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/cows-milk-a-cruel-and-unhealthy-product.aspx
    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/egg-industry.aspx

    Share
    • Julline L

      I’m not sitting on any horse — I don’t really agree with horse riding.

      Seriously, though, it was a piece written to be persuasive and inspire thought — not guilt. I’m sorry if that’s the way it appears. As for “raging on the internet”, the opinion panel is here for people to write articles, expressing their opinions. Also, if I were sitting on a moral high-horse, wouldn’t that suggest my morals (and therefore vegetarianism/veganism) are “higher” or in some way more morally correct than the opposite view? (I don’t mean to sound arrogant, that’s just what the phrase suggests.)

      “It isn’t reality – which is why you spend the rest of the article citing un related advantages of being vegetarian.”
      Not at all, I just think it’s good to give a range of points in order to put forth a fuller argument.

      I’m not catholic and, as I’ve said, this piece was written because this is the OPINION PANEL. It’s written down so it’s not as if people have to listen to my opinion — as soon as people see it’s about vegetarianism, they can choose whether to continue reading it or not. I’m not forcing anybody to read it or agree.

      In fact, I’ve known so many people to tell me why we should eat meat that I could accuse them of being self-righteous and whatever you’re calling me. However, I don’t. I don’t because everybody has the right to freedom of speech: if a person wants to tell me why we all need to eat meat (or whatever their view is), I understand that it is their means of expressing an opinion — I have the choice to be affected by it or not.

      As for not being vegan, I’ve cut down majorly on my dairy and egg consumption. As of yet, I am not a vegan. In future (when I leave home), I will be. So no, I am neither a hypocrite nor self-righteous.

      Share
      • Matthew Procter

        By stating meat is murder, you are, by implication calling everyone who eats meat a murderer – and most people don’t like to be called murderers. Whilst it’s well within your rights to call people murderers, just don’t be surprised when you get a load of angry responses. Even If you didn’t intend on instilling guilt, why d’ya write this?
        ‘A horse or deer on a dinner plate makes many feel guilty; another animal being murdered for a meal should to’ it’s bound to look like you’re trying to make people feel guilty.
        The moral high horse is a phrase that originates from when knights rode on horses and looked down on peasantry. The phrase is used to satirise those who believe they have a moral high ground, when deep down everyone is just as bad. The catholic clergy was supposed to be sarcastic joke, perhaps I poorly wrote it, oh well :)
        “It isn’t reality – which is why you spend the rest of the article citing un related advantages of being vegetarian.” – if I was describing rape, saying it seriously violates those affected, making living each new day a living nightmare etc, and then went on to say how the rape of women may lead to an increased birth rate which puts more pressure on finite resources, I’d need to see an optician to get some new perspective glasses. Similarly, if it is true that meat, is indeed murder, to then explain that by not murdering you are helping the environment would require some strange gauge of perspective unknown to me.
        Everyone is a hypocrite, the majority of people learn to have enough humility to except it. If it isn’t dairy, then what about animals which are ‘murdered’ during the felling of the rainforests for the growth of cotton or food, the fish killed during the extraction of oil from the seabed (which subsequently is used in the production for just about everything you own). I’m not suggesting you are a bad human being, just that you cannot call meat eater’s murderers when we are all equally as guilty for the pillage of the earth’s animals.

        Share
        • Julline L

          “Whilst it’s well within your rights to call people murderers, just don’t be surprised when you get a load of angry responses. Even If you didn’t intend on instilling guilt, why d’ya write this?”
          I’m not surprised at receiving PASSIONATE responses but there is no need for swearing and insults — that’s at what I’m surprised. I answered my reasons for writing this, already: to inspire thought in those who perhaps have never considered vegetarianism, to express my opinion and to provoke a debate. :)

          ““It isn’t reality – which is why you spend the rest of the article citing un related advantages of being vegetarian.” – if I was describing rape, saying it seriously violates those affected, making living each new day a living nightmare etc, and then went on to say how the rape of women may lead to an increased birth rate which puts more pressure on finite resources, I’d need to see an optician to get some new perspective glasses. Similarly, if it is true that meat, is indeed murder, to then explain that by not murdering you are helping the environment would require some strange gauge of perspective unknown to me.”
          “Perspective glasses”, love it! But it’s not quite like the case of rape: rape isn’t really associated with putting pressure on resources. I could talk a lot more about the morality of murdering an animal if you really like — I just prefer to put forward as many points as is possible in 700 words, so that most people can identify with one of the points, at least. However, if you’d like me to write some more about the morality of animal slaughter, just ask. :)

          “Everyone is a hypocrite, the majority of people learn to have enough humility to except it. If it isn’t dairy, then what about animals which are ‘murdered’ during the felling of the rainforests for the growth of cotton or food, the fish killed during the extraction of oil from the seabed (which subsequently is used in the production for just about everything you own). I’m not suggesting you are a bad human being, just that you cannot call meat eater’s murderers when we are all equally as guilty for the pillage of the earth’s animals.”
          I accept (please, not except) all of this — you’re right in saying all of that. However, in being vegetarian (and, later, vegan) I am doing what I can to stop animals dying. As you said, I can’t really get away from the oil production or the deforestation that goes on. What I can do (and what everyone can do) is stop the murder of animals for my consumption. I don’t expect ever to stop all killing of animals but I’m at least doing what I can.

          Share
  83. Tom

    Its not a black and white issue. There are a whole range of views on this. I eat meat, I quite enjoy it, but there are still somethings that are unacceptable to me. I’ve never had veal or foie gras, not will I ever eat those things, as I find the means to produce them repugnant. I won’t eat net caught tuna, because of the damage it does to other forms of marine life. I don’t like the wearing of fur, I think its ridiculously wasteful. If you want to wear fur, you should have to go harvest it yourself, with nothing but claws to do it with. These are some of the practices that occur withing the fur and food market, but its down to the individual to decide what they are comfortable with.

    Meat is murder is a simplistic view of a complicated subject.

    Share
    • Julline L

      You’re right: it’s a simplistic view. However, it’s so simplistic because I believe that if the making of anything harms an animal, it is wrong. I don’t wear make-up or things that have been tested on animals, I don’t eat meat or wear fur and I will become vegan in future, once I’ve left home. Until then, I’m cutting down on dairy products and eggs. So yes, it’s simplistic but I just take the view as an absolute ethic. :)

      Share
  84. Julline L

    “But that’s what murder is Julline – the premeditated killing of humans by another. You say animals are not humans, for it to be murder they would have to be. There is no such thing as legitimate murder or illegitimate murder.”
    What I’m saying is that there is no difference in killing an animal or a human: it is the same action of taking a life before it should be taken. When I write about “legitimate murder”, I mean that killing a human is punishable by law; killing an animal is not, yet they are both acts of murder.

    Share
    • Julline L

      Sorry, wrong place :)

      Share
  85. Andrew Curran

    My opinion is that while in some circumstances, particularly living in a rural area, it is morally acceptable to kill an animal ( to end it’s suffering or if it is attacking someone). However, then eating it’s remains is wrong. If for example, I was to be attacked by a mentally ill person with a knife, or a jihadist intent on killing a non muslim, I would be well within my rights to defend myself. If in the course of doing so my attacker was to die I would rightly be aknowledged as a victim or even a hero. However, if I then ate the persons body I would not be quite as popular with the police.
    We don’t need to eat meat, and I don’t see any difference between the flesh of one mammal and another. Meat is absolutely murder.

    Share
    • Julline L

      Excellent analogy, fantastic point of view. You’ve made my day :)

      Share
  86. Alice

    Whilst I have no problem with a person’s choice, whether it be vegetarianism or something else, and don’t get me wrong, I am an animal lover, but I don’t think meat is murder. I know that where our meat comes from is not humane, and I’m not condoning it. In fact, I hate it, but you’re comparing farmers meeting the UK’s (and the world’s) demand for meat with the Holocaust… a dictatorship and killing a whole race is completely different to trying to meet the demand needs of a growing population, and are in no way comparable. For example, Hitler didn’t order the slaughter of Jews to eat them

    I’m not going to say that I disagree with people being a vegetarian, a few of my friends are, and I hold my own morals. For example, I don’t eat fish (for reasons other than inhumane killing) and I don’t buy caged eggs. But I don’t believe we do have the power to change farming. As Tash Harmer pointed out, the UK is only small. And the sad fact is that unless everybody became a vegetarian, there is still going to be a high demand for meat in all countries. People in Africa may grow crops instead of raising animals but I strongly believe that that has more to do with their countries economy than it does personal choice.

    As far as I’m concerned, the inhumane way that our meet is killed does need improvement, as do many methods of farming, but there’s only so much one person can do.

    Share
    • Julline L

      Firstly, I’d like to clarify: there was no comparison between the holocaust and killing animals; my point in using it was to demonstrate how meat-eaters are horrified by slaughter of humans but not animals.
      Secondly, I’m not saying only people in the UK should become vegetarian — I believe everybody should. I think that (as I was pointing out with the last paragraph) the era of eating meat will be something taught in history lessons at school, in which every pupil is shocked by the prospect of killing so many animals, just as we are shocked by the holocaust or apartheid. At least, that is the dream.
      Thirdly, I wasn’t suggesting for a minute that those in poverty don’t want to eat meat. Rather, that vegetarianism is cheaper and more economical for a country.
      Lastly, you are a prime example of those who believe in the morality of vegetarianism but don’t act upon it: you say that you are an animal lover, that you know that where our meat comes from is inhumane, and you say you don’t condone it. However, if you truly don’t condone it, show it. You’re an animal lover, which I’d take to mean you like to treat animals like your friends. Well, Alice, vegetarians don’t eat their friends.

      Share
      • Nick

        Being an ‘animal lover’ doesn’t have to mean you love your animals like friends. Think about shepherds and other livestock keepers across the world and throughout history.

        Much like the religious phrase it spawned, the shepherd takes care of his flock. He protects them, feeds them, cleans them, and cares for them. In return they provide a commodity & income. To be a shepherd meant you were a very dedicated animal lover. Perhaps you could compare this to a car? You wash it, put petrol in it, take it to get its MOT. If you particularly enjoy being in your car and using your car then you are a ‘car lover’. How we use love can take on many forms.

        You can’t say that a person who has a pet shouldn’t eat meat at all. If your pets role is to be a companion, then a companion it is. If you raise chickens for eggs, that is their purpose. A pig? Why that’s for eating. You can love it and care for it and spend time with it, but you will someday probably be eating it.

        I support those who value better treatment of livestock, but to say meat is murder isn’t a simple thing. Meat was, and in many cases still is, the result of hard work, dedication and a lot of ‘love’ – of a profession, of animals and of food.

        Share
        • Julline L

          Meat IS murder. You can dress it up any way you like, with talk of caring for the animals, but if a human were killed then eaten, it would be murder;if an animal is killed then eaten, it is still murder. Just not illegitimate murder.

          Share
          • Nick

            But that’s what murder is Julline – the premeditated killing of humans by another. You say animals are not humans, for it to be murder they would have to be. There is no such thing as legitimate murder or illegitimate murder. If we were removed as the dominant species of this planet by aliens – then we can consider our position on earth as a foodstuff. Meat might then be murder, only if our overlords aren’t human then we’ll have yet another semantic problem like the one above.

            Share
          • Julline L

            “But that’s what murder is Julline – the premeditated killing of humans by another. You say animals are not humans, for it to be murder they would have to be. There is no such thing as legitimate murder or illegitimate murder.”
            What I’m saying is that there is no difference in killing an animal or a human: it is the same action of taking a life before it should be taken. When I write about “legitimate murder”, I mean that killing a human is punishable by law; killing an animal is not, yet they are both acts of murder.

            Share
          • Nick

            But there is a difference. Human laws apply to humans. We discriminate between ourselves and animals no matter what the similarities or differences. Killing a human is wrong because society tells us it is wrong. Killing an animal is accepted because society tells us it is accepted. In the end this is about society. To kill something is not wrong, as far as we can tell there is no universal justice to make it ‘wrong’. We have chosen to say it is wrong because to allow it would harm our society and cause it to rapidly break down.

            Now, you can say that killing an animal does harm us. It may do, yes, but it is a potential for harm (environmental destruction, food poisoning) is not a guarantee. We have killed something, but it does not affect our society. It is not killing another human and it is not murder. Societies will never adjust to considering meat to be murder and it is quite possible that in the absence of society humans would continue to eat available meat, much like all the animals that do.

            I’m assuming you view the killing of humans as wrong because you are a normal person who has attachments to people, an involvement in a society and an understanding that very few humans pose a threat, and many are actually beneficial to interact with. I feel the same way. A person feels bad about killing an animal because they associate it with anthropomorphic versions (as you mentioned Bambi), or because they have had an emotional attachment to an animal. I have an emotional attachment to my cat. However, where some see these attachments and feel bad, others understand that these are not humans, that killing an animal for food is not wrong, and they will proceed to do it.

            Finally, the argument that meat is murder, I feel, is a very inefficient way to coerce people to become vegetarians. Frankly, after this fantastic debate I feel more ingrained in my meat eating ways than ever before. Surely a better way for the vegetarian community is to promote the environmental, health and financial benefits of reducing meat consumption or cutting it out altogether? Nobody wants to join the side that keeps accusing them of murder.

            Share
          • Tash Harmer

            It’s a shame there aren’t more people that see things this way,
            I agree with your view of animal life 100%, and I have some very naive views about how life should and could be…and it’s so sad to think that it’s unlikely to improve. I agree completely that it’s murder whichever way you look at it…it’s taking a life and every life is (or should be anyway) sacred. But unfortunately far too many people comply with human ignorance and greed, and just see animals as a walking hunk of meat for their selfish consumption.
            The best us animal lovers can do is live by our desired standards (ie by being a vegetarian) and continue to be their voice :) maybe one day it’ll pay off!

            Share
          • Julline L

            Nick, I don’t think we’ll ever agree on whether something can be “legitimate murder” but, in the most clichéd way, let’s “agree to disagree”. I think you’re probably right in saying that the argument that meat is murder puts people off becoming vegetarian. I’ll keep that in mind, thanks. :)

            Tash, thankyou for the support! Glad to see we share that view.I agree that someone must speak up on the animal’s behalf.

            Share
  87. Tash Harmer

    Animals and humans alike have always eaten meat.
    While it is a lot easier these days to find alternatives and thus have a vegetarian diet, it is not the same for other countries who have less resources than us, and even if the whole of the UK stopped eating meat it wouldn’t make the blindest bit of difference on the meat trade around the world.
    Why shouldn’t people eat meat? It’s been a key part of human beings’ diets since the year dot. Animals eat other animals…humans are animals.
    I don’t eat much meat, I don’t like it at all and I don’t like the cruelty of the meat trade but that’s my personal choice, I’m an animal lover and I hate the way animals in slaughter houses and on farms are treated because it’s really a lot more cruel than people will allow themselves to believe, and especially for cheap supermarket meat the majority of animals aren’t killed humanely. However I wouldn’t try to inflict my personal choice on everyone else…eating meat has been a large part of humanity since we came into existence. While some of us think it’s horrible, cruel and murderous plenty of people do not. We don’t have the power to stop farming at all…countries in Asia, for instance Korea and China, do not have the same feelings about animals as we do and their countries are much much larger. They eat just about anything with a heartbeat and often their ways of killing is much much crueller. The UK is tiny in comparison to the rest of the world, and animal cruelty and the meat trade is a worldwide thing. We wouldn’t even put a dent in the worldwide meat trade and people would import meat or go abroad and eat meat and it wouldn’t stop it at all.
    Then farmers would be out of jobs, animals would die because frankly what farmers would spend money to look after livestock if they don’t make them any money? And what RSPCA shelter has the room, resources and funds to rehabilitate and rehome all those farm animals? Disease would be rife, animals would be culled because they’d multiply and farmers wouldn’t have the money or the inclination to keep them alive, fed and looked after if they no longer made money from their livestock so in all, we would inflict just as much suffering on the animals, if not more so.

    This is a well written article with some nice sentiments, most of which I agree with. However it’s very naive (in the nicest possible way) and it’s not really as simple for people to just stop eating and buying meat. I wish it was because as I said, I hate the cruelty of the meat trade and I’m an animal lover…I’m also mostly a misanthropist and despise human nature…but these sentiments are quite naive.

    The ag-gag is a disgraceful movement, it’s so important that people see where their food comes from I think, and to ban people distributing undercover footage is awful. I watched a whole video from a company who put together lots of undercover slaughterhouse and farm footage and the situation is dire and reduced me to tears. Personally I think people should continue to eat meat, but the farming and slaughtering system needs to change drastically so that all animals are treated well and aren’t forced to endure fear and pain.

    Share
    • Julline L

      “Animals and humans alike have always eaten meat.”
      Nope, look at herbivores and the (more recent) rise of vegetarianism and veganism.

      “it is not the same for other countries who have less resources than us, and even if the whole of the UK stopped eating meat it wouldn’t make the blindest bit of difference on the meat trade around the world.”
      I’m not saying the UK should stop eating meat — everybody should. And that’s even more reason for countries to stop eating meat, if they have less resources, cuz vegetarianism is more economical and cheaper for individuals.

      “Why shouldn’t people eat meat? It’s been a key part of human beings’ diets since the year dot. Animals eat other animals…humans are animals.”
      It has been a key part of our diet, yes. However, we have evolved since. We are compassionate beings who are upset by death and murder. Yes, humans are animals — surely all the more reason to treat animals like our equals. And the one distinction between humans and animals is our moral conscience — I refer you to the last paragraph: “As human beings, we have consciences and the moral capacity to reflect on these scenarios and criticise them.”

      “I wouldn’t try to inflict my personal choice on everyone else.”
      I’m not “inflicting” anything upon people; I am merely using persuasive argument to make people consider the issue. If you read my bio, I state that I neither expect nor want everybody to agree. Ideally, everybody would be vegetarian… but I can’t strive for that. All I want is to make people reflect upon what we do and come to a conclusion about their view :)

      As for the paragraph on culls and there being too many animals, I would agree… IF the rise of vegetarianism were to be one straight change. However, it would be a rise — an increase in the numbers of vegetarians — not something which would happen quickly. This, therefore, would allow farmers to cut down on their breeding and there would be a gradual decrease in the numbers of farm animals, (ideally) eventually petering out to none at all. So simply put, there wouldn’t be too many animals because we wouldn’t breed them :)

      As for the article being naive, that’s a very fair comment. I just think that in this case, emotion and sentiment should prevail over conformity and selfishness. And actually, perhaps the naivety surrounding vegetarianism is most prevalent in the meat-eaters who do not think about from where their lunch has come (as you spoke about in the last paragraph). I thank you very much for the comment :)

      Share
      • Tash Harmer

        You won’t stop countries like Korea and China, countries much larger than us, from eating meat…it’s a huge part of their culture.
        I don’t disagree, I hate the cruelty of the meat trade…however there are too many difficulties involved in trying to get the world to stop as well as too many reasons not to. It’s really not as simple or black and white as everyone just not eating meat. Coming from a rural area, I shudder to think how things would be should farmers stop farming…I would hate to see the fields usually occupied by farm animals get dug up and built over!
        If only it was just as simple as everyone stopping, that would be amazing, however humans are too stubborn, ignorant and selfish and there are depressingly few people in the world like us that care about animals.
        Just look at this hideous badger cull that will be going ahead soon…why do the government want to protect cows from TB? Because of humans selfish greed and desire for cheap meat, not because we care about the animals. It’s horrible, but I can’t see anything changing. Lots of people in the world actually get a kick out of harming animals, so they wouldn’t be adverse to seeing animals butchered for food.

        Share
      • Julline L

        It’s unlikely that some countries will ever stop eating animals, yes — but the future is unwritten.
        As for farmers, if everybody were vegetarian they’d be growing crops instead of rearing animals because the demand for crops would rise.
        As for human greed, I agree. I think the largest factor in people not being vegetarian is human greed.

        Share
  88. Nick

    I am a meat eater and a meat lover; however in the modern world I understand the need for us to cut back our meat consumption, for health and environmental reasons. However, my views about not eating meat go no further than that. Here are my thoughts about some parts of your argument:

    “If meat were so good, why fry or roast it in oil or layer it with spices? Why not eat it raw? There is an obvious answer: meat is not appetising – the spices are.”

    Sushi and rare meat are very popular now; this is due to our modern preservation methods. For thousands of years spices and oil were necessary to disguise the taste of meat that was rancid and often rotting. They were also rare luxuries for much of the western world and therefore society compelled us to use them. We still use these spices and oils for cultural reasons, over time they have become parts of dishes with flavours that work together. Raw meats appal to a growing audience now that we have such stringent hygiene standards and preservation methods.

    “… society has bred us to eat certain meat, to disregard the thought that farmers kill certain animals, but only certain ones; any new animal’s murder makes us consider the issue. Then the gap between murderer and consumer lessens – then we understand the atrocity.”

    Society has not intentionally ‘conditioned’ us. We have chosen the meats we eat based on what is available and economically viable. We eat Lamb, Pork, Beef and Chicken predominately in the UK because ¾ of them provide an additional resource (milk, eggs, cheeses, leather, wool) and pigs are raised purely for meat content. These animals are now bread for their specific purpose, sure, but we eat them because they were the best animals for the task. If dogs were the size of cows or we could get yarn from a cat, then we would’ve been eating them as there would be no others. We raise these animals knowing full well their purpose and we eat them because they were all that was available, and as a result of thousands of years of agricultural development they are now the cheapest and most efficient to breed.

    “The food chain works that way so we should continue eating meat”. Let’s reapply this principle: many political systems “work” as dictatorships so they should continue thus; South Africa “functioned” under Apartheid for fifty years so we should have continued to oppress people on grounds of race.”

    The food chain is not a system that “works”. It is a model of the movement of energy through ecological structures that changes at all levels, from a field to a continent. No matter how massive the changes it still exists in whatever form. The food chain “works” only so much as it exists. It has no discriminaton, laws or rigid structure like a political one. However, you have noted that Humans are a major disruption to the food chain + ecosystems and I agree. Not all changes are environmentally beneficial. Steps should be made, but few are going to want to ever stop eating meat, myself included.

    Share
    • Julline L

      Remember that sushi uses spices and rare meat is not entirely raw. Imagine how unappetising a piece of raw chicken or cow would be on a plate: blood dripping from it, it would be rendered practically inedible, except to the savage. This was my point, along with the fact that the taste of meat could never be enough reason to condone eating it.

      When I wrote about society breeding us to eat meat, I meant that we conform to the way things already are, not thinking about what is right or wrong with it. The word “bred” was used ironically, in that animals are bred for us.

      The food chain “working that way” was a quotation from a previous discussion with a friend. My point was that people tend not to consider the issue of vegetarianism because eating meat is just the way things are for them. I then extended that, saying if we applied that principle to everything else, every problem which has ever existed could have “reason” to exist, today.

      Share
      • Nick

        All foods require preparation. Would you eat the roots of a carrot? The skin of an onion? Even a lot of vegetables don’t taste great fresh out the ground (to me personally). Both are, however, edible. Anthropologists largely agree that man grew more intelligent by eating meat raw before cooking was invented.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking#History

        The above in no way invalidates your argument, I just think that saying “only a savage will do X” isn’t a fair assumption.

        “When I wrote about society breeding us to eat meat, I meant that we conform to the way things already are, not thinking about what is right or wrong with it.”

        But we do! Vegetarianism is part of many school curriculum and there wouldn’t be millions of them without it being public knowledge. From Vegan to Pescetarian I have friends who are all of them and none have ever referred to meat eating as some social conditioning. Animals are bred for their purpose and that is a very good thing.

        Share
        • Julline L

          If it’s my fault for not making this clear, I am truly sorry: my point is not that meat involves preparation, etc. My point is that a raw vegetable on a plate would not cause all that much upset because there is nothing morally questionable about eating vegetables. However, raw animal meat on a plate would make many people feel uncomfortable or even sick because it shows where the meat has come from — it reminds the person that an animal has died to provide that meat.

          As for meat-eating being called social conditioning, I have not said that once. At home, most of us are raised eating meat and don’t change from that. Vegetarianism may be widely covered but every time my vegetarianism comes up in conversation, I say that if I were in the wild, I could not kill an animal for its meat and that I’d be physically sick. There are always at least three people in the group who admit that they hadn’t thought of that or that they haven’t really considered the issue much. That’s what I mean when I talk about what you call “social conditioning”.

          And why on earth is animals being bred for a purpose a good thing?

          Share
          • Nick

            “raw animal meat on a plate would make many people feel uncomfortable or even sick because it shows where the meat has come from”

            Who are these people? Have they never been to a butchers shop or even cooked for themselves? Maybe I am just blind but I see nothing unappealing about handling or looking at raw meat beyond how finger-numbingly cold it is fresh out the fridge or freezer. It seems that we are talking here about a group of people that we are not in. You and I are clearly very aware of where our food comes from, and we have come to different conclusions about it. Can we agree to disagree on this one?

            The same for your argument about hunting and killing an animal. In a survival situation I believe I would, in a survival situation you would not. We are arguing over the same set of people we do not fit into. I do hope more people will consider this question.

            Breeding is always for a purpose and sexual selection exists in humans and animals alike, albeit in the former heavily nuanced by the existence of complex society. Before civilization a man picked a wife based on her physique and health and animals did the same. Hence ‘survival of the fittest’. With husbandry and agriculture man gained a semblance of control over how his animals bred. Adapting them to climate and food sources, giving them disease resistance, etc. I don’t see how this could be a bad thing overall?

            Share
          • Julline L

            Yes, I agree that we will never agree (:L) on this. Thank you, however, for the debate :)

            Share
  89. Robbie Goacher

    If vegetarians love animals so much, they should stop stealing all their food.

    But seriously, we have evolved to eat meat, and meat tastes good! We’ve earned the right, as animals at the top of the food chain, to eat lesser species. I think we could certainly make the slaughtering process kinder, but without meat eaters there would be very cows, chickens, or pigs around to begin with…so maybe they should be grateful for their few years of life before they then die to sustain ours?

    Share
    • Julline L

      Thankyou for being such a shining example of the arrogance present in human beings.

      Share
      • Robbie Goacher

        I don’t believe I was being arrogant. I was merely trying to participate in the debate. But thanks for your reply anyway…it’s a shame you couldn’t bring yourself to address any of my points, though.

        But I do believe that my points are worth arguing.

        So if you don’t believe there is a distinction between humans and other animals, do you suggest we should start intervening in ‘the wild’ to stop the slaughter of all animals. So we should prevent lions from eating zebras, and cats from eating mice..?

        Share
        • Julline L

          I was addressing every single point of yours, when I labelled them as arrogant.

          “we have evolved to eat meat” — Actually, we have evolved to have moral consciences and the ability to survive without meat.

          “lesser species” — There are no lesser species. Just because we can stomp on an ant or slaughter animals for meat, it does not make us superior. All animals are entitled to life.

          “we could certainly make the slaughtering process kinder” — Yes, I agree. Just last week I was told that KFC may no longer be able to call the animals chickens because they have been modified so much.

          “without meat eaters there would be very cows, chickens, or pigs around to begin with…so maybe they should be grateful for their few years of life before they then die to sustain ours?” — If they were dying naturally, you would have more of a point. However, I don’t think any person or animal should be grateful to be raised just to have their life cut short, then eaten so that others can continue to live.

          Share
          • Nick

            Humans have evolved to eat meat. Morality is not something we’ve evolved. Unless you believe in moral knowledge being something we are born with (which it isn’t) then morality is a concept we teach and pass on. Our bodies however have developed to eat meat. Our teeth and digestive systems are all adapted to an omnivorous diet.

            Can we live without meat? Yes.

            “Should we?” – is a cultural idea, not an evolutionary trait. Just because can do something, doesn’t mean we have to, or should.

            Share
          • Julline L

            “Morality is not something we’ve evolved.”
            Actually, looking at the rise of democracy, feminism, the civil rights movements — even simply the law — one can see that moral have developed within society over time. So society has evolved to include moral values.
            “Our bodies however have developed to eat meat. Our teeth and digestive systems are all adapted to an omnivorous diet.” True, though I must refer you to your own point: “Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we have to, or should.”

            Share
          • Nick

            “Actually, looking at the rise of democracy, feminism, the civil rights movements — even simply the law — one can see that moral have developed within society over time. So society has evolved to include moral values.”

            None of those things are new, all are thousands of years old in one way or another and a society will adapt the the laws it uses to its current state. Democracy could fall (a theory called anacyclosis) and our civil rights could be heavily reduced. Much like how our consumption of meat has changed depending on what was suitable. All of these things are learned after birth, they are not evolutionary and they can be forgotten very quickly.

            “True, though I must refer you to your own point: “Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we have to, or should.””

            You’re right, this is a circular argument.

            Share
        • Julline L

          As for humans intervening in the wild, that’s practically imposssible. As I’ve said, there is a distinction between humans and animals (in case of this argument): humans have moral consciences and can survive healthily without meat so, in my opinion, humans should be vegetarian but, until animals develop moral consciences, I don’t expect them to do so.

          Share
          • Adnana Apetrei

            Julline,

            Like many have said, few people would be swayed by your arguments when you open by insulting their moral code and insinuate they’re all murderers. I would also like to point out that all your arguments are heavily biased and take into consideration only how YOU would feel given certain circumstances.

            “Consider this: humans “taste good”. Could I hunt, kill, cook, then eat people? ”

            No, killing humans IS murder and a whole bucketful of wrong.

            “Six million Jews were killed in WWII. There was outcry, and the holocaust is still remembered – taught in schools; there is little disturbance among meat-eaters over trillions of animals being slaughtered every week. The reason: meat “tastes good”.”

            The reason people have angrily replied to your comparison of abattoirs to the holocaust is because it is a comparison. (here’s a helpful hint for you, if its in the same sentence talking about the same subject looking at DIFFERENT responses its a COMPARISON.) It’s when they reach this type of sensational writing that people will stop reading and immediately reject ALL of your points.

            “There is an obvious answer: meat is not appetising – the spices are.”

            Cooking things is kind of a thing, you know to make something bland taste delicious. You’ve probably eaten chickpeas or lentils(if you haven’t i highly recommend them they’re an excellent source of protein if you’re not eating meat), which I’m sure you’ve inundated with spices…does that mean you find them unappetizing? Probably not, you just want them to taste better and lets not forget add more calories and vitamins to your meal.

            “People won’t eat pets or “cute” animals, yet will eat the ones they are used to eating.”

            Actually they do, rabbits, cats, dogs, horses, donkeys, monkeys….pretty much anything that is an animal is eaten. western culture prefers a set of animals, like someone on the comments section noted for the reason that they are an efficiently reproducible source of food. Some restaurants now offer exotic animals on their menus like lions, zebras, giraffes…etc.

            “Biology states that plants don’t have a CNS, meaning they don’t feel pain as animals (who have a CNS) do.”

            Technically fish don’t have CNS either, so feel free to eat those too. These pain concerns of yours are, I believe possibly your only good point so far, as it is universally accepted that needless suffering is bad, and I whole-heartedly agree, there should be reform of abattoirs and people should attempt to buy meat from places which treat their animals better but I don’t think it will stop them. Also, some would say that them feeling anything isn’t really much of a factor as to the animals that feeling means nothing more than ‘danger’ evolved in them as a sense of survival. these feelings are nothing more than ‘move away signals’ they don’t feel happy, nor sad, nor afraid because that’s not what their brains are developed to process.

            These kinds of feelings are contextualized and processed in a different part of the brain which lo and behold the animals we breed to eat don’t have. I am of course talking about the cerebral cortex which serves to provide a higher functioning thoughts beyond simple survival instincts. The killing of these animals I believe to be wrong.

            “Vegetarianism is also an excellent way to tackle harsh economic circumstances: many families in Africa eat for less by leaving meat out of their diet; it takes much less energy and water to grow crops than it does to raise animals (crops must be grown for their consumption).”

            Harsh economic circumstances in Africa are harsh economic in AFRICA…make a meal plan that is completely vegetarian or vegan and note down the calorie intake and cost from food you can purchase in your supermarket, now make one using meat with the same calorie intake… Vegetables cost more, though healthier and much better for you than eating meat, meat is more accessible and cheaper. Also lets not rule out better tasting to some. I know a fair amount of people who eat large amounts of meat due to their dislike of vegetables, to say that they cannot eat the only thing they enjoy is to say that you should only live on tasteless food which you don’t like. I like to think that people should be free to choose in such cases.

            But yes, crop growth is less consuming on our resources than animals are…Here though I’d like to ask, if we were to completely eradicate the use of animals for meat would we just set them all free or would we kill all the ones we bred and stop their production all together…

            One final point. Its not just cosmetics that relies on animal testing, if you were serious about standing up for poor animal treatment by refusing to buy cosmetics, meat or eggs and milk then I’m afraid you’d have to renounce all forms of modern medicine too…most if not all drugs went through an animal testing period.

            Share