To be honest I think even PETA is aware of how completely bat shit absurd they are. The thing is, they keep doing it because it gets them attention. A lot of fucking attention. We can strap a panda on something and say 'Animals are skinned alive in China' but that doesn't really go places. If you want attention, you need to either be a horrible person or foam out the mouth. The former definitely does a good job in explaining how Palin and Queen Elizabeth II are as well renown as they are. I suppose the best analogy I can offer is that a circus can attract a lot more people than a good cause and a cry for help. Picking on one of gamings greatest mascots is definitely going to do that. I just hope to god I'm not overestimating PETA, because it would suck for Bill Maher to be bat shit absurd.

Its not ethical to eat meat, unless no other options. but actually with current tech, its simple to creat e food with texture and nutritionality and digestibility of the meat. meat alsi is inefficient.

Yes, by mass cloning animals and growing them without brains. It's the best of both worlds.

Eventually we could create things that aren't even 'animals'. Just grow slabs of sirloin steak right in the factory.

That's a tricky position. Is it ethical to eat meat that's been grown in a lab? Or a cow that would have died anyway, more painfully?

Especially if it would have died more painfully. Can we quantify pain? And if so, is it our ethical duty to ensure the least net pain possible?

"It's okay for me to kill other things if it lets me be alive longer"

I don't understand what the purpose is in you posting this, Tikels. He makes a valid point...humans have evolved to the point where we don't need to rely on meat because we have other sources of good protein and nutrients.

I don't think it's a valid point. Having alternatives to something doesn't make that thing immoral.

Whether or not there are alternatives to eating meat to survive doesn't make eating meat immoral, the same way that there are alternatives to breathing normal air to survive (like using an oxygen tank or air filter) doesn't make breathing normal air immoral (even though a lot of bacteria and similar organisms are being killed by you sucking them into your body).

I don't even think there's a case for eating farmed animals being immoral. Being alive and later slaughtered is better than never existing at all. We're giving that life a chance to exist, which is the greatest gift of all. They get to experience joy, love, sadness, and then they get to experience being delicious. It's great, a win/win for everyone.

You've never really read much by Singer have you? He's pretty convincing.

What is moral and immoral (or (un)-ethical) is subjective. So I don't think you can come to any sort of consent by just discussing it long enough.

That being said I find it odd how anyone can act as if his view would be the ultimate truth. You guys are just living by different standards, and I'm sure everyone has their reasons for their standard. So you should all respect the different opinions and let yourself enrich by them. You can't convince the other side to join you when they have grown to think and perceive deeds completely differently.

I don't think there's anything immoral about eating meat.

I can see potential immorality in the factory farming that goes on.

Maybe I should rephrase. I do not believe it is immoral to eat meat. However, I do think that teaching a vegetable rich diet to replace nutrients from meat could do a lot of good things from countries that suffer from high obesity....like the united states. There is a lot of emphasis on a beef and potatoes diet, or a diet high in corn. So from that perspective I see ethical benefit behind providing information on protein rich foods like beans or quinoa to replace some fatty meat. The ethical dilemma comes into play because the high emphasis on meat and potatoes comes from our insecure agricultural industry...subsidy funding is drastically disproportional in relation to a truly balanced diet, so the government perpetuates the diet that benefits the areas receiving the most funding.

He said that it is ethical to eat meat so long as there are no other options. I was arguing that just because you are dying doesn't mean it is an ethical stance to kill something else.

To make an analogy, is it ethical to kill someone else so that you may live? Now similarly, is it ethical to eat an animal so that you may live assuming there are no other options?

You're taking out the question of utility behind death, but since I'm a heartless conservative I can see a lot of merit in killing someone else if it means I get to live.