People who eat meat will say just about anything to themselves and to others so they do not have to face the reality of what it is they are actually eating.
For a start, they call it “meat”, rather than what it was before slaughter, a cow, calf, sheep, lamb, pig, fish, chicken. “Meat” puts some distance between what they are eating and the life their dinner used to have previously.
But the latest I was told recently was so bizarre, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
This person justified their eating animals this way….
A wise native person told me that we honour animals by eating them. They give up their lives for us. It’s the circle of life. When we eat animals, we gain nourishment, then when we die, we go into the ground and animals eat us
Where does a sensible person start with all the things so very wrong with that response.
For a start, the person telling me that was not a “native person”. So, my thought, is “so what?”. Maybe that is how things are for anonymous wise native people, but not for a white guy in the suburbs.
And we “honour” them? I honour my grandparents too, I respect them for what they have done for me. But, ah, I wouldn’t honour them by eating them.
I don’t see what is “honourable” with wantonly slaughtering a defenceless animal that has never had a chance to live and then eat it.
Want to know what is more honourable – Not eating dead animals!
After all, a dead animal is a corpse. If the idea of eating roadkill is so disgusting to people, what’s the difference between that and what is on their plate.
What about the whole “they give up their lives for us” – much like the similar “they sacrifice their lives”. Doesn’t this imply that the animals being eaten have some kind of CHOICE? That they have the option to live or be eaten, and choose to end their lives on someone’s plate?
No animal gives up their life. It is taken from them.
Now, about that “circle of life” – the whole circle of life has been severely disrupted over the past couple of hundred years. Industrialisation has changed things. Whereas previously people had to go out and hunt, and see for themselves the animal in their natural habitat, and watch as the life was drained from their bodies.
Modern industrial slaughter processes remove the killing part for consumers, so they don’t see the life and death.
This is an example of “cognitive dissonance”, where the mind denies what it already knows. People know where their food comes from, this is why they get squeamish if a vegan talks about “slaughter”. They don’t want to hear it, because then then would have to acknowledge what they are eating. They know, but the avoid, so can pretend they don’t know.
Humans have removed themselves from the “circle”, we are at the edge.
And as for our bodies providing nourishment for other animals – the animals that people tend to eat the most are not carnivores, they are placid herbivores.
I’ve never seen a cow chose to eat a dead human. I have never seen a lamb choose to eat a dead human.
Or a chicken, or a pig.
People eat far more animals, which necessitates the killing of huge numbers of animals, way more than their corpses would ever feed.
The excuses people make to continue their selfish greed of eating dead animals never ceases. They eat animals because they think it is their right.
*Oh, and, I know that all animal products involve cruelty and death, I am not saying that milk is harmless or eggs are harmless, because this post is in response to a comment someone made to justify their eating of meat.
Editted to add:
A comment on here, which I marked as spam, for it seemed like straight up trolling, criticised me for giving vegans a bad name for being militant. Um, moron, what exactly is militant about laughing at meat eaters. Seriously, dude, get a life, if you think that this post is militant, you clearly cannot be a vegan in the traditional Donald Watson Vegan Society definition of the word.