Why are vegetarians hated?

[Hasta]

Onto the next point: It doesn't come from the "desire to divide everyone in groups" (not sure where you're getting this from) but from the desire to make the world a less painful place for the most possible animals. Meat-eaters are either too simple minded to understand that eating meat fuels the meat industry and causes death to more animals, or they just simply don't care about the pain and death of animals.

There, you divided humanity into two groups, you yourself being in the better (caring and smart).

Vegetarians make their decision off of an emotional basis and not a logical one. They choose not to eat meat because of how it makes them feel about the feelings of animals. It's far from logical or environmentally sound, let alone superior, to consume only plants and not animals.

This.

It does not matter what basis vegetarians lay under their desicion, it all comes to feeling better about themselves. That is good and commendable, except when vegetarians start trying to make everyone else feel worse about themselves. That's when they get their, well-deserved in that case, hate.

[Baldarich]

[NOOBY93]

Exactly. If you eat meat you directly support slaughter and pain for animals.

I'm just explaining most vegetarians' reasoning and that it's not just them "not liking meat". Me eating meat doesn't mean I don't understand vegetarian reasoning, it just makes me not care about animals.

What if i eat venison because i support killing the WAY TOO MANY DEERS that live around my area. Car crashes and deaths are constant because the dumb things run in front of cars.

Plus leather is a great material for making clothing. Meat is an excellent food source. Antlers and bones have many uses. Fat can be used to make tallow. Brains were used to make tanning fluid to make leather. Animals are very useful. If we never hunted them the world would be too densely populated.

Don't ask me, I think the ultimate solution to all problems is to prevent breeding of all living beings.

[NOOBY93]

Onto the next point: It doesn't come from the "desire to divide everyone in groups" (not sure where you're getting this from) but from the desire to make the world a less painful place for the most possible animals. Meat-eaters are either too simple minded to understand that eating meat fuels the meat industry and causes death to more animals, or they just simply don't care about the pain and death of animals.

There, you divided humanity into two groups, you yourself being in the better (caring and smart).

Vegetarians make their decision off of an emotional basis and not a logical one. They choose not to eat meat because of how it makes them feel about the feelings of animals. It's far from logical or environmentally sound, let alone superior, to consume only plants and not animals.

This.

It does not matter what basis vegetarians lay under their desicion, it all comes to feeling better about themselves. That is good and commendable, except when vegetarians start trying to make everyone else feel worse about themselves. That's when they get their, well-deserved in that case, hate.

First off, how did I put myself in the "better, caring and smart" category if I myself eat meat? Your logic is flawed.
Secondly, making people who deserve to feel worse feel worse is okay. If you encountered Hitler with full knowledge of what he has done and could make him realize what he's doing is bad, you would probably do it.

[dageir]

How would one convince Hitler he was wrong?
In his mind he was the saviour of the German people. A kind of messiah.

[Jalpha]

Secondly, making people who deserve to feel worse feel worse is okay.

Translation: A negative plus a negative equals a positive!

My god...

[NOOBY93]

Secondly, making people who deserve to feel worse feel worse is okay.

Translation: A negative plus a negative equals a positive!

My god...

Ah, the strawman. If you can't respond with an actual argument, just stop talking.

[Potjeh]

In other words, we don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

Enjoy your B12 deficiency.

[NOOBY93]

In other words, we don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

Enjoy your B12 deficiency.

a 3 second google search told me this:

If it's lying, then my bad, but I can't be bothered to make further investigation, since I don't particularly care about alternative ways to get the battleaxe of the twelfth bay vitamin.

[VDZ]

I find it various kinds of retarded that some people are saying that they believe eating meat is immoral yet they eat meat because <insert whatever reasoning here>. You're easily conceding a point that should not be conceded at all. If you truly feel it's immoral, stop eating meat. If you believe meat is animal murder and therefore wrong, what is wrong with you that you keep eating meat? Myself, I eat meat because I do not consider it immoral, because certain meat is tasty and because our society makes a proper diet with meat easier than a proper diet without meat.

I think the notion that killing animals is wrong stems from certain social values being too deeply ingrained into us (due to society) and without thinking about it, we expand and apply it beyond their original purpose, without thinking about why we have those values to begin with. Murder (of humans) and harming people is wrong. But have you ever thought about why it is wrong? It may be a ridiculous question - of course murder and harming people is wrong. But if you're going to apply it beyond its original usage, you need to understand why we, as a society, determined those two things to be wrong. We agreed on these two things because we decided that if we do not keep by these values, our society as a whole would be worse off. The safety of not being harmed without a proper reason outweighed the benefits of our "right" to harm others; thus, even though on an individual level it is disadvantageous, if well stand by it, we are all better off not harming others (even if it would benefit us).

This value of 'not harming others' has now been corrupted to include animals; even though humans can only benefit from continuing to harm and kill animals the way we do - naturally, as long as we have a sufficient reason for it (we actually stand to gain something from harming/killing them) - some now argue that the rules that protect us from ourselves should now also extend to animal protection. Now, I do not condone unjustified animal abuse, but I feel that unless there is a reason to change this, we are morally allowed to harm and kill animals for our benefit as per natural order because we are superior to them. We are the predator, and they are the prey. In nature, predators kill their prey for their personal gain, even if they could also satiate themselves without resorting to killing other species. We are just the most soft-hearted predators that exist in nature, providing food and shelter and allowing our prey to reproduce - things they would struggle for in nature. There is nothing wrong with a predator harming or killing its prey, unless it goes against the values of our society that we established for our collective benefit (for example, animal abuse).

If there was a reason against meat consumption I could get behind, it would be how wasteful it is and the environmental impact that it causes. Raising animals for meat takes much more resources than it would to produce an equal amount of plant-based food (in fact, a lot of that plant-based food is consumed in raising animals). But even then, I do not think this problem is drastic enough to deem meat consumption immoral.

For the same reason christians are none too popular.

You believe your doctrine is superior and make every attempt to spread your beliefs and anybody who doesn't agree with you is subhuman scum.

For both vegetarians and Christians, the majority is nothing like that. "One rotten apple spoils the bunch", as they say. Those people exist (in pretty much any social group), but please don't take them as representative for the whole group.

It is the natural order.

It is also the natural order for men to oppress other men when they are in a position to do so (e.g. slavery), but that doesn't automatically make something morally right.

Being an omnivore doesn't mean you can choose whether to eat meat or not, it means "Omnivore /ˈɒmnivɔər/ is a consumption classification for animals that have the capability to obtain energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin."
In other words, we don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

Or, one could argue, that we naturally need both meat and plants to survive, otherwise we'd have been herbivores. And before the advent of modern science explaining how nutrition works, it was indeed difficult to have a healthy diet without any meat.

Biology>morality

So what you're saying is that if you have a girlfriend or wife that I find sexually attractive (i.e. a mating partner I wish to compete for), I would be justified in murdering you and raping her (killing a competitor and non-consensually mating with a female to ensure my reproduction)? Because that's what we would do biologically if it weren't for morality restraining us.