English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

Perhaps humans want a more luxurious meal with all sorts of dishes rather than just salad and fried veggie.

2007-04-13 19:56:21 · answer #1 · answered by Tropical forest 2 · 0 0

i think of killing animals and ingesting them is morally incorrect. however if or no longer you think of animals have rights, one element it rather is sure is they sense discomfort. the comparable discomfort you're able to sense in case you have been to have a spike pushed into the returned of your head, had your throat slit, or have been electrocuted. those slaughter strategies at the instant are not purely crude and painful, yet somewhat inhumane. that's additionally authentic of the residing circumstances that those animals are compelled to undergo, each and every so often residing their complete lives in small and filthy cages and pens extremely sufficiently massive to tutor around in. very few anybody is attentive to the rapant torture and abuses that those animals are placed by, purely to be painfully killed on the top. in case you do no longer understand why human beings develop into vegetarians, circulate to a slaughterhouse, or watch a video on line. in case you won't have the ability to deliver your self to look, in simple terms hear to the sounds. however in case you do no longer develop right into a vegetarian, you will a minimum of have an information of what the animal went by so human beings could have their KFC or McDonalds. nutrients product manufacturers prepare us at a youthful age to settle for the systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands and thousands of animals each and every 3 hundred and sixty 5 days for human intake. they attempt extrememly difficult to distance the nutrients we consume from the honestly residing, respiration, feeling animals they got here from. Processed meals including warm dogs, hen nuggets, and fish sticks all attempt to make our nutrients much less identifiable so we aren't making the relationship, so we view them purely as "products". non secular vegetarians sidestep ingesting meat for a great number of the comparable reason: compassion in direction of all residing issues. regardless of each and every thing, isn't that what faith ought to be approximately? i'm no longer attempting to cajole all people to be a vegetarian. i'm additionally no longer asserting you need to no longer be one. All i'm asserting is that, there's a call. you do no longer ought to consume meat, and "tasting solid" isn't a justification for dying.

2016-12-29 09:06:43 · answer #2 · answered by poggi 2 · 0 0

Most animals are very hard to eat if you don't kill them first.
After the first bite, they try to run away, or worse, they bite back. Therefore, it is just easier if we kill them before eating them.

2007-04-13 21:11:25 · answer #3 · answered by bildo 2 · 0 0

That's how its supposed to be. Im a hunter and a fisherman. I dont hunt for the trophy I hunt for the meat.

2007-04-13 19:53:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Do you think killing plants is any more humane?

2007-04-16 09:41:49 · answer #5 · answered by slert1985 2 · 0 0

I think it's personal choice.

2007-04-13 19:49:52 · answer #6 · answered by barbara 7 · 0 0

yah, Im not down for the whole
"beavers are people too"

2007-04-13 19:55:48 · answer #7 · answered by donald d 3 · 0 1

http://meat.org/

2007-04-13 21:27:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

they taste good esse'

2007-04-13 19:54:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers