Veganism/vegetarianism

Pity_The_Clever:

...knows they exist has rights.

They do not know of existance because they cannot comprehend the concept of non-exsistance. Animals do not understand the concept of zero, did you know this. And humans have only understood this concept for 6,000 years, at the most. It is a very complex idea if you try to analyse it, the thing is, we're taught it from such an early stage in life, we consider it simple. One of the most complex mathematical functions (Zero is not a number.) that we are taught at infancy almost.

Anji:

No, because if it has rights, it has responsibilities. Animals do not have responsibilities, because it is an abstract thought. OK, so maybe very few animals have them like dogs, or dolphins, or bonobo chimpanzees, but only the incredibly intellegent ones. They do not have rights, not to say that it is our responsibility to see that they are treated humanly.

But you do realize that animals are given rights under most governments, yes? I don't see what you're basing this claim off of. As for responsibilities, yes they do! Our ecosystem and environment wouldn't be able to function without the animals living in it, and we as humans wouldn't be able to survive without them. Did you know that if bees and other insects didn't pollinate plants, the Planet Earth documentary series estimated that it would cost billions of dollars to do their work. Bees are just one animal, every animal has an individual niche within their ecosystem. They might not have responsibilities in the sense you're thinking, but they certainly do have quite a bit depending on them.

At any rate, what does responsibility have to do with rights? New born children have no responsibilities, severely disabled people have no responsibilities, does that mean it's ok for us to abolish their rights? Of course not. I can understand privileges being distributed based on responsibilities, but not rights.

Anji:

Pity_The_Clever:

...knows they exist has rights.

They do not know of existance because they cannot comprehend the concept of non-exsistance. Animals do not understand the concept of zero, did you know this. And humans have only understood this concept for 6,000 years, at the most. It is a very complex idea if you try to analyse it, the thing is, we're taught it from such an early stage in life, we consider it simple. One of the most complex mathematical functions (Zero is not a number.) that we are taught at infancy almost.

I wasn't talking mathematics, I was talking knowing that they are alive, interaction with others of their kind and even some that are not.

I know that animals are given rights by certain governments under the law and all, but I mean if you think about it conceptually, it's ridiculous. Next thing you know, lions can't kill zebra in a prolonged, torturous fashion.

Rights are innate. Infants and disabled people who cannot comprehend this have no responsibility, but others will have a responsibility to take them in and care for them. Also, essentially, it is unfortunate that they cannot understand this, so it may be that they have no rights, however we do make it out responsibility to give rights to them anyway. There's a famous Australian animal rights activist, recently moved to America, cause a big stir, people found some of his ideas to be quite, well, totaltarian. What was his name, Peter Singer, there we go. He argued that if the purpose of an experiment on animals could also be justifiably used on a mentally disabled human, then it was alright to do such an experiment. Of course this stance caused quite a great deal of contraversy, something he is quite used to by now. Perhaps it is incorrect to compare the two, but should the mentality of an animal and a diabled human be equivalent, the only difference then is in the species, and it is incorrect to distinguish between any animal because we are otherwise fundamentally all the same.

I don't know. I don't even know if a proper answer is possible. It's all completely subjective, the thing is, animals are never subjective. They are always instinctive. Essentially, we're not tied to responsibility, we tie ourselves to it. Have you read Camus' 'The Outsider'? Great book, you'd enjoy it, it's a lot to do with this. And I've said this before on the thread about God, rights either have to be completely objective, in which case there is a set of them that is embedded in the universe by some form of higher power, and only one can exist. But I know you are an atheist, in which case, rights, responsibility, morals, ethics, these cannot exist. Not inheritly anyways. Existentially, we must make our own rights, our own responsibilities, morals, and ethics, but here is the paradox in your arguement, because animals are incapable of doing this.

And technically, it's not their responsibility. Responsibility is an abstract word, we may think that it's applicable to animals, but it isn't. precision of word useage, my friend. If you can give an animal responsibility, you can also blame them, and find them guilty, etc. This is an absurd idea, literally. Animals only do what they do out of instinct. It's not their job to go around pollinating things, infact bees don't even realise that they're pollinating the Earth, they do so in order to live. It's their life, not their responsibility. For an animal, they are the same thing, because they have no other inherit purpose. And in this sense, if apply the concept of absurdism and existentialism, animals are what Satre would describe as keeping 'good faith'. They have a 'purpose' in life, they appear to give their lives meaning by going around accidentally pollinating things. It's a double cover, they aren't really pollinating things, though they do so as they fly along trying to actually gather nectar and pollen for their own use, not to in the process, unknowingly to them, give life to the Earth. You're smart, you know that's proposterous. In a Douglas Adams, comically-absurd universe, perhaps, but not here, no.

Also, speaking of Planet Earth my cousin's fiance filmed the deserts episode, the plateau one with the fields, and a few parts of other episodes. Yeah! Pretty cool. I may start working for the BBC very soon. He came to do a things on the monsoon season in India almost a year ago. Pretty damn cool, eh.

OK, so I have no clue if you were able to follow any of that, but I think, if you try hard enough, it'll make sense. You may need to read inbetween the lines a bit.
...Or not read it at all in order for it to make sense.

Pity_The_Clever:

Anji:

Pity_The_Clever:

...knows they exist has rights.

They do not know of existance because they cannot comprehend the concept of non-exsistance. Animals do not understand the concept of zero, did you know this. And humans have only understood this concept for 6,000 years, at the most. It is a very complex idea if you try to analyse it, the thing is, we're taught it from such an early stage in life, we consider it simple. One of the most complex mathematical functions (Zero is not a number.) that we are taught at infancy almost.

I wasn't talking mathematics, I was talking knowing that they are alive, interaction with others of their kind and even some that are not.

Come on, mate, open your mind a little. It doesn't matter if you were talking mathematics or not, mathematics is applicable in nearly anything. Let's take zero, for instance. Zero is a function, it is an absence of everything and anything. Now inagine you're a fly. Really imagine. All you do is think about eating, and excreting, and flying, and only things that are essential to your life. But flies cannot actually think about life itself, they exist to themselves only here and now. So they cannot comprehend their existence and the fragility of life. Because to accept that we are alive, we have to accept death, and to accept death, we either have to accept that we become nothing, or we go to heaven. (But technically in Chirstianity, that's just our souls. Our body becomes nothing once more. 'From ashes to ashes, dust to dust.') Animals do not think like this, if they did, they'd be far more intellegent. A trained parrot, taught like 1,000 words, one of the most intellegent ones, was once asked to subtract 2 from 2. He knew the word for 0, but he couldn't answer the question. He was unable to accept that it was possible for there to be nothing. He obviously didn't grasp the concept of it when it was first taught to him. Animals are phenomenonists. What exists, exists, what is, is. Of course they know that they're living, but they don't know what will happen after death.

Pwoar, this topic finally became a little bit more in-depth.

Anji:

Pity_The_Clever:

Anji:

Pity_The_Clever:

...knows they exist has rights.

They do not know of existance because they cannot comprehend the concept of non-exsistance. Animals do not understand the concept of zero, did you know this. And humans have only understood this concept for 6,000 years, at the most. It is a very complex idea if you try to analyse it, the thing is, we're taught it from such an early stage in life, we consider it simple. One of the most complex mathematical functions (Zero is not a number.) that we are taught at infancy almost.

I wasn't talking mathematics, I was talking knowing that they are alive, interaction with others of their kind and even some that are not.

Come on, mate, open your mind a little. It doesn't matter if you were talking mathematics or not, mathematics is applicable in nearly anything. Let's take zero, for instance. Zero is a function, it is an absence of everything and anything. Now inagine you're a fly. Really imagine. All you do is think about eating, and excreting, and flying, and only things that are essential to your life. But flies cannot actually think about life itself, they exist to themselves only here and now. So they cannot comprehend their existence and the fragility of life. Because to accept that we are alive, we have to accept death, and to accept death, we either have to accept that we become nothing, or we go to heaven. (But technically in Chirstianity, that's just our souls. Our body becomes nothing once more. 'From ashes to ashes, dust to dust.') Animals do not think like this, if they did, they'd be far more intellegent. A trained parrot, taught like 1,000 words, one of the most intellegent ones, was once asked to subtract 2 from 2. He knew the word for 0, but he couldn't answer the question. He was unable to accept that it was possible for there to be nothing. He obviously didn't grasp the concept of it when it was first taught to him. Animals are phenomenonists. What exists, exists, what is, is. Of course they know that they're living, but they don't know what will happen after death.

Well ok, but animals and insects and everything else, they are bound by instincts, and they can't help that, humans have the will and intelligence to stray away from whatever our instincts are, its not right for an animal to be slaughtered because it is an animal, they do have rights and are protected by the government or some other form of authority one way or another. I couldn't care less about the concept of 0, they can't help that their brains aren't as developed as a humans. And don't use Christian philosophy on me. I'm Satanist.

Pity_The_Clever:

Well ok, but animals and insects and everything else, they are bound by instincts, and they can't help that, humans have the will and intelligence to stray away from whatever our instincts are, its not right for an animal to be slaughtered because it is an animal, they do have rights and are protected by the government or some other form of authority one way or another. I couldn't care less about the concept of 0, they can't help that their brains aren't as developed as a humans. And don't use Christian philosophy on me. I'm Satanist.

You're getting it now.

I don't know if it's unfortunate, or good that animals do not understand this. All they ever do is react from instinct, of course it's not right to kill an animal in an inhuman fashion, but right and wrong are different from rights. And, yes, the government has rightfully protected the lives of many animals.

And in no way am I using Christian philosophy. In the case that you were Christian, I was merely persuading you to believe my arguement. But you aren't so that little bit of writing was redundant I guess.

Anji:

I know that animals are given rights by certain governments under the law and all, but I mean if you think about it conceptually, it's ridiculous. Next thing you know, lions can't kill zebra in a prolonged, torturous fashion.

Why is it ridiculous? The only rights humans are given are also given to them by governments, it's the exact same concept. You're going to have to be more specific than "conceptually ridiculous". As for your next statement, I have no idea where you were going with that, no one said anything that implied anything of the sort. Animals have the right to ethical treatment. A lion killing a zebra would be ethical treatment because it keeps the food chain balanced. What are you trying to say?

As for rights being innate, that isn't correct, look at history. We weren't born with rights. Different groups recieved different rights at various times. People in different parts of the world still have their rights oppressed and denied. If it is our responsibility to give rights to those groups of people, why do animals not have the right to ethical treatment?

As for animals behaving on instinct only, that's totally false as well. You can't make such a generalization about such a large group of organisms. Not all animals rely on instincts only. As for the ones who do, why does that matter? It doesn't make their role in nature any less important. Me being an atheist has nothing to do with animals having the right to ethical treatment, there is no paradox in my argument. All living things have the right to ethical treatment. I don't see where that contradicts itself?

You're putting words in my mouth Anji, I never said a bee pollinated plants because it knew it had to. I said they had a lot depending upon them making them important to everything around them.

For an animal, they are the same thing, because they have no other inherit purpose
Why does their purpose affect their right to ethical treatment? What do you think makes something worthy of having rights?

Also, speaking of Planet Earth my cousin's fiance filmed the deserts episode, the plateau one with the fields, and a few parts of other episodes. Yeah! Pretty cool. I may start working for the BBC very soon. He came to do a things on the monsoon season in India almost a year ago. Pretty damn cool, eh. Fizz
Dude I love that whole series. Thats rad.

Anji:

Pity_The_Clever:

Well ok, but animals and insects and everything else, they are bound by instincts, and they can't help that, humans have the will and intelligence to stray away from whatever our instincts are, its not right for an animal to be slaughtered because it is an animal, they do have rights and are protected by the government or some other form of authority one way or another. I couldn't care less about the concept of 0, they can't help that their brains aren't as developed as a humans. And don't use Christian philosophy on me. I'm Satanist.

You're getting it now.

I don't know if it's unfortunate, or good that animals do not understand this. All they ever do is react from instinct, of course it's not right to kill an animal in an inhuman fashion, but right and wrong are different from rights. And, yes, the government has rightfully protected the lives of many animals.

And in no way am I using Christian philosophy. In the case that you were Christian, I was merely persuading you to believe my arguement. But you aren't so that little bit of writing was redundant I guess.

So why must humans kill animals in inhuman fashion then? I say slaughtering animals shows a lack of respect Being bound by instinct might not be a bad thing in some ways, have you ever heard of a cow killing another cow? Humans are just downright dangerous when they decide they are hungry.

Ok this is totally unrelated but has anybody ever heard of people replacing meant with tofu? I went to a friends house and they were seriously having tofu burgers. I used a lot of salt.

Kurtni:

Why is it ridiculous? The only rights humans are given are also given to them by governments, it's the exact same concept. You're going to have to be more specific than "conceptually ridiculous".

It's 'conceptually ridiculous' because it's humans, artificialised beings, telling the natural world, how the natural order of things is supposed to go. I mean, it's completely absurd. It's right to at least be decent and to kill them fast and painlessly, but it's wrong to even be treating them in such a way in the first place.

Kurtni:

As for your next statement, I have no idea where you were going with that, no one said anything that implied anything of the sort. Animals have the right to ethical treatment. A lion killing a zebra would be ethical treatment because it keeps the food chain balanced. What are you trying to say?

Lions will torture zebras and eat them alive and as far as animal rights activists are concerned, that is bad. Any torture of animals is apparently bad. Also, all living things should be treated the same. I was satirising the ideas of such exteremist groups as PETA and ALF and stuff.

Kurtni:

As for rights being innate, that isn't correct, look at history. We weren't born with rights. Different groups recieved different rights at various times. People in different parts of the world still have their rights oppressed and denied. If it is our responsibility to give rights to those groups of people, we do animals not have the right to ethical treatment?

By innate, I mean intrinsitc, yeah. Philosophically, they're the same thing.

Kurtni:

As for animals behaving on instinct only, that's totally false as well. You can't make such a generalization about such a large group of organisms. Not all animals rely on instincts only. As for the ones who do, why does that matter? It doesn't make their role in nature any less important.

Animals behave completely on instinct, just as humans do. The difference is that animals are never subjective. They are intersubjective, but never subjective because almost all of them have no concept of the abstract. I guess you could argue against me on this, but I really don't think that mice, or giraffes actually love or have democracy or much at all. Almost every living thing reacts on instinct, but you have to question whether there is any altruism in this world or whether everyone and every thing and every animal is fundamentally solipsistic. Personally, I do believe that most animals are. It's about existance, existance before essance, fundamentals of being and animal and also ironically of existentialism. Funny how humans consider animals to be a more primative life form and yet they are living their lives to the standard of one of the most advanced philosophical ideas.

Kurtni:

Me being an atheist has nothing to do with animals having the right to ethical treatment, there is no paradox in my argument. All living things have the right to ethical treatment. Explain to me where that contradicts itself?

Well, I'm not sure if you understand what I said about rights being innate. But let's say for now that they are. If so, it means that there is no God, because if there was, rights would be extrinsic. You understand? Luckily, you are atheist and so do not believe in God, or His extrinsic rights.

...Though I hadn't taken into consideration that atheists could believe that there are extrinsic rights without a God. But this is impossible because you need something to create extrinsic rights. So let's assume that as well. Therefore, the only conclusion left is that any rights that anyone has, have to by subjective rights. And how can animals make rights for themselves. I suppose that's why governments feel the need to do so. Humans like to catagorize things, give things names, titles. 'Animal rights' is just another one of those things. Back to my comment about it being 'conceptually ridiculous', 'animal rights' is a human construct, then again 'rights' is a human construct, but only inheritly, because we subjectivally give ourselves and take away our rights.

Kurtni:

You're putting words in my mouth Anji, I never said a bee pollinated plants because it knew it had to. I said they had a lot depending upon them making them important to everything around them.

You said that they have a 'responsibility' which connotates that they are liable to be blamed for. It connotates that they are in full consiousness of what they are doing, and they are not. It's a fickle thing to pick at, but I kinda have to. Half of the discussions on these threads are based on simple conflicts in word useage, but I'm sure you realise, this can be a big issue if this wasn't just a message board on the internet.

Kurtni:

Why does their purpose affect their right to ethical treatment?

...My layout is messy and I can remember the quote you were responding to, I'll reply to this quote later.

Kurtni:

What do you think makes something worthy of having rights?

I've probably clarified here that because rights are subjective, I therefore do not think that animals can have them, because they do not think subjectively. An interesting point to discuss is morals, are animals moral? For this, I also think that animals are not at all moral, simply because, like rights, morals are subjective and a human construct. How could and animal possibly understand them then.

For the record, I'm of course not arguing that animals should be kept in slaughter houses and tortured, right. I'm just saying that they don't have rights.

Anji:

Kurtni:

Why does their purpose affect their right to ethical treatment?

...My layout is messy and I can remember the quote you were responding to, I'll reply to this quote later.

Right, life and responsibility. It's nothing at all to do with specifically their 'purpose'. This is just the gianormous difference between animals and humans. So what are we to give them rights because they are unable to do so themselves. It's not their 'right', it's our responsibility. I think ther use of terms has almost been constructed in such a way to turn the blame away from humans if 'animal rights' have been violated.

It's back to the precision of word useage, except this is on a much larger scale.

Oh, I know a bit more about what I'm trying to say. Like, how can an animal have rights to how people treat them? See how 'it's not their 'right', it's our responsibility' works?

It's like the death penatly, another ridiculous thing. Humans trying to control death. It's not about punishment, life in prison is punishment. The death penatly is about control. We control the life of an individual, we control when they die. With animals, we give them rights just as easily as we can take them away. It is illegal to kill and endangered spieces, like, you know a tiger, for example. But when one endangered spieces like a tiger runs amok in a place like the San Diego Zoo and kills one speices of a pleantiful population of humans, then it's alright to kill a tiger, eh? Giving them rights, as easily as we take them away. But they should really have them, they've got nothing to do with them.

Our responsibility.

Anji:

It's 'conceptually ridiculous' because it's humans, artificialised beings, telling the natural world, how the natural order of things is supposed to go.

No it isn't. It humans saying that animals have the right to ethical treatment. In the natural world, animals would all receive ethical treatment. They would be able to live their life naturally. However, humans interfere with that. We prevent it from happening. We destory their habitats, we abuse them, among other things. Animals having rights just ensures their ethical treatment, which basically means that they have the right to be animals without humans fucking everything up.

Anji:

Oh, I know a bit more about what I'm trying to say. Like, how can an animal have rights to how people treat them? See how 'it's not their 'right', it's our responsibility' works?

But it's our responsibility because they have the right to ethical treatment. Humans have rights as well, but just having rights isn't enough. It's still our responsibility to uphold those rights.

Anji:

This is just the gianormous difference between animals and humans.

Humans are animals. So to say animals have no rights would also be saying that humans have no rights.

Anji:

For the record, I'm of course not arguing that animals should be kept in slaughter houses and tortured, right. I'm just saying that they don't have rights.

If they don't have any rights, then why would you be opposed to them being treated unethically? If you believe they have no rights, then they can be subjected to any treatment, nothing is saying otherwise.

Anji:

Animals behave completely on instinct

No. You cannot judge an entire kingdom of organisms so generally. Different animals have different levels of thinking, they're not all the same. Many domesticated animals defy their instincts daily. Biologists question how much dolphins truly rely on instincts.

Anji:

Lions will torture zebras and eat them alive and as far as animal rights activists are concerned, that is bad. Any torture of animals is apparently bad. Also, all living things should be treated the same. I was satirising the ideas of such exteremist groups as PETA and ALF and stuff

But that's natural, animals have the right to be natural. Treating animals ethically is allowing them to behave as they would naturally without being harmed by humans. No one said "Animal rights" meant that no animals would die or be tortured, just that it shouldn't be caused by unnatural things like an abusive dog owner.

I consider myself to be an avid animal rights activist and I don't agree with any of the statements you just made, at all. Nor would PETA. They are for animals being able to live their lives naturally. Yeah, that involves death and dying as part of the food chain. O_O no one is against that.

We were doing a bit about vegitarianism in Philosophy yesterday, and we were reading from this book called "The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten" and basically it gave you a scenario of a man who'd been a vegitarian for a long time, and yet he was about to sit down to a plate of bacon, sausages and chicken. It goes on to say that the pig had been genetically modified to talk and the man had had a conversation with the pig who said that he would be "insulted" if he wasn't eaten, and on the day of the slaughter, he was very excited and went to the slaughter house full of joy. The chicken had the same thing happen to him, and the man thought it'd be disrespectful not to follow their wishes, so he ate the meat.

Obviously, it's not a true story, but I thought you guys might be interested It just throws up a lot of moral dilemas and all that jazz.

Boobmeister:

We were doing a bit about vegitarianism in Philosophy yesterday, and we were reading from this book called "The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten" and basically it gave you a scenario of a man who'd been a vegitarian for a long time, and yet he was about to sit down to a plate of bacon, sausages and chicken. It goes on to say that the pig had been genetically modified to talk and the man had had a conversation with the pig who said that he would be "insulted" if he wasn't eaten, and on the day of the slaughter, he was very excited and went to the slaughter house full of joy. The chicken had the same thing happen to him, and the man thought it'd be disrespectful not to follow their wishes, so he ate the meat.

Obviously, it's not a true story, but I thought you guys might be interested It just throws up a lot of moral dilemas and all that jazz.

Sounds strange. But interesting. I've never heard of it. Maybe I'll check that out next time I'm at a library.

Lol. I fell ill and had to go to the hopsital. Conveniently, I had time to think on this as well.

Kurtni:

No it isn't. It humans saying that animals have the right to ethical treatment. In the natural world, animals would all receive ethical treatment. They would be able to live their life naturally. However, humans interfere with that. We prevent it from happening. We destory their habitats, we abuse them, among other things. Animals having rights just ensures their ethical treatment, which basically means that they have the right to be animals without humans fucking everything up.

It's already ridiculous that we're interfering with their life in the first place. To give them 'rights' is technically further interference. I find the term 'rights' is incorrect. It may be the word that we use, but I don't think it should be the same for animals as for humans because we are obviously different. I just think that animals cannot at all be blamed, I sure almost every agrees. To give a right is to give responsibility, but it's towards the wrong thing. If an animal has subjective responsibility for it's own actions, that means it can be blamed for them as well. That is ridiculous, an animal cannot be blamed for anything. An animal, at least the majority nowadays, is a completely natural thing, almost no human interference so how can we give it responsibility? It sounds bad, but animals don't deserve responsibility. That's good because responsibility is bad, in this sense.

Kurtni:

But it's our responsibility because they have the right to ethical treatment. Humans have rights as well, but just having rights isn't enough. It's still our responsibility to uphold those rights.

A right is a completely subjective thing, how possibly can an animal have a right?

Kurtni:

This Humans are animals. So to say animals have no rights would also be saying that humans have no rights.

No, because as I said earlier, it's about subjective consiousness, which animals don't have, highlighting why there is a difference between 'human rights' and 'animal rights'. I think it's another things that irks me, that humans just have to do this. Establish, catagorise, file. Why must we set it in stone for them. I mean, that's what a right implies, which is why it's absurd. This is all from a completely absurdist point of view, which is utterly relevent in the discussion of human nature versus natural order.

Kurtni:

If they don't have any rights, then why would you be opposed to them being treated unethically? If you believe they have no rights, then they can be subjected to any treatment, nothing is saying otherwise.

You're suggesting then that rights are objective, in which case there is something, one thing in this universe which is giving us rights. I mean, I can't understand what else you could mean then. And this goes against atheism. Because of course humans don't necessarily have rights at all. If you're atheist, then you must believe that rights were made up by humans, not given from God.

Kurtni:

No. You cannot judge an entire kingdom of organisms so generally. Different animals have different levels of thinking, they're not all the same. Many domesticated animals defy their instincts daily. Biologists question how much dolphins truly rely on instincts.

Yeah, I am judging every living thing on the Earth. I think humans are utterly solipsistic, we rely on instinct then. This is going into ontology now, because like how could we know. If I was walking down the road, and my instinct told me to turn left, but I decided to turn right instead, well that is my new instinct, my old one was misguided. This is a simplistic example of how idealism turns into materialism. And so, no matter what any creature thinks, it's actions are empirical instinct.

Kurtni:

But that's natural, animals have the right to be natural. Treating animals ethically is allowing them to behave as they would naturally without being harmed by humans. No one said "Animal rights" meant that no animals would die or be tortured, just that it shouldn't be caused by unnatural things like an abusive dog owner.

I consider myself to be an avid animal rights activist and I don't agree with any of the statements you just made, at all. Nor would PETA. They are for animals being able to live their lives naturally. Yeah, that involves death and dying as part of the food chain. O_O no one is against that.

Yeah but ALF have hardly ever thought like that. And PETA haven't either. I know you aren't in alliance with these organisations, and I think it's also hard to deny that they are utterly extremist, at times. You did know that ALF would go around euthenising stray cats and dogs in order for them to not suffer anymore, right. That's what I was referring to.

tbh i don't see why people don't eat meat yet they still think its fine that animals such as alligators are getting killed and having their skin made into ugly shoes, bags, etc.

with meat, it's a form of survival.
you eat meat to get protein. it natural
and also if you lived hundreds of years ago, and you had no other way of warmth, you'd wear animal skins.
thats survival

personally I on nom nom nom on any meat I can get
but fuck my alligator-skin trashcan

Bleach:

tbh i don't see why people don't eat meat yet they still think its fine that animals such as alligators are getting killed and having their skin made into ugly shoes, bags, etc.

with meat, it's a form of survival.
you eat meat to get protein. it natural
and also if you lived hundreds of years ago, and you had no other way of warmth, you'd wear animal skins.
thats survival

personally I on nom nom nom on any meat I can get
but fuck my alligator-skin trashcan

The majority of people who don't eat meat probably don't use any animal products. I know I don't.

You say "natural", but the way humans eat meat is anything but natural. We breed animals selectively, modify genetics, take animals out of their natural environment and use technology to kill them. I have no problem with eating meat when it's done in a natural way, but the way ,most humans consume animals does not qualify as natural.

I think it used to be necessary for humans to eat meat. But in this day and age, we don't need to hunt. All our food is ready made.

Its just evolution, a natural process.