May 5, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Based on my lurking here so far, the answer seems obvious:

As "ability to feel pain" seems to be the reason vegetarians won't eat meat, then we need to breed cows with a genetic disorder so that the pain receptors don't work.

Or we could give them Norco.  Same diff.

Oh if that's the case, why don't we genetically engineer people to not feel pain and then everybody could blow up everybody and we could have nonstop wars even more because there are no pain receptors.  

Although I am a vegetarian, my main focus is that pain is a sufficient reason to stop treating animals like objects.

The point is to live according to human wisdom and the  understanding of right and wrong, not imitating animal actions that are strictly instinctive and devoid of malice or rationalizations.

May 5, 2012 -- 11:35AM, christzen wrote:

Being killed by modern slaughter methods is much less painful than being killed by predators.

What you object to therefore is just nature itself.

Nope.  The objection is to the choice being made by creatures able to make choices.  Attitudes that have been handed down by The Marlboro Man, the fantasy hero who wrestles a cow with his bare hands to the ground, hog ties it, and then burns His "mark" into it flesh, claiming ownership for no other reason than the permanent burn marks on its body. 

Killing the animal for the food gratification it brings, like branding the animal to claim ownership over it should be PAINLESS not less painful.   And there should be a moral reason for doing it.  Some people believe that Big Mac's and "Meat Lovers Pizza" simply aren't enough of a moral reason to justify the brutal and painful killling of the sheer number of cows that get killed per year, by for-profit business interests, or the way they get killed, either.   That's where "choice" comes in and very quickly ignored.

May 5, 2012 -- 2:58PM, rabello wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 11:35AM, christzen wrote:

Being killed by modern slaughter methods is much less painful than being killed by predators.

What you object to therefore is just nature itself.

Nope.  The objection is to the choice being made by creatures able to make choices.  Attitudes that have been handed down by The Marlboro Man, the fantasy hero who wrestles a cow with his bare hands to the ground, hog ties it, and then burns His "mark" into it flesh, claiming ownership for no other reason than the permanent burn marks on its body. 

Killing the animal for the food gratification it brings, like branding the animal to claim ownership over it should be PAINLESS not less painful.   And there should be a moral reason for doing it.  Some people believe that Big Mac's and "Meat Lovers Pizza" simply aren't enough of a moral reason to justify the brutal and painful killling of the sheer number of cows that get killed per year, by for-profit business interests, or the way they get killed, either.   That's where "choice" comes in and very quickly ignored.

Excellent points Rabello.  Along with the Marboro man, the famous "Rawhide" theme song.  This is subliminal programming at its best.  We watch the handsome hunk Clint Eastwood while listening to a romantic tune dripping with manhood, about the old West, women and money, the whip cracks in the background.  It is a song of adventure, conquest and nostalgia.  The cattle we are told not to pay any attention to.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fh1dnspEHw

www.google.com/search?q=the+Rawhide+them...

May 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, arielg wrote:

The point is to live according to human wisdom and the  understanding of right and wrong, not imitating animal actions that are strictly instinctive and devoid of malice or rationalizations.

Pay attention .If man were imitating animal actions,then we would not give a whit about attempting to humanely kill the animals first.Animals don't.And if you think that those in the slaughterhouses are doing their job because they bear some malice towards the cattle and get off on killing them,then you live in some sort of weird veggiemaniac fantasyland.