Should vegetarianism be compulsory?

TGMasterX

@RS_master But do we deserve the choice of ending another being's life? We should treat humans and animals with respect; we should not determine ourselves superior to everything else, like a fascist community.

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@RS_master
Lions, and other large cats, only eat animals because they have to. Their digestive systems aren't able to process plants.
However, as humans, we can eat plants and plant-based synthetic meat. So, knowing this, why do we decide to kill another animal for our pleasure and food, when there are many more beneficial, eco-friendly substitutes?
@xlJ_dolphin_473 Buying an electric car, or using planes less, is far more costly than become a vegetarian. Although the reduction of a carbon footprint is more significant, the process is more complicated. Also, the carbon footprint of a vegetarian is less than half of a meat consumer diet. 
The 'it's not fair on the animals' reason is not fallacious. It is blatantly outrageous and unfair that the animals are raised to be killed! This is a complete sign of disrespect. As you stated, the animals are kept in small cages. Would you like it if you had a load of injections stabbed into you to change the way you acted, shoved in tiny cages with no light, and then slaughtered? Alan Turing was genetically modified to alter his brain so he could not concentrate, and we consider this unfair. So why do we think treating the animals the same way is reasonable and fair? 
Okay, humans have been doing so and so for millennia. Why should we change? Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. It is the 21st century, since the start of time, we have been improving and developing. Why should we not change when we have been changing for thousands of years?
The food chain: We have already debated this, you can look back through the comments if you like.
In some cases, a meat-based diet is healthier. However, some low-quality meat can bring fatal diseases. Did you know that the coronavirus, which is killing thousands of people, started from an animal being eaten?

@TGMasterX ;

You make some good points, but there are some flaws. So, I will rebut them.

Using planes less is far, far less costly. Do you have any idea how much flights cost? Going to a meeting abroad by plane would cost at least ten times the amount that a proper group video call would cost. Similarly with electric cars: petrol or diesel is hugely expensive, and although an electric car may initially be a large investment, it would save a vast amount of money in the long run.

Now to rebut your point about the 'it's unfair for the animals' point. You have not rebutted this. You have simply said: 'But it's unfair for the animals!' The reason we consider genetically altering animals fair is for this reason: Would you rather millions of people go hungry or a few animals have their genes tweaked, and then pass those modified genes onto their children? I don't know about you, but for me it's a no-brainer.

So, you say that we shouldn't continue to do something just because we've been doing it for a long time. Well, my esteemed friend, the reason we have been doing it for a long time is because it works. All the hominoid civilisations that did not develop agriculture have died out. Well, I don't know if your next-door neighbour is a Dendropithecus, but mine certainly isn't. 

Now, about the food chain. I've looked back through the comments and all I see is you saying 'The food chain is a construct created by humans to justify killing other animals'. What I do not see is evidence. Evidence is proof. Proof drives belief. I see no evidence so I have no belief in your theory.

And yes, I did know that the 2019-nCoV virus did come from meat, but as I have said, it was meat that did not conform to the GRMC. Illegal, that is. See why we have laws in the first place?

This concludes my rebuttal.

JGXdebatePRO

@RS_master First, hence is a placeholder word you are using to make an otherwise invalid argument sound intelectual. Second, the food chain is youre excuse for mercilessly slaughtering animals. The food chain is a great scientific discovery that should not be undermined by your negligent, reprehensible argument.

xlJ_dolphin_473

JGXdebatePRO said:

@RS_master First, hence is a placeholder word you are using to make an otherwise invalid argument sound intelectual. Second, the food chain is youre excuse for mercilessly slaughtering animals. The food chain is a great scientific discovery that should not be undermined by your negligent, reprehensible argument.

Why do you and @TGMasterX keep saying this thing about the food chain? It has no evidence. As I already said, evidence is proof. Proof drives belief. I have no belief at the moment, for this precise reason. @JGXdebatePRO

JGXdebatePRO

Second, I have evidence supporting my points. The food chain is a construct point is easily backed up by the fact that early human life shows that humans are actually frequently falling victim to leopards and crocs. Humans have not significantly evolved since then so no-one has justified reason to believe that this is any different today.

RS_master

@xlJ_dolphin_473 I believe I was the first one to bring that point but otherwise the argument is valid

xlJ_dolphin_473

JGXdebatePRO said:

Second, I have evidence supporting my points. The food chain is a construct point is easily backed up by the fact that early human life shows that humans are actually frequently falling victim to leopards and crocs. Humans have not significantly evolved since then so no-one has justified reason to believe that this is any different today.

I can see where you are coming from, but you must understand that pure physical prowess is not the only way to have a high position in the food chain. Humans have essentially cheated the system, working their way to the top through cunning and ability to work in teams. Wolves have similar abilities. Can a single wolf bring down a moose? Probably not. Can a pack of wolves do so? They can easily bring down three. It is our brains, not our bodies that give us an evolutionary advantage.

xlJ_dolphin_473

RS_master said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 I believe I was the first one to bring that point but otherwise the argument is valid

@RS_master Yes I know, it is logical.

TGMasterX

@xlJ_dolphin_473 I think you misunderstood parts of my argument. I am aware that using planes less is less costly, but using them less is more expensive compared to becoming a vegetarian. Also, aeroplanes are for exploring, seeing new things, and learning. Not just for meetings over video calls. Still, electric cars are unaffordable for many families. Also, the current cost of petrol is around £1.50 per gallon. On an average car, a gallon of fuel will go over 25 mpg. Moreover, thousands of years ago, we could eat around the fire with a load of rags draped over us. That worked, so why did we bother inventing new things, like computers? 
Ok, let's leave the food chain point now. We had over 11 arguments between us about the matter, and we could go on and on. In some cases, proof does not drive belief, such as religion (RickeyD). We may have laws against illegal meat; however, people still break them. This is what I am getting at. There is always lousy meat because some people violate the law. 
Get this straight: Millions of people DIE because of eating meat produced by genetically modified creatures. At this day and age, we do not have the full experience and knowledge about genetically modifying foods, meaning that a tiny slip could end thousands of lives or many horrible occurrences. Perhaps in the future, it might be ok, but right now it is too dangerous. Also, the theory of making a cow produce more milk or something like that we have not done before because it is not currently possible.

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 I think you misunderstood parts of my argument. I am aware that using planes less is less costly, but using them less is more expensive compared to becoming a vegetarian. Also, aeroplanes are for exploring, seeing new things, and learning. Not just for meetings over video calls. Still, electric cars are unaffordable for many families. Also, the current cost of petrol is around £1.50 per gallon. On an average car, a gallon of fuel will go over 25 mpg. Moreover, thousands of years ago, we could eat around the fire with a load of rags draped over us. That worked, so why did we bother inventing new things, like computers? 
Ok, let's leave the food chain point now. We had over 11 arguments between us about the matter, and we could go on and on. In some cases, proof does not drive belief, such as religion (RickeyD). We may have laws against illegal meat; however, people still break them. This is what I am getting at. There is always lousy meat because some people violate the law. 
Get this straight: Millions of people DIE because of eating meat produced by genetically modified creatures. At this day and age, we do not have the full experience and knowledge about genetically modifying foods, meaning that a tiny slip could end thousands of lives or many horrible occurrences. Perhaps in the future, it might be ok, but right now it is too dangerous. Also, the theory of making a cow produce more milk or something like that we have not done before because it is not currently possible.

@TGMasterX
Proof does drive belief, and as RickeyD has no proof, I have no belief in his arguments.  Do you not admit that your food chain point was incorrect? 
You, my friend, are very wrong about petrol. A gallon is 5 litres, and thus costs approximately £6.20. 
You are also extremely wrong about GM foods. It is possible, and already is done commonly.

JGXdebatePRO

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

JGXdebatePRO said:

Second, I have evidence supporting my points. The food chain is a construct point is easily backed up by the fact that early human life shows that humans are actually frequently falling victim to leopards and crocs. Humans have not significantly evolved since then so no-one has justified reason to believe that this is any different today.

I can see where you are coming from, but you must understand that pure physical prowess is not the only way to have a high position in the food chain. Humans have essentially cheated the system, working their way to the top through cunning and ability to work in teams. Wolves have similar abilities. Can a single wolf bring down a moose? Probably not. Can a pack of wolves do so? They can easily bring down three. It is our brains, not our bodies that give us an evolutionary advantage.

Ha! you have made my point for me. Do you really think that it is natural for humans to "cheat the system?" Have you got any other animals that have done this? After all,@XIj_dolphin_473, from is everything!

xlJ_dolphin_473

JGXdebatePRO said:

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

JGXdebatePRO said:

Second, I have evidence supporting my points. The food chain is a construct point is easily backed up by the fact that early human life shows that humans are actually frequently falling victim to leopards and crocs. Humans have not significantly evolved since then so no-one has justified reason to believe that this is any different today.

I can see where you are coming from, but you must understand that pure physical prowess is not the only way to have a high position in the food chain. Humans have essentially cheated the system, working their way to the top through cunning and ability to work in teams. Wolves have similar abilities. Can a single wolf bring down a moose? Probably not. Can a pack of wolves do so? They can easily bring down three. It is our brains, not our bodies that give us an evolutionary advantage.

Ha! you have made my point for me. Do you really think that it is natural for humans to "cheat the system?" Have you got any other animals that have done this? After all,@XIj_dolphin_473, from is everything!

Ha! I did mention that wolves also have cheated the system. 

JGXdebatePRO

@XIj_dolphin_473

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 I think you misunderstood parts of my argument. I am aware that using planes less is less costly, but using them less is more expensive compared to becoming a vegetarian. Also, aeroplanes are for exploring, seeing new things, and learning. Not just for meetings over video calls. Still, electric cars are unaffordable for many families. Also, the current cost of petrol is around £1.50 per gallon. On an average car, a gallon of fuel will go over 25 mpg. Moreover, thousands of years ago, we could eat around the fire with a load of rags draped over us. That worked, so why did we bother inventing new things, like computers? 
Ok, let's leave the food chain point now. We had over 11 arguments between us about the matter, and we could go on and on. In some cases, proof does not drive belief, such as religion (RickeyD). We may have laws against illegal meat; however, people still break them. This is what I am getting at. There is always lousy meat because some people violate the law. 
Get this straight: Millions of people DIE because of eating meat produced by genetically modified creatures. At this day and age, we do not have the full experience and knowledge about genetically modifying foods, meaning that a tiny slip could end thousands of lives or many horrible occurrences. Perhaps in the future, it might be ok, but right now it is too dangerous. Also, the theory of making a cow produce more milk or something like that we have not done before because it is not currently possible.

@TGMasterX
Proof does drive belief, and as RickeyD has no proof, I have no belief in his arguments.  Do you not admit that your food chain point was incorrect? 
You, my friend, are very wrong about petrol. A gallon is 5 litres, and thus costs approximately £6.20. 
You are also extremely wrong about GM foods. It is possible, and already is done commonly.

sound familiar? proof, please!

xlJ_dolphin_473

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

JGXdebatePRO said:

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

JGXdebatePRO said:

Second, I have evidence supporting my points. The food chain is a construct point is easily backed up by the fact that early human life shows that humans are actually frequently falling victim to leopards and crocs. Humans have not significantly evolved since then so no-one has justified reason to believe that this is any different today.

I can see where you are coming from, but you must understand that pure physical prowess is not the only way to have a high position in the food chain. Humans have essentially cheated the system, working their way to the top through cunning and ability to work in teams. Wolves have similar abilities. Can a single wolf bring down a moose? Probably not. Can a pack of wolves do so? They can easily bring down three. It is our brains, not our bodies that give us an evolutionary advantage.

Ha! you have made my point for me. Do you really think that it is natural for humans to "cheat the system?" Have you got any other animals that have done this? After all,@XIj_dolphin_473, from is everything!

Ha! I did mention that wolves also have cheated the system. 

Well, you know what, does this actually need proof? I can give you proof if you want, but do you not have the mental facilities to understand that wolves have cheated the food chain system by working in teams?

JGXdebatePRO

I'm afraid this is irrelevant as lots of animals other than wolves work in teams such as meerkats and whales who gang up on giant squid.

xlJ_dolphin_473

JGXdebatePRO said:

I'm afraid this is irrelevant as lots of animals other than wolves work in teams such as meerkats and whales who gang up on giant squid.

How exactly do meerkats gang up on giant squid?
Also here's your proof.
https://www.livingwithwolves.org/how-wolves-hunt/

RickeyD

No, vegetarianism is silly and forcing same on others is socialistic, legalistic, nonsense.

Genesis 9:3 ESV / 

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

xlJ_dolphin_473

RickeyD said:

No, vegetarianism is silly and forcing same on others is socialistic, legalistic, nonsense.

Genesis 9:3 ESV / 

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

I agree. @RickeyD
I do not think that vegetarianism is silly, as there are some good reasons for becoming a vegetarian, but to force it on others would be nonsense.

TGMasterX

@RickeyD
@xlJ_dolphin_473
I would just like to point something out: We wouldn't force it upon others for years, just perhaps two months a year. It would make a vast improvement to our country, and show people what it is like to be a vegetarian and they might consider becoming one. I think this would be a wise decision. If you object, RickeyD, think of it as a 'fasting ceremony' and a 'gift to God.'

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@RickeyD
@xlJ_dolphin_473
I would just like to point something out: We wouldn't force it upon others for years, just perhaps two months a year. It would make a vast improvement to our country, and show people what it is like to be a vegetarian and they might consider becoming one. I think this would be a wise decision. If you object, RickeyD, think of it as a 'fasting ceremony' and a 'gift to God.'

I think the most appropriate plan would be a 'transition period' where people are encouraged, but not forced, to be vegetarian. Then, farms would limit the amount of meat stores could buy. Plant-based meat substitutes would be advertised, and finally meat eating would become illegal.

TGMasterX

@xlJ_dolphin_473
That sounds appropriate, understandable, and not too forceful. It clears everything, and people would be happy as meat substitutes are realistic.
I enjoyed this debate; we found a suitable solution. 
Happy Debating!

xlJ_dolphin_473

TGMasterX said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473
That sounds appropriate, understandable, and not too forceful. It clears everything, and people would be happy as meat substitutes are realistic.
I enjoyed this debate; we found a suitable solution. 
Happy Debating!

I enjoyed this debate too. 

RickeyD

Take your "Intro to Socialism 101" to someone who cares. Don't tell me what I can and cannot eat.

My Lord has said...

xlJ_dolphin_473

 @TGMasterX
Just to clarify, I am not saying that we should make vegetarianism compulsory, I'm just saying that if we were to make vegetarianism compulsory, we would have to do it in the reasonable way that I suggested.

TGMasterX

@xlJ_dolphin_473
Yes I understand