Argument against meat eating

[Guest guest]

I am having a debate with someone about meat eating. Now i'm not here to convince them really but I want to further explore possible arguments that staunch meat-eaters can come up with and try to defeat them. Here is a meat-eater's reply to my original argument. The lines with a ">" before them is what I originally wrote and below that is the meat eater's rebuttal. Please take a look at this and see if you can counter their statements.

 

> Eating meat is illogical just as harming other humans is illogical.

 

the one has nothing to do with the other.

 

> Both cause unnecessary suffering in the world to living beings.

 

as does eating 20 vegetables instead of one lamb.

 

> This sort of violence nurtures hate and ignorance in the individuals who commit such acts.

 

you are reacting emotionally. calm yourself. remove emotion from your thought process, and the logic can easily be seen.

 

1) you are putting more value on the life of an

animal than you are on the life of a plant.

both are alive.

 

2) to eat 2000 calories a day, which is "more or

less" the normal caloric intake of an average

human being, requires either 20 oz of meat,

or about 50 tomatos.

 

3) by saying that the life of an animal is more

important than the life of a plant, you are

assigning an arbitrary value - your subjective

value system - to the "food chain". this is

illogical.

 

my previous statements stand. you have not proven my logic to be faulty.

 

> First, it is logical to want to limit the amount of harm that is done to living beings.

 

agreed.

 

> To this extent, stopping animal slaughter while still maintaining ourselves with a healthy vegetarian diet minimizes suffering and violence to the greatest extent possible while still remaining in full health.

 

in your subjective opinion. what if i were to say, "stopping the vegetable slaughter minimizes plant and fruit suffering"?

 

> Second, ecologically it is much more efficient to use land to raise crops than to use it to raise animals for slaughter.

 

perhaps. perhaps not. the science is not in on that as of this time.

 

also note that the Native Peoples of the world were carnivores, and the land lasted just fine during their reign. the real culprit here is overpopulation.

 

> According to the idea of the "consumption pyramid" (in ecology) less and less caloric energy is transferred from trophic level to the next trophic level of consumption. So only a fraction of energy provided in plants make it to the animals that eat them (the rest is given off as heat etc.).

 

which is why you must eat so many more plants to obtain your daily caloric requirements.

 

have you factored that into your "vegetarian" argument? doesn't sound like it.

 

> Furthermore, animals require food and water to support them for a limited amount of calories, which is in fact wasteful.

 

animals are so much more calorie laden, the result is that it is the plants that are consuming more of the soil, not the animals.

 

and no animal has ever been accused of topsoil removal. farmers are, due to their excessive production of plants.

 

> So ultimately, raising animals for slaughter contributes to the wasting of land, and resources and the increase of food prices all in the name of satisfying the illogical lust of meat-eating.

 

there is no lust for meat-eating. i think you're hung up emotionally on slaughtering animals.

 

next time you go pick your vegetables (you *do* pick your own vegetables, don't you? i mean, you don't let the farmers slaughter the plants for you, do you?), think of each plant as a living being.

 

and next time you write me, try to be a bit more objective, and not use words like "lust".

[theist]

 

> Both cause unnecessary suffering in the world to living beings.

 

as does eating 20 vegetables instead of one lamb.

You could ask him to prove tomateos suffer at all. Tomateos are the fruit of a plant and the soul is in the plant. No one is killed when a fruit is picked.

 

Another point is that even if a whole plant of some kind is consumed that doesn't mean it has the same degree or type of sentience as an animal.

 

On a side note amongst us here, plants react to aggression and their fear can and has been registered. Check out the work of the scientist Chandra Bose just before and after the turn of the 19th into the 20th century. So we admit that. Every act in the material world is covered by some type of sin, but we must eat something. But what has not been measured is the plants reaction to a true devotee of Krsna harvesting a plant in the loving consciousness of offering it to Krsna. I would be curious.

 

But we cannot be proud of being vegetarians, we are still taking life, but the degree of suffering caused is not even comparable to that caused by a meat eaters. Eatting 20 vegetables does not equal slitting the throat of a lamb. It is a preposterious example.

[Guest guest]

Read VAsudev Mahatmyam in teh Skand Puran. The story of VAsu Raja clearly states that the Vedas ad Upanishads clearly declare eating meat as a sin. It is not for humans, devas or danavs, but the danvs chose to eat it.

 

So there you go.

[Guest guest]

www (dot) flex (dot) com/~jai/articles/101 (dot) html

 

you can pretty much defeat all those arguments with a brief google search using words like vegetarian, land, grains, economics, nutrition, etc. The argument that you can't get your 2000 calories per day unless you eat meat is one of the most ludicrous claims I've ever read. Also, it is a well-known fact that it requires far more land (and water) to raise animals for slaughter than it does to grow grain and other crops. The person you are debating with is out of touch with reality and will probably say anything to try to win his argument.

[foolnumberone]

you also could mention the dependence on the cow for milk and milk products,such as cheese which has replaced my calories from meat,so it would be foolish to kill the cow has it supplies foodstuff.

 

Grains and nuts.......dunno if theres a life force in those until they start germinating .

 

 

fruit......the plant is designed (or if they insist has evolved) specifically for certain species to eat its fruit.....ie a peach is made appealing so that you will pick it and disperse its seed(fruit and milk are therefore a symbiotic arrangement)

 

but regarding milk you could be accused of stealing,but in a proper system it would be symbiotic,imagine if we fed all the waste plant material including bread ,from domestic and retail outlets,to the cow and took its milk in retun,therfore no need for loads of extra land.

 

you could also ask people if they were hungry ,would they personally go into the garden and pull up some carrots or slit the throat of a cow?

[Guest guest]

Great comments. Many Hindus who eat meat when plentiful vegetarian foods are available simply are unable to control their senses and allow their stomachs to become graveyards for dead animals.

[foolnumberone]

The Karma aswell .I should also have mentioned the uses for cow manure when I last posted ,if properly managed ,you can use it to heat water by running cold water through pipes in heaps of manure,it can reach near boiling point,you can also collect the gas for usage,and theres a way you can generate electricity also and the amazing thing is after all this free energy has been taken from the manure,you are left with excellent compost to feed the land!

 

the trouble we have now with global pollution and going to war for oil,could easily be averted if we utelised the cow properly or at least respected it.

[Nrsinghadev]

 

The Karma aswell .I should also have mentioned the uses for cow manure when I last posted ,if properly managed ,you can use it to heat water by running cold water through pipes in heaps of manure,it can reach near boiling point

 

interesting, do you have a websource of reference for this information? I would like to know more about that process.

 

Haribol!

[foolnumberone]

 

interesting, do you have a websource of reference for this information? I would like to know more about that process.

 

Haribol!

 

No but I know there are some cow protection sites,and the methods of getting energy from manure are just oones i have picked up along the way,I think a few swiss hotels use the water heating system.

 

 

I also mentioned in another thread how real prabhupadas prediction that cow killing will lead to war is.

 

think of all the oil we wouldnt need if we used the cow manure,and if bulls were used for transport.....our dependence on cheap oil looks likely to be the downfall of the planet.

[Guest guest]

There is a booklet online which you may download or read in cyberspace:

 

"How to Win An Argument with a Meat-Eater"

 

available from:

www dot Himalayan Academy dot com slash resources

 

or you could also type in Kauai's Hindu Monastery

and then choose "Publications"

[Srimanta]

 

I am having a debate with someone about meat eating. Now i'm not here to convince them really but I want to further explore possible arguments that staunch meat-eaters can come up with and try to defeat them. Here is a meat-eater's reply to my original argument. The lines with a ">" before them is what I originally wrote and below that is the meat eater's rebuttal. Please take a look at this and see if you can counter their statements.

 

> Eating meat is illogical just as harming other humans is illogical.

 

the one has nothing to do with the other.

 

> Both cause unnecessary suffering in the world to living beings.

 

as does eating 20 vegetables instead of one lamb.

 

> This sort of violence nurtures hate and ignorance in the individuals who commit such acts.

 

you are reacting emotionally. calm yourself. remove emotion from your thought process, and the logic can easily be seen.

 

1) you are putting more value on the life of an

animal than you are on the life of a plant.

both are alive.

 

2) to eat 2000 calories a day, which is "more or

less" the normal caloric intake of an average

human being, requires either 20 oz of meat,

or about 50 tomatos.

 

3) by saying that the life of an animal is more

important than the life of a plant, you are

assigning an arbitrary value - your subjective

value system - to the "food chain". this is

illogical.

 

my previous statements stand. you have not proven my logic to be faulty.

 

> First, it is logical to want to limit the amount of harm that is done to living beings.

 

agreed.

 

> To this extent, stopping animal slaughter while still maintaining ourselves with a healthy vegetarian diet minimizes suffering and violence to the greatest extent possible while still remaining in full health.

 

in your subjective opinion. what if i were to say, "stopping the vegetable slaughter minimizes plant and fruit suffering"?

 

> Second, ecologically it is much more efficient to use land to raise crops than to use it to raise animals for slaughter.

 

perhaps. perhaps not. the science is not in on that as of this time.

 

also note that the Native Peoples of the world were carnivores, and the land lasted just fine during their reign. the real culprit here is overpopulation.

 

> According to the idea of the "consumption pyramid" (in ecology) less and less caloric energy is transferred from trophic level to the next trophic level of consumption. So only a fraction of energy provided in plants make it to the animals that eat them (the rest is given off as heat etc.).

 

which is why you must eat so many more plants to obtain your daily caloric requirements.

 

have you factored that into your "vegetarian" argument? doesn't sound like it.

 

> Furthermore, animals require food and water to support them for a limited amount of calories, which is in fact wasteful.

 

animals are so much more calorie laden, the result is that it is the plants that are consuming more of the soil, not the animals.

 

and no animal has ever been accused of topsoil removal. farmers are, due to their excessive production of plants.

 

> So ultimately, raising animals for slaughter contributes to the wasting of land, and resources and the increase of food prices all in the name of satisfying the illogical lust of meat-eating.

 

there is no lust for meat-eating. i think you're hung up emotionally on slaughtering animals.

 

next time you go pick your vegetables (you *do* pick your own vegetables, don't you? i mean, you don't let the farmers slaughter the plants for you, do you?), think of each plant as a living being.

 

and next time you write me, try to be a bit more objective, and not use words like "lust".

 

Those Vaisanava who are holding lotus feet of Prabhupada and don’t want to fall from spiritual sky of Lord Hari should not eat meat and should follow 4 pillars Prabhupada had mentioned in His lectures.

No Meat eating, No illicit Sex, No Gambling, No Intoxication.

Only by following Vasinava’s 4 pillars which is 4 feet of holy cows of Vrindavan and worshipping Lord Chaitannya Mohaprabhu as Supreme Personality of Godhead one will achieve the highest spiritual sky of Vrindavan.

Becoming true vaisanava is ultimate goal of every soul.

[foolnumberone]

theres also the question of addiction ,due to the taste of meat.....I think Prabhupada on one of his morning walks is indicating that if you cannot get someone to stop eating meat then you should at least try to get them to regulate it.

[Rohit2]

I understand that we need to eat in order to survive.

However, that does not mean eating anything & everything.

I write this more towards a conscience/guilt sense than spiritual.

I ask to those who eat meat (dead animal flesh), to go (visualise) to a slaughterhouse

and look at the animal that are about eat, into their eyes.

If those who eat dead animal flesh are indeed human, you will witness the tears, trauma, afraid, sadness etc. in those beautiful eyes of that animal they are about to consume for there own pleasure.

Its very easy to buy dead animal flesh at the supermarket & become ignorant in realising how this animal got hear and the pain, tears, suffering & sadness this once living animal went through just to keep you dead flesh eating people satisfied. or even going to a restaurant makes it even easier to become ignorant.

I used to eat dead animal flesh one time, but gave up solely for moral & guilt reasons and obviously spiritual came after for me.

I am suggesting for the dead animal flesh eaters to visualise a slaughterhouse and see those living (to be killed) animals for yourself. OR even more realistic, Visit one! (with permission, though they probably will not allow you) Then make your own mind up!

[Guest guest]

 

Read VAsudev Mahatmyam in teh Skand Puran. The story of VAsu Raja clearly states that the Vedas ad Upanishads clearly declare eating meat as a sin. It is not for humans, devas or danavs, but the danvs chose to eat it.

 

So there you go.

wher did you find prohibition in Vedas about meat eating.All vedas heartily endorse meat eating .the yagnyas are about meat as purodash[prasadam]. please check your facts .

[guruji]

We are in the process of evolution. In the beginning men hebituated to man

eating and than he avoided eating of his own sect and settled with animal eating.He has not improved further and stopped there itself. First he should regulate this habbit by taking meat twice a day ..something like this and finally stop this one. It will only add "thamsic" qualities and no way it will add strength as somebody advocates.

[Guest guest]

 

wher did you find prohibition in Vedas about meat eating.All vedas heartily endorse meat eating .the yagnyas are about meat as purodash[prasadam]. please check your facts .

 

 

Are you trying to state that Bhagwan Veda vyaasis wrong? Read the Vasudev Mahatmyam in the Vishnu Khand of Skand Puran for yourself. As Quarelling with me wont get you anywhere. You need to research further into the Sanatan Dharm and its scriptures. Find me where the "VEdas heartily endorse meat eating" for the KAliyug!!!!!!!!!!