You can eat beef if you get the cow's consent. Give them a choice to enter the slaughterhouse or not. Otherwise you are taking away the cow's freedom.
I meant this was well said, to clarify. I am not sure what exactly your first sentence is saying.
Depends on your goals...
If your goal is to create centralized, industrialized, Big Ag food then plant based pseudo meat works great.
If your goal is decentralized, small farm, local economies then pasture based grazing animal based real meat works great.
No necessarily. The ingredients for plant based meat can be (and is) grown by small, local farmers. In fact, the ingredients for animals based and plant based meat has some overlap as both need plant based foods to grow.
Frankly, there is no need to call plant based foods meat - that is deception. Call them what they are: Highly processed plant based foods.
I'll take the real thing any day.
The term "meat" is defined as something edible (as opposed to drunk). See here for Merriam-Webster's definition:
"food; especially : solid food as distinguished from drink "
I would say meat from animals is much more processed with the antibiotics and growth hormones found in abundance in it. Plant based meat is just plants. Some pesticides in there, so hard to avoid all man made chemicals entirely.
Murdering nigg3rs was a freedom.
You can eat beef if you get the cow's consent. Give them a choice to enter the slaughterhouse or not. Otherwise you are taking away the cow's freedom.
Well said blue trane
shove your self righteousness up your politically correct arse. .
That's a hostile opening. Was there a nerve hit?
Anyway, I'd like to dig deeper on a few of the topics you have touched on here.
human beings can lean to read, write, have options, contribute to society and become President of the United States. Let me know next time you see a cow performing brain surgery or correctly answering any question in a 5th grade class.
A few points here. You are measuring importance with a test that has very narrow parameters; a human-centric perspective. Like racial bias in an intelligence test, your tests are biased toward what humans can do well. There are many other tests that would put humans at the bottom of the "importance scale". Dogs can understand us through using body language and tone but without speaking a word of our languages and in many cases, better than we can understand them. Cats can keep themselves clean with just their tongues. Birds know when storms are on their way before we realise. Most animals know the season simply through the length of the days changing, not a calendar and no animals go on mass killings sprees because of an ideology or just 'because'. In fact, looking at some of your tests, humans, for the majority of our existence wouldn't pass them either (and should be killed off?).
But ignoring that, there's a more important topic here. Since when does ability dictate who we kill and let live? If this was how we measured worth, there would be many humans being killed simply because they fail tests or have mental disabilities. In many of the societies in the modern world, we collectively believe that we should protect and aid the weak, not destroy them. So shouldn't we treat non-human animals with respect and do what we can to cause least harm?
I think you might find this page an interesting quick read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The simplest way to measure if an individual should live (who should be making such judgements?) would be better based on their desire to live. If you look at different species, humans have the highest rate of suicide, so as a species we are least wanting to live. But I disagree with the whole premise of this argument and we don't need to be deciding who should live and who we should let live based on their species membership.
We are animals, just a different species from bovine. In nature one species preys on another. That's life, that's death, that's nature - too bad.
I agree we are just different species. Humans living in first world countries are quite removed from nature and the "circle of life". Yes animals prey on other animals in the wild but we are hardly living in that world. You can't cherry-pick aspects of wild living and apply it to yourself and ignore the rest; the context of those actions you are trying to cherry-pick are very different to what you are trying to apply them to. If one feels they should be able to kill animals like other animals do to survive, then put down the laptop, remove the clothes and live a life of day to day survival in a wild environment.
Secondly, this is a capitalistic economy
Which is a capitalist economy?
If I want to eat meat and I can afford it, I'm going to buy meat and enjoy the hell out of it. Someone else makes a living preparing my steak and someone else makes a living growing my steak.
Just because you want something, doesn't mean you can have it. Saying in the UK that I want to eat dog, so I am going to do that freely, or saying in North Korea I want to voice my opposition to the government so I am going to do that freely, doesn't mean it will happen without repercussions or have the backing of the state's laws. Laws reflect the people's beliefs. Laws change over time with the people questioning and challenging them. Going along status quo will not see us as a species evolve and continue to improve like we have been.
The minute you tell me what I can and can't do, that's a dictatorship, and you're going to be at the angry end of a revolution.
You're being told what you can and can't do all the time (unless you live somewhere which lacks any government rule or laws).
I totally understand where you are coming from and understand how you have come to these conclusions. The mind does it's best to make life easier by using categorisation (often large categories) to simplify dealing with different individuals or circumstances, faster. They're like life short cuts and have helped us survive over the years; a coping mechanism. But this is a more difficult and challenging topic than that and needs better understanding which requires time and thinking, resources we have more of in modern life than we did living a caveman life.
Happy to discuss this further.
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.
