Should We Eat Meat?

Should We Eat Meat?

Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?

Next question in Animal Rights

You are seeing 49 Comments. See all 723 Comments on this Question.
Regarding Argument
Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'
  • ebsarver
    Really the only point that needs to be made....

    All the other arguments against legislated vegetarianism seem minimal in comparison to this one.

    It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence. Since I support human rights (such as the right to put whatever into, on, or through one's own body), I could never condone such totalitarian laws, and think they ought be repugnant to anyone who has an interest in living free. In my estimation, anyone who would support laws telling me what I can eat, smoke, drink, or otherwise put into my body...seems like a person against the very idea of liberty and freedom.

    While legislating diet may sound appealing to some, it would be the type of social policy worthy of Stalin or Mao.

    - ebsarverUS August 21, 2008 4:59PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • mike
      Legislated vegetarianism?

      Can you eat, drink, or smoke other people? No. It's illegal. Is that repugnant? What you'll arrive at is something to the effect of "I can eat whatever I want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to do so." That's a more ethical and logical conclusion.

      No one is saying that government should make laws until the people are ready to have them enforced. So first, it's important for people to understand why they should be enforced. Suggesting that the idea is to have the government step in and force you to do something you clearly don't understand is merely a scare tactic from people resistant to considering that they may be in the wrong. Pointing and calling people totalitarian is a weak defense indeed.

      The only direction you can go from here is to try and argue why animals shouldn't have rights. I'd be happy to help you through that one.

      - mikeUS August 21, 2008 7:01PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Liberacion Igualdad
      Coercion and violence?

      First of all, this is not a "legislating diet" issue, but a moral issue regarding human relationship with other animals. The dietary aspect of it, it's, although very important, just one among others.

      I am a Vegan, and I don't support coercion or violence. I strongly believe in education, critical thinking, debating, and helping people see things from another perspective in a non-violent way.

      But this doesn't meant that "everything goes". I believe that exploiting other animals is immoral, therefore I work everyday to accomplish a state of affairs (i.e. a majority of the population going Vegan) that will mean their emancipation. I hope to be a part of a movement that will accomplish this without the need of a "violent revolution" or an "imposition" of any kind.

      To your argument.

      This is NOT a matter of "personal choice" or "liberty". A person who likes to rape women DOES NOT have a right to rape them. He has NOT the right to do whatever he wants to.
      Is this a totalitarian law? A violation of liberties?

      In my view, it isn't, simply because the rapist's actions are in conflict with the liberties and interests of someone else. That's where liberties have a limit.

      You don't seem to recognize other animals as "someone", although everything points into that direction. They are sentient beings, with wants, preferences, likes and dislikes, interests, just as human animals.
      They have all that's needed to take them in consideration when we talk about morals.

      Violating their interests because you like the taste of their flesh or bodily secretions is NOT a morally relevant justification, because if pleasure is, in fact, enough reason to justify some action, then rape wouldn't be considered immoral at all.

      In this light, the argument that "Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'" doesn't represent a meaningful argument in favor of enslaving, exploiting and killing other animals.

      Regards.

      - Liberacion IgualdadCL September 1, 2008 5:58PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • ebsarver
        What about animals?

        Are lions wrong to kill the antelope? Are chimpanzees violating the "rights" of termites? Are bears violating the rights of humans when they maul them?

        If your answer (the only logical one) is "no," then it begs the question, "why is it only wrong when humans do it."

        If your response to that amounts to "because we know better," then I would really have to question your view of life. Some things eat energy. Other things eat other things. We are one of those things that eats other things. Period. Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris.

        Attempting to force everyone on the planet to go along with one's own set of values...whether those values are Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or whatever religious/social culture you want to pick...seems like a good way of creating a totalitarian society

        It amounts to "my culture is better than yours, and I know better, so I'm going to force my culture down your throat."

        We already have WAY TOO MUCH of that kind of activity happening. They already legislate which drugs are legal and which are not. Taking the next step to tell us which foods are legal and which are not...scares the heck out of me. What would be next? Telling me WHEN I can eat and WHEN I cannot? Telling me I have to drink the flouridated water, and banning any system of filtering it out of my water?

        If you support banning meat eating at the government level, you support totalitarianism, simple and plain. You support "my culture is better than yours." You support "my belief system is superior or more accurate than yours." You support, "I know best and have the right to tell you how to live."

        Comparing to murder is a very clever red herring, but does not measure up...it's just a red herring...and I'm not biting.

        My argument is not in favor of anything. It is specifically AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives, and specifically AGAINST legislating morality.

        - ebsarverUS September 2, 2008 12:28AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • dan
          Hubris? Imposing Beliefs?

          Ebsarver:

          Hubris is slaughtering 12 billion animals annually in the US and 53 billion worldwide. Hubris is thinking that “we’re smarter than others so we can torture and kill them.”

          The issue in this debate is whether we are morally justified in torturing and killing animals for food. The issue is NOT about “legislating” anything. We are not morally justified in torturing and killing animals for food, but we cannot legislate anything regarding this problem until more people are educated on the issue.

          Finally, nobody is “imposing” anything here. We are merely challenging the cultural dogma that blindly accepts violence IMPOSED on the innocent for trivial human pleasures. For more on “imposing beliefs”, check out the following essay:

          http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-imposing-beliefs-on-others.html

          - dan September 2, 2008 8:42AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Liberacion Igualdad
          What about them?

          We already discussed this in this very debate, so I'll copy/paste something I wrote already.

          I think that getting our morals from the behavior of others, especially when they are from other species, it's simply absurd. Human morality comes from critical thinking, not from other animals' behavior.

          I don't know whether other animals have morals. I certainly know I do.
          I don't know whether other animals (especially carnivores) can survive without killing or otherwise exploiting other animals. I certainly know I can.

          This is enough to make our own decisions, and form our ethics, regardless of the actions of other animals. That's why we can say that rape and murder is immoral, even when other animals actually rape and murder other animals.

          Yes, other animals kill other animals to eat. Yes, other animals rape females. Yes, other animals kill female's offspring in order to reproduce with them. Yes, other animals fight and even kill each other for territory or to get the females.

          Why is it only wrong when humans do it? "Why can't we rape women? Lions do it! Why can't we!!??"

          Because taking your morality from the behavior of other animals it's just NOT REASONABLE.

          Yes, we must kill to survive. But I bet that humans are not in that equation for you. I bet that you don't think that cannibalism it's ok because, "hey, we have to eat something!"

          And I'm pretty sure that your argument "AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives" doesn't include human murderers or rapists. I don't believe you think "we can't tell rapists how to live their lives". Why? As explained in my former response, it is because our liberties have a limit. And that limit is someone else's liberty.

          You've already said that you are in favor of "human rights". This is why I find rather odd your statement that you're "specifically AGAINST legislating morality", since human rights are just that. Morality being legislated. Humans have rights that protect them from other humans violating their interests; in other words, we tell people how to live their own lives, indeed, in order to protect HUMAN RIGHTS.

          So the question seems obvious, again and again. Since other sentient animals share the same basic interests, why do we only protect humans?
          You already wrote that "Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris."

          So, why?

          Apart from that... do you think it is ok to impose unnecessary pain, suffering and death on other animals? To do so just because we want to or derive pleasure of it? Do you think that a human torturing a dog because he likes to do it, isn't doing anything reprehensible?

          And please, don't keep bringing the "imposition" issue. We're grown up humans, in a DEBATE website, sharing and debating our views and arguments. Nobody's trying to "force [one's] culture down your throat".
          That seems to be just a lack of argument.

          - Liberacion IgualdadCL September 2, 2008 11:08AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • ebsarver
            moral absolutism

            I have read the counter-arguments, and will simply never believe them, because the "no" side of this argument seems founded almost completely upon moral absolutism. I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it.

            Let's say meat eating got banned. What kind of results could we expect? It seems easy to project them, based on what we see with other forms of prohibition. It seems likely that people would NOT stop eating meat, and that it would be necessary to hire more police to stop the meat eating. A new federal agency, let's call it the Animal Rights Enforcement Agency (AREA), would likely be formed to deal with the massive problem of rounding up millions of lawbreakers. The prisons would fill to the brims, just as they have with marijuana users, or as they did with alcohol users.

            The conditions under which black market meat products get created would not be up to par. A ton of people who refused to kowtow to the government would end up poisoned. The animals who used to be raised under regulated conditions are probably now being raised in horrible ones, or at least unregulated ones.

            Predictable results of prohibition: massive crime waves, creation of a police state, decimation of human rights on a grand scale, no true lessening of the "undesireable" behavior.

            If Animal Rights folks want to wage their little war against eating animals or using animals, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the notion of LEGISLATING the issue. If it were ever made law, I would predict a huge cataclysm for democracy. Those who support THAT...will never have my support.

            It seems so simple and plain. On one side of the argument is "hey, let's create more prohibition." On the other side of the argument is "hey, let's not." If we examine the results of prohibition, we can see clearly what they are. So...the "No Side" of this argument amounts to an argument in favor of: big government, massive black markets, arresting and jailing our own citizens en masse, removal of constitutional protections in order to hunt down the new "criminal" class, increasing dangers of the black market, poorer animal control and regulation, etc....

            This is what you're REALLY voting for on this one, animal rights activists. Is that REALLY what you want? If it is, power to you...go for it...I don't think you'll get many supporters.

            Who knows, though. Human history is rife with people who will sacrifice liberty and sanity for ideals. We've already had alcohol prohibition, and they got millions of people to come out in support of that.

            All I can say is, the USA is totalitarian enough with the Dept of Homeland Security and the DEA running around out there...the last thing we need is a new federal agency locking up our own citizens for this kind of "crime."

            - ebsarverUS September 2, 2008 12:40PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Liberacion Igualdad
              Come on!

              With all due respect ebsarver, you haven't really read any "counter-argument" because you haven't raised ANY argument, whatsoever.

              And, you haven't counter-argumented any of the arguments raised by the "NO" side either. Just a single "I don't believe them". That is not an argument, it's an opinion.

              You are just saying, over and over again, that you're against "imposition". But we've said, over and over again, that we don't want to impose anything, let alone the impossibility of doing so at this time in history.
              If we are ever going to change the status of other animals as human commoditties, it will have to come from a paradigm shift in our thinking, in people's minds FIRST. Then can come a regulation or legislation of society as a whole.

              Human slavery wasn't abolished when everyone thought human slavery was OK. No. It was abolished after a good amount of people realized the immorality of it.
              Sadly, there was a violent revolution to get that abolition.

              But, please be honest and answer me this... Do you think that the abolishment of human slavery was wrong? That it was an imposition of someone's beliefs? Poor slave owners?

              Same with prohibitions against rape. Are you against them? Poor rapists can't exercise their personal choices?

              Your moral relativism really doesn't hold any water.

              I'm not a moral absolutist. I think that under certain circumstances, killing other animals (humans or not) can be justified (as in a kill-or-die situation). But, the fact that some action can be justified under a very specific situation, doesn't mean that doing the same action every day, just because you want to, it's justifiable.

              There's a clear difference between smoking marijuana/drinking alcohol and eating meat. Basically, the former ARE personal choices, since, under normal circumstances, the only one involved is the consumer (not talking about drunk people driving cars, hitting their couples, or whatever). Eating meat is NOT a personal choice, because it REQUIRES the violation of the interests of someone else (unless you only eat your own flesh, roadkill, or animals that died in the wild from natural causes).

              That's why, in my view, labeling marijuana or alcohol consumption as immoral in itself it's nonsense. Enslaving, exploiting and/or killing other animals, in the other hand, is immoral when there is no true necessity involved -- and that is the case for 99.9999% of our uses of other animals.

              How do you justify this, then?
              An argument would be greatly appreciated.

              - Liberacion IgualdadCL September 2, 2008 1:14PM

              Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • dan
              Not About "Legislating"

              ebsarver:

              First, I should remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.

              Second, I should remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.

              - dan September 2, 2008 3:05PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • ebsarver
                on the contrary

                Visit the links I posted.

                Contrary to your assertion that, "there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals," the links I posted already make arguments to this effect, and additionally completely debunk the arguments of animal rights activists very effectively.

                - ebsarverUS September 2, 2008 3:29PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

                More comments in this thread
            • ElaineVigneault
              You're attacking a straw-man.

              "I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it."

              Wow, that's not at all circular or absolutist or anything, is it?
              Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should. That sounds pretty absolutist to me.
              The question is "Should we eat meat?" It is not, "Should meat be banned?"

              - ElaineVigneaultUS September 7, 2008 10:41AM

              Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • ebsarver
                more false attributions

                What is it with you veggies, that you keep attributing things to me that I never said?

                "Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should."

                No. I never said anywhere that nobody should be vegetarian. I could care less if you want to be one. Anyone who WANTS to be one should be one. Go for it.

                - ebsarverUS September 9, 2008 3:29PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

                More comments in this thread
        • ElaineVigneault
          your ethical obligations

          http://www.vegansoapbox.com/stupid-things-omnivores-say-they-would-eat-us /

          Even if animals don’t use or understand ethics that doesn’t absolve humans from ethical obligations. Our ethical obligations arise from our capacity to reason and to behave ethically, not from another’s lack of capacity. Our responsibility to do the right thing comes from our ability to do the right thing (and our capacity to do the wrong thing), not from someone else’s abilities. For example, adults have a responsibility to refrain from harming children because adults have that ability, not because children have the same abilities.

          The more power you have, the more responsibility you have to behave ethically.

          - ElaineVigneaultUS September 2, 2008 11:47AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Liberacion Igualdad
          And just one more thought...

          This is not about prohibiting people from doing something, or banning "meat eating". This is about protecting someone's interests and rights, in this case, other animals.

          Rape analogy it's not a red herring. Saying that rape is immoral it's not about prohibiting people doing something, but protecting people from the harm that others may cause them by raping them.

          It really is that simple.

          - Liberacion IgualdadCL September 2, 2008 12:40PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • dan
          Not About "Legislating"

          ebsarver:

          First, I remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.

          Second, I remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.

          - dan September 2, 2008 3:04PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • FredTheViking
          Non-trivial interest vs. trivial interest.

          ebsarver,

          Animal rights avocates believe that eating meat is a trival interest for humans. We lived in a world were food is plentiful and we are able to choose what we eat. So, when we choose to eat plants or meat that is choice is trivial. I think you agree with that assessment.

          Loins are not omnivores, they are carnivores and really have a non-trivial interest in eating animals . If they don't eat animals, they will die. Therefore it is morally excusable for loins to eat other animals. They have an interest in their continue existence and really have no choice.

          Simliarly arguements could be made for omnivores in the wild. They eat what they can find. For them eating is a matter of survival and often are not given a choice of food. We live a very different world from theirs, most of us don't even have to kill or harvest any of our food. We can get what we need from plants to survive, so the question really is why should we eat animals?

          - FredTheVikingUS October 15, 2009 7:59AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • ebsarver
            Response to Fred

            "We can get what we need from plants to survive, so the question really is why should we eat animals ?"

            This is the only question of yours I think I have not already addressed elsewhere in my comments.

            For the answer, you ought to read the book "The Paleo Diet" by Dr. Loren Cordain. The reason to eat meat is that it is healthy, useful, and a natural part of the human diet . Humans are quite literally built to be omnivores, and there is no substitute for meat eating.

            - ebsarverUS October 15, 2009 4:08PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • jordon
              What about

              Actually if you are saying that its not healthy to be vegetarian /vegan than you are going against much modern research. The American Dietetic Association say that "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy , lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes."

              http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl /media_22003_ENU_HTML.htm

              And if you prefer individual authors than I would suggest reading the China Study and Eat to Live. I however prefer the large scietific organizations.

              Furthermore if you are arguing that because humans evolved the capacity to eat meat than you run into a few other problems. For example by that logic we should all be tribalistic warmongers, have slaves and hold women as second class citizens, all of which is the historical perspective and has changed only in the last few thousand or few hundred years. I would say those activities are immoral in spite of them being "natural". Would you agree?

              - jordonUS October 15, 2009 6:35PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • ebsarver
                liberty versus authority

                "Actually if you are saying that its not healthy to be vegetarian /vegan than you are going against much modern research."

                I am saying it is not as healthy as being omnivorous. I base that on volumes of research. Of course, there is plenty out there to say just the opposite, such as claims that the American " food pyramid" represents our best choice...clearly a total lie for anyone who does any reading into anthropology and the science of diet . Just the same, there are volumes of "scientific" data to show just about any diet is good. I find there to be gaping holes in most of them.

                Regarding omnivorous diets (more specifically Paleolithic diets), here is one excellent starting point with thousands of external references for you to peruse:
                http://www.beyondveg.com /

                I am NOT saying that to be vegetarian is to be unhealthy, though I do find that this tends to be the case more often than not. My experience is that most vegetarians eat horribly inadequate diets. Sure, a balanced one is possible as a vegetarian, but difficult, and most vegans simply don't know the facts and therefore don't get nearly enough protein. They eat a ton of soy and think that will do it, when it is actually woefully inadequate.

                I disagree with the American Dietetic Association's findings, and think the findings from my source are better and more accurate, but of course, that will be at least in part a matter of opinion. A simple set of facts convinces me of this...including personal experience and evidence presented in Loren Cordain's books, as well as on the site I posted the link for above.

                "Furthermore if you are arguing that because humans evolved the capacity to eat meat than you run into a few other problems. For example by that logic we should all be tribalistic warmongers, have slaves and hold women as second class citizens, all of which is the historical perspective and has changed only in the last few thousand or few hundred years. I would say those activities are immoral in spite of them being "natural". Would you agree?"

                I would agree that this argument makes no logical sense. It is what debaters would call a Red Herring. You've introduced a separate (and historically inaccurate picture of Paleolithic history) topic unrelated to the eating of meat in an attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand. Thus, I won't address this issue.

                I will say, however, that I am not attempting to say that "natural = moral." This would also be a logical fallacy.

                On the contrary, I would say that morality is up to the individual, and is a wholly human-created idea...not related to the physical world whatsoever, or to the natural order. I would say that if we strip the question of morality out of it, we would see that eating meat is natural for humans. Thus, I would say that regardless of one person's morality versus another person's morality, we ought never legislate against this. But then, this fits with my sense of morality, not everyone's. My sense of morality and liberty are quite different than the majority, and clearly diametrically opposed to the notions of those who would legislate against meat eating. In essence, most of my arguments boil down to this:

                DON'T TREAD ON ME.

                I'm a hardcore anti- government , anti-legislation, pro-liberty of the individual type of man. Those are my beliefs, and just like your beliefs, they have consequences. I prefer my consequences to others', and my beliefs to others', and would never attempt to prevent you from exercising your beliefs or your choices in life. I would hope that you would do the same for me...and everyone else.

                - ebsarverUS October 16, 2009 5:01AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

                More comments in this thread
    • ElaineVigneault
      Wrong on two counts

      You wrote: "It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence."

      a) That's not the issue. The question isn't "How best to create a vegan society?" nor is the question "Should meat be banned?" The question is "Should we eat meat?"
      For animals, for our health, for the environment, for other humans the answer is clear: NO, we should not eat meat.

      b) You're just plain wrong that coercion and violence are the only ways to make a vegan society. There are many routes to the same goal. You've identified one route and focus on it as though it's the only route. You ignore the range of other possibilities, such as vegan education.

      - ElaineVigneaultUS September 7, 2008 10:47AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Should We Eat Meat?

  • Yes
  • No
Vote
View Results

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

 
 
  • Consumer Freedom
    The Center for Consumer Freedom
    The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices. We believe that the... More

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.