Vegers: Would you consider a meater only eating beef and no other animals, a step in the right direction?

Question

Cattle would supply the largest amount of meat per animal. 1 animal would suffer as opposed to say 50, if it were chickens.

Does that register with vegers or is it irrelevant?

ladybug---reading without comprehension is a waste of time. The question says 1 cow/50 chickens!!...Hello? Anybody home?

bloody---if you eat fish, you aren't a vegetarian. Vegetarians don't eat animal flesh...ever.

shelby---who said anything about eating a hamburger??

Trace----you just eat those shrimp and have a nice time!

jenny---until you unblock me, I don't even read your answers...thumbs down and poof you disappear from my sight. If I wanted to I could block YOU, but I'm better than that.

Trace-sorry I missed the fun. I was downtown all afternoon and evening yesterday. Late lunch and drinks with some friends. Today's Friday. It ought to be interesting...LOL

Answer 1

Yes, like I always say, something is better than nothing

Answer 2

It seems sort of a strange concept to me, someone wanting to cut down on the suffering of animals, but still eating them. Unless you mean someone just happens to only eat cow, which is a kind of silly hypothetical.

The only way it would seem particularly relevant to me would be if everyone did that. If everyone only ate beef, then the pigs, chickens, lambs, goats, and fish can all go back to the way they were before humans began breeding and slaughtering them on a mass scale. This certainly wouldn't make things any better for the cows still suffering, but it would go a long way towards putting some ecosystems back in balance.

Answer 3

I think it is a step in the right direction...people have to start somewhere. But if you look at it from a different standpoint, your ratios might not wash.
According to Eric Schlosser's book "Fast Food Nation", a hamburger can contain the meat of up to 100 different cows. That's just how the processing works and it's not uncommon. It is a simple matter of the meat being mixed together to be processed in the most cost-efficient way.

From a health standpoint, chicken or fish are a good choice as they are much healthier for you. It depends on your motivation, I guess....saving animals, health reasons or a combination of both.

Good luck!
;-D

Answer 4

It is a step in the right direction, but there are more steps until you get to the top of the staircase. You can go slowly into a vegan diet, take one or two animals out at a time until you have none in your diet, and at the same time or right afterward start taking out dairy products and other animal produced food and other products,

Answer 5

Hmm, interesting concept. I have heard a couple of vegan activists suggest that someone considering vegetarianism should give up dairy and eggs FIRST. Then s/he should give up eating the smaller animals--fish and chicken--and then give up eating the larger animals--pigs and cows.

Unfortunately, cows produce a lot of methane and tons of waste. But yeah, you probably would be eating fewer animals than your average "flexitarian."

Answer 6

To me it wouldn't be a step in any direction because I don't want to eat meat period. But for a non-veg, I suppose if you were to kill that one cow and store it's meat and eat only that meat for the period of time it lasted, you would be saving more lives than if you were eating only chicken, but it's really not about the individual lives or numbers of animals you eat or don't eat...it's whether you eat them or don't. Period.

Answer 7

It is relevant, because they would at least be thinking about the number of animals who suffer. Their consideration could eventually lead to the decision to become a vegetarian or vegan, so yes.

Answer 8

It's about as relevant as someone saying the same thing about killing humans. Sure it might be better to kill one large person rather than three small people but it still sucks for that one big human that's had to die. I don't think one animal should have to bear the burden... it's just like if all the pain in the world was concentrated to one continent... somewhere like for example Asia shouldn't have to suffer just so the rest of the world can be happy.

Also cows contribute enormously to pollution, not only from the methane gas they produce, but also in how much food that needs to be grown to feed them. It takes 14kg of grain to produce just 1kg of meat, that's not to mention the huge amounts of water and land they need.

Answer 9

Interesting concept. I know when we purchase half of a beef from a local farmer, it takes us forever to eat it. However, if we go to/or have a party and I get started on shrimp try I can eat half of it before I knew what I did.

So now I know that I am being more ethical when I eat red meat over when I want to dive into a shrimp cocktail :(

Me- Where are you? It has gone crazy in here and it is only Thursday. Ashley has a suitor!! He is as nutty as she is. It is too funny. I haven't seen your little clone, Me Bad. though.

Answer 10

it would be best to not eat any meat at all...
but at least you're trying
so yeah eating only beef is a step in the right direction.
=]

Answer 11

I would definatly say so.. If you think of how many normally die for one persons consumption..and how many die for his consumtion....that is definatly a big difference...at least to me.

He's saving alot of lives..if you compare him to the norm. Even if you are just saving one life...that is still one life that could be lost. Every single life matters to me.