Critical questions about vegetarian ideology?

Question

1. what would vegetarians say about natural carnivores such as the Big Cats, bears, snakes, etc.? should they be allowed to continue eating other living animals?

2. aren't plants and vegetables living organisms? so just because they don't appear as animate as animals, they should be eaten?

3. do you agree that ppl in impoverished regions should not be able to subsist on animals?

Answer 1

1- I think that God created certain animals to eat other animals. We can tell that by looking at their sharp teeth, their digestive tracts, their claws, and their hunting capabilities. I don't think that there's anything unnatural about animals consuming meat.

2- Plants are indeed living organisms. The main difference between plants and animals is the plants lack a central nervous system and, overall, do not have the ability to feel. They can be eaten. Should they be consumed? Why not? They provide a lot of essential vitamins and minerals. They're a healthy food source.

3- I don't agree or disagree about this statement. Food is food and if meat is their only source of it, who am I to say that's wrong? I live in a land of abundance (US) and I've never had the experience of having limited food choices. I do believe that if it came down to me feeding myself and my children for the sake of survival, I would do whatever was necessary, even if that was eating meat.

Answer 2

1. what would vegetarians say about natural carnivores such as the Big Cats, bears, snakes, etc.? should they be allowed to continue eating other living animals?

....I don;t think it's an issue of humans "allowing" other animals to eat animals. It's really non of our business until we are the animal they want to eat.

2. aren't plants and vegetables living organisms? so just because they don't appear as animate as animals, they should be eaten?

....Animals are proven to be conscious beings, plants are not. Will the future show that plants are conscious beings? I don't know but if that does indeed happen, it will be time to consider other sources of nutrition. What that would be I don't know but if we gain the technology to prove that plants are conscious beings it may very well juxtapose with technology to get our nutrients otherwise.

3. do you agree that ppl in impoverished regions should not be able to subsist on animals?

....Again, it's not our business to "disallow" other cultures from eatting animals, or anything else as long as they are not threatening us. We don't own them, they don't own us, lets attend to our own selves and leave others be.

Answer 3

1. what would vegetarians say about natural carnivores such as the Big Cats, bears, snakes, etc.? should they be allowed to continue eating other living animals?

That is their natural behavior. It's not necessary for me to do so, though.

2. aren't plants and vegetables living organisms? so just because they don't appear as animate as animals, they should be eaten?

Plants and animals are both alive. It's easy for me to relate to the life in an animal. My dog killed a mouse a couple of weeks ago, and I could see it struggling to breathe while it died. I have taken little pieces from plants and stuck them in dirt and they started growing. The difference between plants and animals is obvious, and I can't get nutrients out of the air or soil, and I would rather eat natural fruits and vegetables than synthetic stuff made in a lab.

3. do you agree that ppl in impoverished regions should not be able to subsist on animals?
That's up to them. I don't judge people by what they eat as long as they don't judge me.

Answer 4

1) When a lioness kills a gazelle, the gazelle had a normal life before he was brought down. There's a big difference between a carnivorous animal hunting for her dinner and what humans do to animals to get their meat. And what humans do to the billions of animals slaughtered for food has been talked to death, so I won't repeat it here. As for domesticated creatures like house cats, they need meat to survive; humans don't.

2) Yes, plants are living organisms, but plants do not have the capacity to feel pain or fear. They cannot move from a
"predator." If you cannot tell the difference between a plum and a pig, you may need a few years of remedial biology classes.

3) It would be nice if people in impoverished areas could find alternatives to subsisting on animals. However, it's not always possible, and I will try not to judge them.

The point is, most of us have a choice. The animals do not, and I guess people who live in certain climates do not. But I have a choice. I do not need to exploit animals to survive, so I avoid using animal products.

Answer 5

1. Sure, why not? That's what they do.

2. All humans need to survive very healthily is fresh fruit. Fruit, seeds, seed pods, berries, etc. are all meant to be eaten. They are given up by the plant as an exchange for spreading seed. Plants grow leaves again after they have been picked. For humans, plants do not need to be fully destroyed in order to eat.

3. Impoverished people need sustenance, not meat. Meat is a condiment, not a food staple. Meat is like cake, some people like it, but they don't NEED it.

'Growing' meat will deplete the resources of the poor because meat animals consume crop foods. Whereas growing crop foods for humans instead of crops for meat animals would indeed feel the people very well. People starve in African countries where all of the food is used for exporting to rich countries or given to cattle which is then exported to rich countries. Those people who are farming crops for humans have mostly lost the knowledge of their ancestors and do not know how to farm properly, and continue to starve or live in impoverished conditions. Many other factors contribute to their circumstances other than their mere diet. It's mostly about politics and the rich getting richer while the poor become poorer.

Answer 6

1. Natural carnivores are part of (get this) nature. It is as it should be. The difference is that humans are NOT carnivores, they are omnivores, meaning they can subsist on both plant and animal matter. Add to that the human capacity for compassion and ethical consideration and you can clearly see that a human who opts for compassion over killing is not comparable to a natural carnivore. (Oh, and bears are omnivores, by the way, not carnivores.)

2. Of course plants are living organisms. But so am I. And as such, I require sustenance to keep myself alive. I opt to get that sustenance from plants rather than from animals because plants do not have central nervous systems and cannot feel pain or fear, nor are they reared under torturous conditions. In addition, meat eaters are responsible for "killing" far more plants than vegetarians are because of how much plant matter must be fed to livestock in order to produce meat. What would you have me eat, air?

3. I am fully aware that veganism (which is what I have chosen for myself) is something of a luxury, afforded to people who have a vast array of food choices available to them. I don't impose this choice on people who, due to poverty or geographical isolation, do not have access to the same variety of high quality plant foods as I do.

Answer 7

1) yes they should keep on being able to eat whatever they eat. they are natural carnivore..we arent. its not comparable to veganism or being vegetarian.

2) plants and vegetables dont have a nervous system. and dont try the "oo how do we reallllly know?" we know ok. take a few plant biology classes and then say something. they dont. and since when were carrots treated horribly!

3)the reason people in impoversihed countries are starving is because of the wests and europeans affair with meat and the inability to share the global reasources of grains with people, and instead they find it more fitting to their needs to feed it to cows/chicken/pigs, whatever. oh and the fact that most of the 3rd world countries governments are corrupt and steal any aid that is meant for the people. trying to subsist on animals is the worst solution to our worst problems

Answer 8

Question #1: Those animals eat the way they were meant to eat. Cats don't get heart disease from eating animals. They will never, ever have high cholesterol. They were designed to eat meat. When humans eat meat (and other animal products) we get high cholesterol, colon cancer, heart disease, and a slew of other diseases. We not only are lacking the digestion to healthfully eat meat and other animal products, but we also are not very good natural hunters. We cant' see at night, we have no claws, no sharp teeth (do NOT try and bring up canine teeth - they are for biting through tough skins of fruits and veggies - you cannot use them to bite through animal flesh very effectively - it's a dumb arguement), our underbellies are exposed, we don't run very fast, and we've got soft skin. If you think about it it's easy to see that we're just not designed to go fighting animals to the death. Our fingers are meant for plucking fruits and peeling things. Are teeth are meant for grinding and piercing fruits and veggies - I mean..come on. Use your heads, people! Stop being in denial!

Question #2: Fruits and vegetables are DESIGNED to be eaten. It's part of the propogation of their kind. They spread by animals eating the fruit and then depositing the seeds somewhere else in a nice fresh pile of fertilizer. They are colored and scented to attract animals like us.

Question #3: If people in impoverished regions used land that animals fed on to grow crops then they wouldn't need the animals. There is study after study out there that shows that you can make way more food using the land for agriculture than for ranching.

Answer 9

Animals eat whatever they usually eat, nothing to do with a veggie.
Plants and vegetables are the lowest life forms that a human can eat. There are considerable differences between a cauliflower and a calf.
People in impoverished regions eat whatever they can get and have no choice in the matter (the Inuit may be restricted to meat in parts of the world that most humans don't frequent, for example).

Answer 10

first, people are vegetarians for different reasons so it's unfair to call it an ideology. it would like saying to everyone that belongs to an organized religion to explain their ideology...

1. carnivores living in the wild ought to continue hunting and eating meat, especially considering it is what they've adapted to.
2. if you took even 7th grade biology, you probably learned that plants are completely different from animals. plants are not "living organisms" in the same sense.
3. yes, people need to do what they need to in order to survive. however, in most of those areas, meat is more expensive...unless it's a hunter-gather society--in which case they're only killing as much as they need to survive--which I support.