Biological meat
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:37 pm
Re: Biological meat
Well yeah I get that being paid off etc can happen unfortunately I don't have any control over that but is that a reason to not eat bio meat ? Because that's like saying you don't donate charity's because there is a chance that your money isn't going to children that are poor. Also about the sources maybe you should check it yourself ? I know I'm defending my perspective of view but also I searched for veganism and now I know more about it. I'm sure you'll find a trust wortht aritcle about bio meat that says rthat it is good for the environment. Again I know I sound like a stupid 14 year old that just goes on the internet and believes everything it says but I don't... I asked many people and searched a lot even now I am so yeah. The last thing I want to say is I know the site says we should eat less meat for ecologic footstep. That's why I already said I don't ear meat everyday I also eat vegaterian food.
- knowledge is power
- Junior Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:13 am
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Sydney Aus
Re: Biological meat
[quote="RagingUndead"]Well yeah I get that being paid off etc can happen unfortunately I don't have any control over that but is that a reason to not eat bio meat ? Because that's like saying you don't donate charity's because there is a chance that your money isn't going to children that are poor. [quote]
I don't think that's a good comparison. Bio meat may still cause suffering, so best to avoid it. Refusing to help children that may or may not receive funds is not the same argument. I'd rather give to a (secular) charity than not because it may help ease suffering. With bio meat it will ease possible suffering if people don't eat it.
Does that sentence make sense? I hope so.
I don't think that's a good comparison. Bio meat may still cause suffering, so best to avoid it. Refusing to help children that may or may not receive funds is not the same argument. I'd rather give to a (secular) charity than not because it may help ease suffering. With bio meat it will ease possible suffering if people don't eat it.
Does that sentence make sense? I hope so.
'Heresy makes for progress'
- Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner - 1897
- Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner - 1897
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10370
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Biological meat
You completely ignored the argument that these are not ethical standards to begin with.
Would you or would you not like to be killed for meat for somebody else's taste pleasure?
Answer the question.
Donating to a charity: Worst case it's neutral (because the money is wasted), best case maybe relieves suffering.
Not donating: Does nothing (neutral)
Eating "bio" meat: Worst case it's causing a lot of suffering, best case causes a little bit of suffering.
Eating vegan: Practiced properly, also neutral (as close as you can get).
Understanding why animal agriculture is inherently bad for the environment: It's called having basic knowledge of biology and thermodynamics.
Animals fed to humans eat more plants than would have been needed to feed those humans. That's the bottom line.
This is not a sustainable practice, whether it's grass or corn.
Oysters are the only reasonably likely exception, because they actually help clean the aquatic environment as filter feeders. Cows do not do this; they produce pollution.
"Biological meat" is not good for the environment compared to vegetable sources; that's marketing propaganda which you've eaten up with religious fervor. Particularly, it's very bad for the global environment.
At the absolute best (which is unlikely) it's only less harmful locally than other meat. It's not good for anything.
It still produces greenhouse gases like methane -- but likely more because they do it for longer.
It still wastes land.
It still amounts to cruelty to animals.
Would you or would you not like to be killed for meat for somebody else's taste pleasure?
Answer the question.
Of course you have control over that; don't eat it. You can be just as healthy, or healthier, by eating vegan. There's no reason to support something that's causing animal suffering like that.RagingUndead wrote:Well yeah I get that being paid off etc can happen unfortunately I don't have any control over that but is that a reason to not eat bio meat ?
Like KIP said, that's not at all comparable.RagingUndead wrote:Because that's like saying you don't donate charity's because there is a chance that your money isn't going to children that are poor.
Donating to a charity: Worst case it's neutral (because the money is wasted), best case maybe relieves suffering.
Not donating: Does nothing (neutral)
Eating "bio" meat: Worst case it's causing a lot of suffering, best case causes a little bit of suffering.
Eating vegan: Practiced properly, also neutral (as close as you can get).
Why do you think you're so sure? This is not being open minded on your part. You should not be sure about that.RagingUndead wrote:I'm sure you'll find a trust wortht aritcle about bio meat that says rthat it is good for the environment.
Understanding why animal agriculture is inherently bad for the environment: It's called having basic knowledge of biology and thermodynamics.
Animals fed to humans eat more plants than would have been needed to feed those humans. That's the bottom line.
This is not a sustainable practice, whether it's grass or corn.
Oysters are the only reasonably likely exception, because they actually help clean the aquatic environment as filter feeders. Cows do not do this; they produce pollution.
"Biological meat" is not good for the environment compared to vegetable sources; that's marketing propaganda which you've eaten up with religious fervor. Particularly, it's very bad for the global environment.
At the absolute best (which is unlikely) it's only less harmful locally than other meat. It's not good for anything.
It still produces greenhouse gases like methane -- but likely more because they do it for longer.
It still wastes land.
It still amounts to cruelty to animals.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:37 pm
Re: Biological meat
First thing first, you ask would you want to be killed because of someone's taste no ofcourse not nobody would now before you are going to write and say WELL WHY DO YOU EAT MEAT !? When an animal is born the animal will die, now you will say but why do you have to kill it then ? Well it is because when a animal die becausenof his age the flesh will rot. But when you kill an animal when it is around his age that the animal will die it won't is this wrong ? Second thing you ask how do I know that there is a trust worthy site ? As I already said I've been asking people these people include teachers that ofcourse follows this subject and they informed me about this. And for all you out there I'm not saying all this to question if eating bio is better then go vegan for the animals because being vegan means litterly following a lifestyle that doesn't hurt any animal, and I clearly said I can't do this as a person. Btw also miniboes you can not say that a site isn't trust worthy but then use arguments from that site. Now onr last thing bio meat means a animal that is produced as food that isn't hurt. That is the definition of bio meat this you can't change it's not an animal this isn't hurt less.. no it isn't hurt at all. Last thing yeah even the government can lie but I trust my government. You say you can control it without eating flesh but I already said I can't overcome that I admit but what I try to do is eat meat without hurting animals.
- miniboes
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Biological meat
What do you mean by "follow" and "this subject"?RagingUndead wrote:As I already said I've been asking people these people include teachers that ofcourse follows this subject and they informed me about this.
I can, actually. You are wrong in two ways;RagingUndead wrote:Btw also miniboes you can not say that a site isn't trust worthy but then use arguments from that site. Now onr last thing bio meat means a animal that is produced as food that isn't hurt.
1. you trust one singular source that is not backed up by science.
2. you use a source that contradicts your argument.
Both are worth pointing out.
That is not the definition of bio meat.Now onr last thing bio meat means a animal that is produced as food that isn't hurt.
Are you right to do so? What reason do you have to believe your government is trustworthy when it comes to animal well-being?Last thing yeah even the government can lie but I trust my government.
Do your parents not allow you to go vegetarian? Have you asked? Do you even want to?You say you can control it without eating flesh but I already said I can't overcome that I admit
There are two ways to do that:but what I try to do is eat meat without hurting animals.
- obtaining it without increasing the demand for meat (freegan; eating leftovers)
- eating in-vitro meat (not an option quite yet, probably will be in the future)
Eating organic/biological meat does not achieve that.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
- David Frum