Okay, I hate to debunk every argument you made based on your somehow misunderstanding, but here goes. I am a vegetarian. When I say I've tried and I don't, it is referring to when I was trying to become one. I was talking about how difficult it is to make the change. I don't say "I'm not".
My "somehow misunderstanding"? You said that you've tried to become a vegetarian many times, but don't. You didn't say didn't, you said don't. Didn't is past tense, don't is present tense. If you've tried to be a vegetarian many times, but don't, that means you are not currently a vegetarian. I did not misunderstand your words, I interpreted them exactly as you wrote them.
And considering how full of bull☺☺☺☺ you've proven yourself to be, I entirely believe that you are not a vegetarian, and are in fact claiming to be now because you've had pointed out to you how utterly hypocritical you are and cannot possibly tolerate the idea of that you might actually be full of crap.
I haven't read too many posts but it seems like a heated argument.
It's not really a heated argument, so much as it is something very beautiful that happens in the debate forum every so often, in which one member decides he's going to be a giant member, and everyone else unites in the common cause of kicking his ass as a team.
I never buy chicken, pork, or red meat but I do eat fish and seafood. I do have compassion for mammals and birds and I heavily inveigh the despicable treatment of these animals and the nonchalant butchering of them by beasts with no affection and killing fish and seafood is less violent if violent at all as you merely choke them off. I do not hold it on moral grounds but it is aesthetically disgusting and perverse. I am not so much against eating meat as much as the process of it.
I mean that's fair. I'm curious: if it were a free range chicken or a wild fowl, would you eat it?
My one thing I would advise is to be careful, as if you're going the full pescatarian route and getting your protein exclusively from seafood, be wary of your mercury levels.
I think keeping keeping the body pure and less violent and also brighter it is hindered by the digestive system processing these heavy meats.
I'm not sure what you mean by brighter or purer. Also, it is actually harder for the body to digest plant matter.
I believe in veganism but I do eat cheese and butter which can be argued against
No it is against. Vegans don't eat anything that comes from animals. Fish is a problem too. You can, and should, pretty much give up veganism.
as it is taken from the animals that are being butchered and animal prodcuts are found in them.
But, the cows aren't being butchered for their milk. Milk is taken when the cow is alive. So the cow that gave you the milk could very well be continuing to give milk as we speak.
I am working on that and have been cutting butter but not eating cheese is too hard for me, I probably will never give up cheese I might make my own cheese but then I need Milk which defeats the purpose.
What is the purpose? I mean, you could very well have some local farm that treats its cows just fine.
If we were to all boycott eating beef, then cultivating cheese would not involve the torture for cows but the distress caused by inanimal cattle methods would still probably exist as well.
Except, I feel I should stress this here, these things are not really capable of existing on their own. So if your complaint is the act of farming itself, that's probably not a valid one.
We are indeed hiding the slaughter of animals. Why do you think slaughterhouses have such high walls. Why do you think media access is not allowed? Because they're making pillows?
And please don't use the term "we". Use the term "you", don't try and lump others into your irrational thinking so you feel more secure about it. If others, even meat eaters, share your complete lack of empathy, than you are simply the minority. Some even start groups for these biggotted minorities, kkk. If humor is the only response you can rouse (incredibly delicious), that simply makes you an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺, which you are entitled to be. But please don't fool yourself into thinking you should be proud of that trait.
Best,
Guaco
Guaco... I find it amusing that you invoke 'complete lack of empathy' when you've barged into the thread yelling at people and degrading them. That doesn't seem very empathetic, as an empathetic person would understand that such language is hurtful to the other people in the debate, who you should be respecting. I think you should work on your empathy towards humans before you call on others for their empathy towards animals. You are extremely combative and others will take your points less seriously if they see someone trying to fight them.
shame you weren't capable of commenting on the actual topic.
It is funny though, that after that entire thing you've read, the only response you can muster is "why is it okay to eat plants", seems like you're really scraping here.
Especially this one. Why are you so incredibly rude? Someone sees a point and raises it, you get angry because they didn't challenge every other point?
There is more.
On the point of not buying live animals to kill... I'd fathom a guess that it is more cost-effective to kill the animals early and just pay for cooling, rather than feed them and take care of their excrement until they reach the store. Hell, I'd buy pre-killed chicken than an alive chicken out of pure convenience. Plucking is annoying. Think about TV dinners, they're quick to prepare, just like pre-killed animals. I'm never going to buy unmilled flour at the supermarket.
Any moral issues against eating insects? They're nutritious and delicious and lack sentience!
in some countries they are a delecacy. i don't make it a point to eat them but i have heard they are high in protean. although i am not sure about the taste like chicken part.
What i don't understand is the avid hostility that some people have toward eating meat. I don't have a problem with vegitarians. I eat a lot of veggies myself, but i also can't resist that steak medium cooked ribeye and i am in heaven.
everyone has their own tastes and likes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
in some countries they are a delecacy. i don't make it a point to eat them but i have heard they are high in protean. although i am not sure about the taste like chicken part.
What i don't understand is the avid hostility that some people have toward eating meat. I don't have a problem with vegitarians. I eat a lot of veggies myself, but i also can't resist that steak medium cooked ribeye and i am in heaven.
everyone has their own tastes and likes.
From an ecological point of view, for some areas a cow can be very hostile to grass. Especially European ones descended from auroch stock that have very wide hooves and tend to stand around more.
Insects are better at nutrition, consume less space than most animals, and ect. However, you never hear PETA pushing for people to eat bugs, but human breast milk and other crazy ideas are all kosher.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I mean that's fair. I'm curious: if it were a free range chicken or a wild fowl, would you eat it?
If it were necessary for me to kill it I would to survive. I would choose not too, however if my community killed it in a manner that is natural than I would eat it.
My one thing I would advise is to be careful, as if you're going the full pescatarian route and getting your protein exclusively from seafood, be wary of your mercury levels.
I don't only eat seafood I get protein from cheese, nuts, and uncooked vegetables. I only eat seafood if someone else has bought it, or I am planning an occasion.
I'm not sure what you mean by brighter or purer. Also, it is actually harder for the body to digest plant matter.
I don't know of the empirical data stating how plant matter is harder to digest, but I am not interested in such a statement like that; it seems absurd and I'm sure the data catered to eating animal. As far as brighter and purer I mean I do not feel the heaviness of dead animal in my body and my my agility is increased dramatically.
But, the cows aren't being butchered for their milk. Milk is taken when the cow is alive. So the cow that gave you the milk could very well be continuing to give milk as we speak.
Conditions for these animals are harsh in some places, and some are butchered at a later date, but I am not sure of the specifics. I also do not drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant and feel like crap from drinking it.
Except, I feel I should stress this here, these things are not really capable of existing on their own. So if your complaint is the act of farming itself, that's probably not a valid one.
The act of farming is fine, and it's the huge corporations that have corrupted a beautiful thing. I myself have not stopped eating cheese because of animal cruelty and I do not know everything that is going on in this business.
If it were necessary for me to kill it I would to survive. I would choose not too, however if my community killed it in a manner that is natural than I would eat it.
What is a manner that is natural?
Like, I guess my question is, Spider, if you're going to eat meat, like if you're going to eat fish, then what's the problem? Why not just eat fish regularly? Similarly, I don't see any problems with the idea of eating pigs or cows or such. I can understand that the conditions of meat processing plants might not be something you'd want, and that's completely logical, but if it's a free-range chicken that has room to run around and be a chicken, I don't see how that's a problem.
I don't know of the empirical data stating how plant matter is harder to digest, but I am not interested in such a statement like that; it seems absurd
Why?
As far as brighter and purer I mean I do not feel the heaviness of dead animal in my body and my my agility is increased dramatically.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Conditions for these animals are harsh in some places, and some are butchered at a later date, but I am not sure of the specifics. I also do not drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant and feel like crap from drinking it.
I don't see why you need a moral argument for being a meat eater. The moral arguments against it are largely nonsense. Animals eat plants, and we eat animals. Eventually, some alien race may come along and eat us. I won't be happy about it, but I won't think it's unfair or 'morally unjust'. It's just survival of the fittest, and that's all that there is to it.
I think that people should focus on finding ways to stop people from killing each other, instead of worrying about animals.
The very concept of extending morality to animals is somewhat out there in my opinion. Morality at it's very basic level is what we use to hold together human groups in a manner that we can be productive in.
The more insane thing is that many of the same people that defend "animal rights" would commit many acts contrary to the concept without even considering their "morality". Ever set a mouse trap, put out rat poison, called the exterminator, swatted a fly? It's for your health, why not relocate them? Ever killed a spider, or ant colony? Hell lets be a bit more absurd! Building your home has changed the habitat of many animals and likely resulted in the death of many of those animals just so you can be comfortable while its well known that people can live a nomadic life style. Do you oppose pesticides due to them not allowing animals to feed on our crops? do you oppose farm fields as they destroy the natural environment of animals? Do you tell bears no to east salmon because they can also eat roots and berries? Might as well oppose antibiotics as well because they take away the ability of bacteria to do what bacteria do and don't they deserve the same shielding as cows and pigs?
If an Alien society has the means to travel to our planet the first thing I'm going to worry about is not if they are being critical of our eating habits or the way we treat other spices on this planet.
Hi guy, in answer to your question, no I do not kill spiders or ant colonies, I do indeed trap them and put them outside. I'm sorry that extending morality to animals is "out there" in your opinion, it is not out there in mine. Why do you extend morality to your dogs if extending morality to animals is "out there", sounds like a double standard to me.
Yes, but there is a concrete difference between animals losing their habitat because we move in as opposed to searching out an animal and slaughtering him.
No, I don't tell bears not to eat salmon, because human beings can't talk to bears. You should look into that before posting again. We, on the other hand, have the ability to choose based on moral principle whereas bears apparently do not.
No, bacteria that are causing us sickness, we can use antibiotics on us. It is self defense. We do not kill billions of pigs, cows, sheep, chickens for self defense, we do it for a luxury.
I think that about wraps up all your questions, let me know if I missed anything.
Alternatively, you could also just eat large quantities of bacteria and forgo both.
Well, since your wrong you might want to have researched a bit before making such strong statements about humans dietary needs.
Well, you seem to also imply in all of your above statements that humans have more of a right to live than plants. When it comes to us or them you pick us.
Why?
Hi, I suppose I'll answer this with words, though I think a smiley face and question mark would do the trick as well.
As far as we know, plants have zero cognition, and have zero recognition of pain, and plants do not attempt to run away when a "predator" is eating it. With this knowledge, we can assume that we can eat it without moral conflict. Plants also have the ability to regenerate, grow more fruit from the same tree, etc. Whereas cows do not regrow their carcasses once dismantled. I just want to make sure you're following along here. Now for all I know, perhaps plants are in some way more alive than we are, but we've yet to find any science to prove this, so once we do, maybe we will have to reexamine. But for the time being, it seems that cutting the head off a living pig is far more cruel than eating an apple or piece of lettuce. I'm glad this is your only argument to my points that I make, it means you're really having a hard time trying to think of something to rebut with. Please follow up by asking why it's okay that we breathe air molecules and isn't that just as bad as electrocuting lambs, so we can fully illuminate the demographic you represent. Cheers.
Pointing out your hypocrisy is not ad hominem. You make sweeping, unsubstantiated, and highly contentious generalizations about humanity, then you criticize Jay13x for making a much more modest one. And when I call you on this double standard, all you do is whip off a sarcastic deflection. Did I strike a nerve, or are you really just that full of yourself?
"I'd highlight more, but all the malapropisms and purple prose make it just too painful to continue. What you think is English, isn't."
Please go to websters dictionary and look up the word AdHominem, before you "correct" me. Definition: Usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument.
No nerve struck, just pointing out you're incapable of forming an argument about the topic, so instead you attack me. No such time for you.
I haven't read too many posts but it seems like a heated argument. I would like to share that I am a vegetarian but with a few exceptions, so one may call me a omnivore but the label doesn't matter as what I feel is right.
I never buy chicken, pork, or red meat but I do eat fish and seafood. I do have compassion for mammals and birds and I heavily inveigh the despicable treatment of these animals and the nonchalant butchering of them by beasts with no affection and killing fish and seafood is less violent if violent at all as you merely choke them off. I do not hold it on moral grounds but it is aesthetically disgusting and perverse. I am not so much against eating meat as much as the process of it. Hunting in its purest form I have some respect for but I don't find that it is necessary, and idiots who do it for merely sport are to me shallow, lost individuals who want a power trip, need entertainment because of their low capacity and overall losers (I have met many).
As far as the argument about plants, I am not against killing, you have to eat to survive. I do not believe that they have feelings and if they do, then it is a sacrifice we have to make, and its pretty evident that animals are more evolved and DO have feelings and emotions and fish and seafood are killed almost instantly when they are gathered by nets so there isn't much torture. A plants death is not a torturous one as it seems. You are killing many mites, bugs, and organisms when you breath so should you stop breathing, and if you did you would kill yourself invariably killing another living being. This argument should of been dead a long time ago.
I do sometimes eat meat if I go to a family or dinner setting who has prepared some kind of bird. At this point I am trying to show respect to the family and will make my own sacrifice; however, I will refuse pork or red meat as they are more evolved beings and are tougher to digest which comes to my other reason. I think keeping keeping the body pure and less violent and also brighter it is hindered by the digestive system processing these heavy meats. I do not drink milk. I believe in veganism but I do eat cheese and butter which can be argued against as it is taken from the animals that are being butchered and animal prodcuts are found in them. I am working on that and have been cutting butter but not eating cheese is too hard for me, I probably will never give up cheese I might make my own cheese but then I need Milk which defeats the purpose. If we were to all boycott eating beef, then cultivating cheese would not involve the torture for cows but the distress caused by inanimal cattle methods would still probably exist as well.
Take it how you will this isn't really debatable but if you have any inquiries or want wholesome elaborations I would be more than happy to give my viewpoints as I won't make a subject like this into a battle of hypocrisy.
My "somehow misunderstanding"? You said that you've tried to become a vegetarian many times, but don't. You didn't say didn't, you said don't. Didn't is past tense, don't is present tense. If you've tried to be a vegetarian many times, but don't, that means you are not currently a vegetarian. I did not misunderstand your words, I interpreted them exactly as you wrote them.
And considering how full of bull☺☺☺☺ you've proven yourself to be, I entirely believe that you are not a vegetarian, and are in fact claiming to be now because you've had pointed out to you how utterly hypocritical you are and cannot possibly tolerate the idea of that you might actually be full of crap.
It's not really a heated argument, so much as it is something very beautiful that happens in the debate forum every so often, in which one member decides he's going to be a giant member, and everyone else unites in the common cause of kicking his ass as a team.
Aww, your ridiculous logic is cute. I'm sorry if you read into sentences to hear what you want, "I've tried many times to become vegetarian where I don't" Here were my intentions, don't is appropriate here, present or not. I'm sorry if you believe I should care of your evaluation of my grammar. You're allowed to say I'm not a vegetarian since you have no other arguments, I don't blame you, hard to shoot a gun without ammunition, so sometimes we use pretend bullets. I am indeed a vegetarian, but you're more than welcome to believe what you'd like.
Guaco... I find it amusing that you invoke 'complete lack of empathy' when you've barged into the thread yelling at people and degrading them. That doesn't seem very empathetic, as an empathetic person would understand that such language is hurtful to the other people in the debate, who you should be respecting. I think you should work on your empathy towards humans before you call on others for their empathy towards animals. You are extremely combative and others will take your points less seriously if they see someone trying to fight them.
Especially this one. Why are you so incredibly rude? Someone sees a point and raises it, you get angry because they didn't challenge every other point?
There is more.
On the point of not buying live animals to kill... I'd fathom a guess that it is more cost-effective to kill the animals early and just pay for cooling, rather than feed them and take care of their excrement until they reach the store. Hell, I'd buy pre-killed chicken than an alive chicken out of pure convenience. Plucking is annoying. Think about TV dinners, they're quick to prepare, just like pre-killed animals. I'm never going to buy unmilled flour at the supermarket.
Your first comment is AdHominem, so I'll leave that one to you.
Second comment; sure, that may be a reason why you see LESS live animals, but is there a reason you see near ZERO live animals in markets in major cities other than that it grosses people out at the thought of having to kill their own animal?
Any moral issues against eating insects? They're nutritious and delicious and lack sentience!
Yep. Though there's not much demand for it, so focusing my energies on the larger problem for now. My thought is, if they try and avoid being killed, as flies do, they are aware that they're alive, and want to live.
I don't see why you need a moral argument for being a meat eater. The moral arguments against it are largely nonsense. Animals eat plants, and we eat animals. Eventually, some alien race may come along and eat us. I won't be happy about it, but I won't think it's unfair or 'morally unjust'. It's just survival of the fittest, and that's all that there is to it.
I think that people should focus on finding ways to stop people from killing each other, instead of worrying about animals.
Good contribution. Should there be a moral argument about killing dogs and eating them? That should answer your question. No double standard
Yep. Though there's not much demand for it, so focusing my energies on the larger problem for now. My thought is, if they try and avoid being killed, as flies do, they are aware that they're alive, and want to live.
This logic seems very inconsistent...plants defend themselves from being eaten all the time.
Going by this logic, it would not be okay to eat plants as well, correct?
I'm going to just assume you worded this a bit wonky...
I couldn't see this pointed out already, and I don't remember the source, but here goes:
If you make a moral argument for vegetarianism based on all lives being equal in value, the combine harvesters and other machines used for gathering some vegetarian foods take as many lives in the form of killing rodents as the process of raising and slaughtering animals for meat does. Some estimates go so far as to say that vegetarian alternative kill many MORE animals overall than meat farming does.
Food for thought. (OMFG BAD PUN LOLZORZ)
Just going to point out, where do you think the food that the live stock eats comes from? And then you have to realize that it's not a 1 to 1 ratio of food consumed to meat made.
If you look at it from a statistical standpoint the raising of livestock is grossly inefficient. And as food and water begins to become scarce it might be unethical to consume, not from an animal rights perspective but from a "there isn't enough food" perspective.
As far as we know, plants have zero cognition, and have zero recognition of pain, and plants do not attempt to run away when a "predator" is eating it.
So? Why does that matter? Are they "lesser beings" simply because of that? Do they not have a right to live?
Quote from GuacoJeep »
With this knowledge, we can assume that we can eat it without moral conflict.
So, there are some cases when, to use your own words and definition, the murder of "lesser beings" is acceptable?
You seem to be drawing this line of what does and does not have the right to live with "pain" but I am not sure why.
Explain.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Plants also have the ability to regenerate, grow more fruit from the same tree, etc.
However, when you "harvest" most plants you are killing them.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Whereas cows do not regrow their carcasses once dismantled.
Nether do plants when you kill them.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
I just want to make sure you're following along here.
Line by line, my friend, for I find something wrong with each one.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Now for all I know, perhaps plants are in some way more alive than we are, but we've yet to find any science to prove this, so once we do, maybe we will have to reexamine.
I don't know why they need to be "more alive."
Would you eat meat if someone "proved" that humans are "more alive" (whatever the heck that means) than animals?
What does "more alive" mean anyway?
Explain.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
But for the time being, it seems that cutting the head off a living pig is far more cruel than eating an apple or piece of lettuce.
Well, you might think differently if you had Chlorophyll.
Some people draw the line at species, but I don't know why that's better or worse than doing it at kingdom.
Explain.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
I'm glad this is your only argument to my points that I make, it means you're really having a hard time trying to think of something to rebut with.
I am only arguing with what I find to be grossly misrepresentation of established facts. And I am waiting for you to make some established facts of your own. Like explaining in more detail WHY you find plants worthy of death.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Please follow up by asking why it's okay that we breathe air molecules and isn't that just as bad as electrocuting lambs, so we can fully illuminate the demographic you represent.
I'm not killing any air molecules because, unlike plants and animals, air molecules aren't alive.
Additionally, I eat meat and plants and fungus. I don't make the moral decision that you do. I don't need to prove that plants are much much different than animals because I eat both. You are the one trying to show that one is worthy of living and the other is not.
In short, I don't need to distinguish between the two because I don't discriminate between them. You are the one drawing the line.
Yes, but there is a concrete difference between animals losing their habitat because we move in as opposed to searching out an animal and slaughtering him.
Yes. The former is crueler than the latter.
If animal slaughter is murder in your world, then taking their environment is ethnic cleansing.
I dont know where you think that animals go, when we take out their environment, but trust me when I tell you that they don't just relocate to greener pastures.
They just starve... and their babies starve and never grow to adulthood.
Through millions of years, Deer once got to Live, Breed, and Die (usually by starvation, predation/slaughter, or disease).
The alternative is extinction.
If treated properly ( free range, etc. ) cows would get to Live, Breed, Die (usually by slaughter, rarely by disease, never by starvation).
The alternative is extinction.
If you can think of superior alternatives to continued cow species existence, please outline the plan.
No, I don't tell bears not to eat salmon, because human beings can't talk to bears. You should look into that before posting again.
Humans have complete dominance over bears, and we staple radiotags to their head, shoot then when they get out of line, and sometimes swoop in on helicopters, drug them, and relocate them, all without the bears' assent or consent. Bears live only on nature preserves by our leave at this point.
I think that about wraps up all your questions, let me know if I missed anything.
Guaco
In Guacojeep-land, would we put bears only on preserves where they only have access to vegetarian food like berries? Or would you simply gradually jus do away with bears and let them go extinct?
I'm dead serious. Would you let bears eat salmon and rabbits or would you have bear preserves be strictly vegetarian? They are omnivores after all and letting them eat bunnies or salmon is cruel to salmon and bunnies.
"I can ignore everything you say, because it's pointing out my hypocrisy."
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Yep. Though there's not much demand for it, so focusing my energies on the larger problem for now. My thought is, if they try and avoid being killed, as flies do, they are aware that they're alive, and want to live.
Are you sure? Are you really sure? Are you sure they are self-conscious? That they have desires?
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Good contribution. Should there be a moral argument about killing dogs and eating them? That should answer your question. No double standard
People find value in dogs as something other than food; which has developed a cultural taboo against eating dog. That isn't the case everywhere. I'm not sure if it's a racist rumor or not, but don't they eat dog in Asia or parts of it?
Second comment; sure, that may be a reason why you see LESS live animals, but is there a reason you see near ZERO live animals in markets in major cities other than that it grosses people out at the thought of having to kill their own animal?
Really? Because my idea makes more sense, I think. Do you live on a farm? I do. 14 hereford cows is about an hour of shovelling dung a day (for my dad.) Nobody wants to deal with that longer than they have to. It is the reason why you don't see animals in markets, and the 'gross' factor is the minor factor. BTW, at farm auctions you do see the animals.
Quote from Wikipedia »
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
I'm not attacking the validity of your belief by pointing out your own double standard. The crux of my arguement is not that you're a hypocrite. But, I feel the need to point out that you're a blatant hypocrite. You still have this arrogant tone in your posts that screams a superiority complex.
As far as we know, plants have zero cognition, and have zero recognition of pain, and plants do not attempt to run away when a "predator" is eating it. With this knowledge, we can assume that we can eat it without moral conflict.
So for the sake of discussion, let us assume that there is a human who is paralyzed and completely brain dead, or rather a human that is residing in an completely vegetative state with no measurable cognition nor measurable reaction to pain. Can we eat that human "without moral conflict"? An extreme example, yes, but the point that merely because plants do not run away, display cognition or feel pain makes it ok for us to kill them for food is clearly flawed.
A plant is a living creature, it strives towards life and propagation at all available opportunities and never will a plant try to "kill itself" as it were. Thus by uprooting/killing a plant for food, the plant is being deprived of its' chance to live and propagate exactly as killing an animal for food would do to that animal. On what basis do you value the rights of an animal over the rights of a plant? Cognition? Some plants react to their surroundings, are those plants off-limits for consumption? What if every plant suddenly gained the ability to "moo"? Or if scientific research shows plants to be cognitive?
Irrelevant but I will state my personal opinion that the only reason I find acceptable for being vegetarian is if that person dislikes meat(and of course dietry/health requirements, religious not so much). Attempting to justify being vegetarian on moral grounds is in my opinion nothing more than a method to boost one's ego and in fact, I would be far more accepting of someone using the energy inefficiency argument against livestock, or any other well grounded argument, as a reason instead.
Please go to websters dictionary and look up the word AdHominem, before you "correct" me.
It's two words. You usually don't capitalize a letter in the middle of a word. As a matter of fact, you don't capitalize ad hominem at all. And as for the definition itself, it's a Latin prepositional phrase combining the preposition ad "to, at, against" with the accusative form of homo "man". Thus, an ad hominem argument is an argument against the man - in modern usage, an attempt to invalidate someone else's argument via irrelevant details about that person.
Now that we've established who's wearing the smarty-pants here, let's look at what I actually said. I complained how hard it was to read your prose. This might constitute an ad hominem argument, if it were the substance of my post. But it was just a throwaway line. The substance of my post was that you ought to take your own advice, and stop using "we" where you mean "I". This is as clear an internal contradiction as I've ever seen on these boards, and as such is absolutely a fair "argument about the topic". But despite my reiterating this point once already, you have yet to even acknowledge that I made it. Instead, you're tossing out this accusation of ad hominem as a smokescreen. So when you get back from your suspension, I invite you to give that up and explain why it's okay for you to generalize about humanity, but not Jay13x.
And really, dude, think twice before condescending about a Latin phrase to a guy who quotes Horace in his sig.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Just flipping this whole scenario around... Let's say the world did ban meat eating completely. Let's say all governments agree that we will no longer kill animals. Let's set aside the economic turmoil to the food markets, meat industry etc.
Just some moral/ethical questions of what we would do:
(1) do we have an obligation to keep any animals of each domesticated food species around under government "preserves" or zoos? How many is a good number? Are domesticated species incapable of competing in the wild, deserving of artificial preservation?
(2) what should we do with the currently living billion or so cows, billion pigs, and 30 billion chickens currently living? Would we have an obligation to neuter/spay them and feed & house them till they die of old age?
(3) In current "wild" areas where deer, etc. are still living without predators, what do you propose to be the ethical method of population control? Doing nothing will mean overpopulation and flat out mass starvation even winter. Sterilization programs?
(4) should we support all wild predators and omnivores in supported preserves? Should omnivores be placed in preserves where they cannot have access to prey? Should predators be placed in preserves where they cannot hunt the prey animals or in more "natural" ecosystems? High level predators require a massive amount of space in a "normal" ecosystem. Even in a vegetarian world, I'd think most people would support predation for predators... Or am I wrong here? Seems that a lion that isn't allowed to hunt is no longer a lion... It's a bird with its wings clipped, on life support.
For those who want a world where humans are all vegetarian, what do you picture the world to look like exactly? That should be defined at least partly by the answers to the first 4 questions. Would it come down to: "millions of Kurds are being abused... Let's save them by... Sterilizing all the Kurds except for a few hundred..." ?
Remember the movie Logan's Run? Where all humans were executed at 30? Is the life of a free range, humanely slaughtered animalmuch like that of humans in Logan's Run? Would humans rather continue to live in that society, fed & housed until it's slaughter time at 30? Or would they rather have an alien race come in, "rescue them", take 99% of the land they're currently living on, and keep only a few hundred humans alive, with sterilization to keep the numbers down? (overthrowing their masters completely like in the movie, does not appear to be an option for cows)
Side question: Any vegetarians ok with a world where we only step in and eat animals that die of "old age"?
Over 10 billion animals are killed each year in the production and consumption of meat.
10 BILLION!!!
The problem is not the consumption of meat, but our attitude towards animals in general. Animals share more in common with humans than is realized. Among those similarities, the most significant aspect is the capacity for animals to suffer, and be deprived of their right as living beings to live freely, happily, and productively.
Slaughterhouses are hidden away, not for any consumer to see, because if they did most people would be disgusted by what they saw. Imagine if we took children on field trips to slaughterhouses when they were young, in order to educate them on where their food is coming from. How many do you think would continue to eat meat, or at the very least be forever impacted by the treatment of the animals they saw there?
Animals are another reflection of the same life force that flows through you and all other beings. Nature has given human beings the capacity, via the human mind, the power to care for, and shepherd all life. Instead, we run around like ignorant Gods, unable to see that from an animals perspective the power we yield over them truly is God-like.
We create living hells for animals in the name of their consumption. Hell is not a place outside Earth, it is here in a slaughterhouse and is the very lives of billions of animals that are slaughtered each year, mostly to be wasted.
10 billion animals for 300 million people.. sickening.
(1) do we have an obligation to keep any animals of each domesticated food species around under government "preserves" or zoos? How many is a good number? Are domesticated species incapable of competing in the wild, deserving of artificial preservation?
Domesticated species were domesticated by who again? Oh yeah, human beings! We were able to domesticate them for our use, and as such we would certainly be able to think of ways to preserve them for their own-sake. In fact, it's our responsibility to do so, since domesticated animals are defenseless because of our conditioning. You make it sound like it would be impossible, and from your perspective I can see that preserving the lives of millions of animals certainly isn't worth the time, or money.
Maybe setting up preserves is the right thing to do. Tear down the slaughterhouses and open up green pastures. The government could subsidize the preserves. We give billions to farmers to grown corn for ethanol which is wasted, why not for the lives of millions of animals?? These domesticated animals also make great pets... Cows milk, chicken eggs, pigs are more intelligent than dogs and are very loving. Perhaps, individuals who choose to help take care of a certain number of animals ought to be given a subsidy by the government as well?
These responses are not the answer, but just suggestions, and are much better than throwing up road blocks as you are. No problem has ever been solved with the attitude you're taking. You're not even thinking of ways to solve the problem, you're only thinking of questions that justify your belief.
(2) what should we do with the currently living billion or so cows, billion pigs, and 30 billion chickens currently living? Would we have an obligation to neuter/spay them and feed & house them till they die of old age?
Once again, you make it sound like this is an impossible problem!! You ask important, and difficult questions, but they do not justify the continued suffering of animals. What did the Allied forces do for the millions of neglected Jews in concentration camps after WWII? They saw that they needed help and did everything they could to help them. They didn't say, 'OMG there are so many starving, half-naked people here, what are we gonna do????' They immediately set about helping them as best they could and some lived, while others died, but ultimately the atrocity ended.
If we held animal life to the same value as human life we would do everything we could to stop, then help, and solve the problem faced by these animals. A situation, let me remind you again, WE put them in.
(3) In current "wild" areas where deer, etc. are still living without predators, what do you propose to be the ethical method of population control? Doing nothing will mean overpopulation and flat out mass starvation even winter. Sterilization programs?
It's pretty simple. Nature will take care of itself. It's impossible to stop the suffering of all animals, especially in the wild, but we can stop the horror show that is far more devastating than any natural death of a deer. The animals that die due to over-population lived free lives, were able to reproduce, and lived out the course their lives in Nature. Billions of chickens, cows, and pigs never see the light of day, ever! They are cramped into tiny cells, body to body with other animals their entire lives. This is no way to live. Imagine living your whole life like that... It would be a nightmare... Hell.
(4) should we support all wild predators and omnivores in supported preserves? Should omnivores be placed in preserves where they cannot have access to prey? Should predators be placed in preserves where they cannot hunt the prey animals or in more "natural" ecosystems? High level predators require a massive amount of space in a "normal" ecosystem. Even in a vegetarian world, I'd think most people would support predation for predators... Or am I wrong here? Seems that a lion that isn't allowed to hunt is no longer a lion... It's a bird with its wings clipped, on life support.
More of the same... just throwing up road blocks to justify your beliefs...
Is the life of a free range, humanely slaughtered animalmuch like that of humans in Logan's Run?
Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you know how the majority of animals are treated before they are killed and processed? Not like this. Very few live lives like this.
Their quality of life isn't even the point, though. That's just a problem. The point is we don't need to kill animals to survive. Millions of people live healthy lives being vegan and vegetarian. It's unnecessary death. And because we share that same life force and are essentially no different than animals, we ought to treat them like we would like to be treated. Human beings don't want to die prematurely, they want to live full, happy, and healthy lives. Why should this be any different for an animal?
Any vegetarians ok with a world where we only step in and eat animals that die of "old age"?
Let me ask you a question. Do you want to eat your neighbors grandma after she dies?
I'm not saying we should run out and save the animals over the lives of humans, or that human problems should be addressed after animals either. I merely feel that a change in attitude is needed, and that change in attitude will positively effect many of the factors of suffering in the lives of humans and animals. We as humans have the power to do so much, yet we are severely hindered by unconscious primitive tendencies.
In the future, if we ever get there, things will be much different, and the human species will look back in regret and horror for what we've done to animals.
So it wouldn't be sickening to kill a few animals, but because it's 10 billion somehow it's morally wrong? Nice logic.
Also, to the guy that got suspended: Some cultures do eat dog(and cats), and consider it a delicacy. That is up to them. Dogs are also significantly more coherent/aware/etc than cows and pigs.
ITT an influx of pushy vegetarians such as GuacoJeep, getting on an imaginary high-horse, laughably pretending that animals lives = human lives
There's nothing wrong with eating meat. It's what we've been programmed to do. We've been eating meat since the goddamn caveman days, and you're never gonna get people to stop.
I'm all for stopping torture in slaughterhouses and everything (actually tbh I don't really care, but if it'd stop activists whining at me, then do it), but stopping the killing of animals for food, period? Get the **** out of my office.
I'm going to eat a massive steak tonight. In honor of everyone here.
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
Slaughterhouses are hidden away, not for any consumer to see, because if they did most people would be disgusted by what they saw. Imagine if we took children on field trips to slaughterhouses when they were young, in order to educate them on where their food is coming from. How many do you think would continue to eat meat, or at the very least be forever impacted by the treatment of the animals they saw there?
For most of the history of human civilization, most children were raised on farms. They saw animals slaughtered regularly - in fact, they were probably doing some of it themselves from a very early age. You know what slaughter meant to them? Meat for dinner, oh boy!
Your own revulsion to bloodshed is most likely a result of the luxury of modernity. Unlike 99% of the human race through history, you have had access to meals delivered bloodlessly to your table, and the prosperity to be able to decide whether you want your next meal to be meat or vegetarian. Kids fortunate enough to be raised in such a cultural and economic context are of course going to be more sensitive to slaughter than kids for whom slaughter equals a hearty and delicious supper. But even so, most of us still eat meat, and it's awfully presumptuous of you to think this is simply a result of ignorance. Take me, for example. I'm upper-middle-class, from the suburbs, and the last time I actually killed my food was when I ate a bug as a toddler. And yet I really am unmoved by the fact that meat I'm going to eat for dinner tonight was once a living, breathing creature, and the transition from one state to the other involved a bloody mess.
So I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to GuacoJeep: don't overgeneralize about others based on your own personal emotional responses.
And because we share that same life force and are essentially no different than animals, we ought to treat them like we would like to be treated. Human beings don't want to die prematurely, they want to live full, happy, and healthy lives. Why should this be any different for an animal?
Your argument from "life force" would seem to apply with equal force to plants as to animals. The thing is, it doesn't actually apply to either of them. It's simply a non sequitur to say "This thing is alive, therefore the Golden Rule". Rather, the Golden Rule springs from the concept of reciprocal altruism - a concept most animals don't share with us. If that chicken doesn't give a damn about my well-being, why should I give a damn about its?
Yep. Though there's not much demand for it, so focusing my energies on the larger problem for now. My thought is, if they try and avoid being killed, as flies do, they are aware that they're alive, and want to live.
How do you know this, to "know" is to assert some form of metacognition. Instinct does not inform one is alive, rather metacognition informs oneself that one is alive. An insect based on stimuli and instinct isn't sentience, even with a liberal categories and definitions to establish an animal as sentient. Rather, the point is that your thought has placed the value on the fly's life.
Furthermore, if we take this from being "pro fly," why is there is a separation with plants, especially if one is to presume they have a "life force?" Specifically, certain religions only take to consuming things such as roots or fruits from specific plants with the plant being able to survive the harvest.
For most of the history of human civilization, most children were raised on farms. They saw animals slaughtered regularly - in fact, they were probably doing some of it themselves from a very early age. You know what slaughter meant to them? Meat for dinner, oh boy!
Your own revulsion to bloodshed is most likely a result of the luxury of modernity. Unlike 99% of the human race through history, you have had access to meals delivered bloodlessly to your table, and the prosperity to be able to decide whether you want your next meal to be meat or vegetarian. Kids fortunate enough to be raised in such a cultural and economic context are of course going to be more sensitive to slaughter than kids for whom slaughter equals a hearty and delicious supper. But even so, most of us still eat meat, and it's awfully presumptuous of you to think this is simply a result of ignorance. Take me, for example. I'm upper-middle-class, from the suburbs, and the last time I actually killed my food was when I ate a bug as a toddler. And yet I really am unmoved by the fact that meat I'm going to eat for dinner tonight was once a living, breathing creature, and the transition from one state to the other involved a bloody mess.
So I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to GuacoJeep: don't overgeneralize about others based on your own personal emotional responses.
To add to this, I pointed out three instances earlier: a marketplace in China where you can have a chicken slaughtered right in front of you, a person boiling a lobster alive, and a person who works as a butcher. None of these instances are seen as traumatic experiences. Given the distinct lack of butchers and people at lobster shacks having post-traumatic stress disorder, I think it's safe to say a human being can deal with the idea of animals being slaughtered and then eating them just fine.
My "somehow misunderstanding"? You said that you've tried to become a vegetarian many times, but don't. You didn't say didn't, you said don't. Didn't is past tense, don't is present tense. If you've tried to be a vegetarian many times, but don't, that means you are not currently a vegetarian. I did not misunderstand your words, I interpreted them exactly as you wrote them.
And considering how full of bull☺☺☺☺ you've proven yourself to be, I entirely believe that you are not a vegetarian, and are in fact claiming to be now because you've had pointed out to you how utterly hypocritical you are and cannot possibly tolerate the idea of that you might actually be full of crap.
It's not really a heated argument, so much as it is something very beautiful that happens in the debate forum every so often, in which one member decides he's going to be a giant member, and everyone else unites in the common cause of kicking his ass as a team.
I mean that's fair. I'm curious: if it were a free range chicken or a wild fowl, would you eat it?
My one thing I would advise is to be careful, as if you're going the full pescatarian route and getting your protein exclusively from seafood, be wary of your mercury levels.
I'm not sure what you mean by brighter or purer. Also, it is actually harder for the body to digest plant matter.
No it is against. Vegans don't eat anything that comes from animals. Fish is a problem too. You can, and should, pretty much give up veganism.
But, the cows aren't being butchered for their milk. Milk is taken when the cow is alive. So the cow that gave you the milk could very well be continuing to give milk as we speak.
What is the purpose? I mean, you could very well have some local farm that treats its cows just fine.
Except, I feel I should stress this here, these things are not really capable of existing on their own. So if your complaint is the act of farming itself, that's probably not a valid one.
Guaco... I find it amusing that you invoke 'complete lack of empathy' when you've barged into the thread yelling at people and degrading them. That doesn't seem very empathetic, as an empathetic person would understand that such language is hurtful to the other people in the debate, who you should be respecting. I think you should work on your empathy towards humans before you call on others for their empathy towards animals. You are extremely combative and others will take your points less seriously if they see someone trying to fight them.
Especially this one. Why are you so incredibly rude? Someone sees a point and raises it, you get angry because they didn't challenge every other point?
There is more.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
in some countries they are a delecacy. i don't make it a point to eat them but i have heard they are high in protean. although i am not sure about the taste like chicken part.
What i don't understand is the avid hostility that some people have toward eating meat. I don't have a problem with vegitarians. I eat a lot of veggies myself, but i also can't resist that steak medium cooked ribeye and i am in heaven.
everyone has their own tastes and likes.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
From an ecological point of view, for some areas a cow can be very hostile to grass. Especially European ones descended from auroch stock that have very wide hooves and tend to stand around more.
Insects are better at nutrition, consume less space than most animals, and ect. However, you never hear PETA pushing for people to eat bugs, but human breast milk and other crazy ideas are all kosher.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
If it were necessary for me to kill it I would to survive. I would choose not too, however if my community killed it in a manner that is natural than I would eat it.
I don't only eat seafood I get protein from cheese, nuts, and uncooked vegetables. I only eat seafood if someone else has bought it, or I am planning an occasion.
I don't know of the empirical data stating how plant matter is harder to digest, but I am not interested in such a statement like that; it seems absurd and I'm sure the data catered to eating animal. As far as brighter and purer I mean I do not feel the heaviness of dead animal in my body and my my agility is increased dramatically.
I must have worded this incorrectly, I mean that I do not practice Veganism.
Conditions for these animals are harsh in some places, and some are butchered at a later date, but I am not sure of the specifics. I also do not drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant and feel like crap from drinking it.
I'm not getting it from local farms.
The act of farming is fine, and it's the huge corporations that have corrupted a beautiful thing. I myself have not stopped eating cheese because of animal cruelty and I do not know everything that is going on in this business.
What is a manner that is natural?
Like, I guess my question is, Spider, if you're going to eat meat, like if you're going to eat fish, then what's the problem? Why not just eat fish regularly? Similarly, I don't see any problems with the idea of eating pigs or cows or such. I can understand that the conditions of meat processing plants might not be something you'd want, and that's completely logical, but if it's a free-range chicken that has room to run around and be a chicken, I don't see how that's a problem.
Why?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Oh, well, that's actually an excellent reason.
I think that people should focus on finding ways to stop people from killing each other, instead of worrying about animals.
Hi guy, in answer to your question, no I do not kill spiders or ant colonies, I do indeed trap them and put them outside. I'm sorry that extending morality to animals is "out there" in your opinion, it is not out there in mine. Why do you extend morality to your dogs if extending morality to animals is "out there", sounds like a double standard to me.
Yes, but there is a concrete difference between animals losing their habitat because we move in as opposed to searching out an animal and slaughtering him.
No, I don't tell bears not to eat salmon, because human beings can't talk to bears. You should look into that before posting again. We, on the other hand, have the ability to choose based on moral principle whereas bears apparently do not.
No, bacteria that are causing us sickness, we can use antibiotics on us. It is self defense. We do not kill billions of pigs, cows, sheep, chickens for self defense, we do it for a luxury.
I think that about wraps up all your questions, let me know if I missed anything.
Guaco
Merge.
Hi, I suppose I'll answer this with words, though I think a smiley face and question mark would do the trick as well.
As far as we know, plants have zero cognition, and have zero recognition of pain, and plants do not attempt to run away when a "predator" is eating it. With this knowledge, we can assume that we can eat it without moral conflict. Plants also have the ability to regenerate, grow more fruit from the same tree, etc. Whereas cows do not regrow their carcasses once dismantled. I just want to make sure you're following along here. Now for all I know, perhaps plants are in some way more alive than we are, but we've yet to find any science to prove this, so once we do, maybe we will have to reexamine. But for the time being, it seems that cutting the head off a living pig is far more cruel than eating an apple or piece of lettuce. I'm glad this is your only argument to my points that I make, it means you're really having a hard time trying to think of something to rebut with. Please follow up by asking why it's okay that we breathe air molecules and isn't that just as bad as electrocuting lambs, so we can fully illuminate the demographic you represent. Cheers.
Guaco
Merge.
"I'd highlight more, but all the malapropisms and purple prose make it just too painful to continue. What you think is English, isn't."
Please go to websters dictionary and look up the word AdHominem, before you "correct" me. Definition: Usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument.
No nerve struck, just pointing out you're incapable of forming an argument about the topic, so instead you attack me. No such time for you.
Merge.
I think it's great that you're doing your part.
Merge.
Aww, your ridiculous logic is cute. I'm sorry if you read into sentences to hear what you want, "I've tried many times to become vegetarian where I don't" Here were my intentions, don't is appropriate here, present or not. I'm sorry if you believe I should care of your evaluation of my grammar. You're allowed to say I'm not a vegetarian since you have no other arguments, I don't blame you, hard to shoot a gun without ammunition, so sometimes we use pretend bullets. I am indeed a vegetarian, but you're more than welcome to believe what you'd like.
Merge.
Your first comment is AdHominem, so I'll leave that one to you.
Second comment; sure, that may be a reason why you see LESS live animals, but is there a reason you see near ZERO live animals in markets in major cities other than that it grosses people out at the thought of having to kill their own animal?
Merge.
Yep. Though there's not much demand for it, so focusing my energies on the larger problem for now. My thought is, if they try and avoid being killed, as flies do, they are aware that they're alive, and want to live.
Merge.
Good contribution. Should there be a moral argument about killing dogs and eating them? That should answer your question. No double standard
This logic seems very inconsistent...plants defend themselves from being eaten all the time.
Going by this logic, it would not be okay to eat plants as well, correct?
I'm going to just assume you worded this a bit wonky...
Just going to point out, where do you think the food that the live stock eats comes from? And then you have to realize that it's not a 1 to 1 ratio of food consumed to meat made.
If you look at it from a statistical standpoint the raising of livestock is grossly inefficient. And as food and water begins to become scarce it might be unethical to consume, not from an animal rights perspective but from a "there isn't enough food" perspective.
Calvin and Hobbes
Cube Tutor
So, there are some cases when, to use your own words and definition, the murder of "lesser beings" is acceptable?
You seem to be drawing this line of what does and does not have the right to live with "pain" but I am not sure why.
Explain.
Animals can do that as well:
http://www.gan.ca/animal+news.en.html?neid=156
However, when you "harvest" most plants you are killing them.
Nether do plants when you kill them.
Line by line, my friend, for I find something wrong with each one.
I don't know why they need to be "more alive."
Would you eat meat if someone "proved" that humans are "more alive" (whatever the heck that means) than animals?
What does "more alive" mean anyway?
Explain.
Well, you might think differently if you had Chlorophyll.
Some people draw the line at species, but I don't know why that's better or worse than doing it at kingdom.
Explain.
I am only arguing with what I find to be grossly misrepresentation of established facts. And I am waiting for you to make some established facts of your own. Like explaining in more detail WHY you find plants worthy of death.
I'm not killing any air molecules because, unlike plants and animals, air molecules aren't alive.
Additionally, I eat meat and plants and fungus. I don't make the moral decision that you do. I don't need to prove that plants are much much different than animals because I eat both. You are the one trying to show that one is worthy of living and the other is not.
In short, I don't need to distinguish between the two because I don't discriminate between them. You are the one drawing the line.
If animal slaughter is murder in your world, then taking their environment is ethnic cleansing.
I dont know where you think that animals go, when we take out their environment, but trust me when I tell you that they don't just relocate to greener pastures.
They just starve... and their babies starve and never grow to adulthood.
Through millions of years, Deer once got to Live, Breed, and Die (usually by starvation, predation/slaughter, or disease).
The alternative is extinction.
If treated properly ( free range, etc. ) cows would get to Live, Breed, Die (usually by slaughter, rarely by disease, never by starvation).
The alternative is extinction.
If you can think of superior alternatives to continued cow species existence, please outline the plan.
Humans have complete dominance over bears, and we staple radiotags to their head, shoot then when they get out of line, and sometimes swoop in on helicopters, drug them, and relocate them, all without the bears' assent or consent. Bears live only on nature preserves by our leave at this point.
In Guacojeep-land, would we put bears only on preserves where they only have access to vegetarian food like berries? Or would you simply gradually jus do away with bears and let them go extinct?
I'm dead serious. Would you let bears eat salmon and rabbits or would you have bear preserves be strictly vegetarian? They are omnivores after all and letting them eat bunnies or salmon is cruel to salmon and bunnies.
I really don't understand this concept of "inefficient". Not the concept itself, but why it matters.
Food and water are not scarce. Food certainly is not.
Are you sure? Are you really sure? Are you sure they are self-conscious? That they have desires?
People find value in dogs as something other than food; which has developed a cultural taboo against eating dog. That isn't the case everywhere. I'm not sure if it's a racist rumor or not, but don't they eat dog in Asia or parts of it?
Really? Because my idea makes more sense, I think. Do you live on a farm? I do. 14 hereford cows is about an hour of shovelling dung a day (for my dad.) Nobody wants to deal with that longer than they have to. It is the reason why you don't see animals in markets, and the 'gross' factor is the minor factor. BTW, at farm auctions you do see the animals.
I'm not attacking the validity of your belief by pointing out your own double standard. The crux of my arguement is not that you're a hypocrite. But, I feel the need to point out that you're a blatant hypocrite. You still have this arrogant tone in your posts that screams a superiority complex.
EDIT: aaaaaand he's suspended =P
So for the sake of discussion, let us assume that there is a human who is paralyzed and completely brain dead, or rather a human that is residing in an completely vegetative state with no measurable cognition nor measurable reaction to pain. Can we eat that human "without moral conflict"? An extreme example, yes, but the point that merely because plants do not run away, display cognition or feel pain makes it ok for us to kill them for food is clearly flawed.
A plant is a living creature, it strives towards life and propagation at all available opportunities and never will a plant try to "kill itself" as it were. Thus by uprooting/killing a plant for food, the plant is being deprived of its' chance to live and propagate exactly as killing an animal for food would do to that animal. On what basis do you value the rights of an animal over the rights of a plant? Cognition? Some plants react to their surroundings, are those plants off-limits for consumption? What if every plant suddenly gained the ability to "moo"? Or if scientific research shows plants to be cognitive?
Irrelevant but I will state my personal opinion that the only reason I find acceptable for being vegetarian is if that person dislikes meat(and of course dietry/health requirements, religious not so much). Attempting to justify being vegetarian on moral grounds is in my opinion nothing more than a method to boost one's ego and in fact, I would be far more accepting of someone using the energy inefficiency argument against livestock, or any other well grounded argument, as a reason instead.
It's two words. You usually don't capitalize a letter in the middle of a word. As a matter of fact, you don't capitalize ad hominem at all. And as for the definition itself, it's a Latin prepositional phrase combining the preposition ad "to, at, against" with the accusative form of homo "man". Thus, an ad hominem argument is an argument against the man - in modern usage, an attempt to invalidate someone else's argument via irrelevant details about that person.
Now that we've established who's wearing the smarty-pants here, let's look at what I actually said. I complained how hard it was to read your prose. This might constitute an ad hominem argument, if it were the substance of my post. But it was just a throwaway line. The substance of my post was that you ought to take your own advice, and stop using "we" where you mean "I". This is as clear an internal contradiction as I've ever seen on these boards, and as such is absolutely a fair "argument about the topic". But despite my reiterating this point once already, you have yet to even acknowledge that I made it. Instead, you're tossing out this accusation of ad hominem as a smokescreen. So when you get back from your suspension, I invite you to give that up and explain why it's okay for you to generalize about humanity, but not Jay13x.
And really, dude, think twice before condescending about a Latin phrase to a guy who quotes Horace in his sig.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Just flipping this whole scenario around... Let's say the world did ban meat eating completely. Let's say all governments agree that we will no longer kill animals. Let's set aside the economic turmoil to the food markets, meat industry etc.
Just some moral/ethical questions of what we would do:
(1) do we have an obligation to keep any animals of each domesticated food species around under government "preserves" or zoos? How many is a good number? Are domesticated species incapable of competing in the wild, deserving of artificial preservation?
(2) what should we do with the currently living billion or so cows, billion pigs, and 30 billion chickens currently living? Would we have an obligation to neuter/spay them and feed & house them till they die of old age?
(3) In current "wild" areas where deer, etc. are still living without predators, what do you propose to be the ethical method of population control? Doing nothing will mean overpopulation and flat out mass starvation even winter. Sterilization programs?
(4) should we support all wild predators and omnivores in supported preserves? Should omnivores be placed in preserves where they cannot have access to prey? Should predators be placed in preserves where they cannot hunt the prey animals or in more "natural" ecosystems? High level predators require a massive amount of space in a "normal" ecosystem. Even in a vegetarian world, I'd think most people would support predation for predators... Or am I wrong here? Seems that a lion that isn't allowed to hunt is no longer a lion... It's a bird with its wings clipped, on life support.
For those who want a world where humans are all vegetarian, what do you picture the world to look like exactly? That should be defined at least partly by the answers to the first 4 questions. Would it come down to: "millions of Kurds are being abused... Let's save them by... Sterilizing all the Kurds except for a few hundred..." ?
Remember the movie Logan's Run? Where all humans were executed at 30? Is the life of a free range, humanely slaughtered animalmuch like that of humans in Logan's Run? Would humans rather continue to live in that society, fed & housed until it's slaughter time at 30? Or would they rather have an alien race come in, "rescue them", take 99% of the land they're currently living on, and keep only a few hundred humans alive, with sterilization to keep the numbers down? (overthrowing their masters completely like in the movie, does not appear to be an option for cows)
Side question: Any vegetarians ok with a world where we only step in and eat animals that die of "old age"?
10 BILLION!!!
The problem is not the consumption of meat, but our attitude towards animals in general. Animals share more in common with humans than is realized. Among those similarities, the most significant aspect is the capacity for animals to suffer, and be deprived of their right as living beings to live freely, happily, and productively.
Slaughterhouses are hidden away, not for any consumer to see, because if they did most people would be disgusted by what they saw. Imagine if we took children on field trips to slaughterhouses when they were young, in order to educate them on where their food is coming from. How many do you think would continue to eat meat, or at the very least be forever impacted by the treatment of the animals they saw there?
Animals are another reflection of the same life force that flows through you and all other beings. Nature has given human beings the capacity, via the human mind, the power to care for, and shepherd all life. Instead, we run around like ignorant Gods, unable to see that from an animals perspective the power we yield over them truly is God-like.
We create living hells for animals in the name of their consumption. Hell is not a place outside Earth, it is here in a slaughterhouse and is the very lives of billions of animals that are slaughtered each year, mostly to be wasted.
10 billion animals for 300 million people.. sickening.
Domesticated species were domesticated by who again? Oh yeah, human beings! We were able to domesticate them for our use, and as such we would certainly be able to think of ways to preserve them for their own-sake. In fact, it's our responsibility to do so, since domesticated animals are defenseless because of our conditioning. You make it sound like it would be impossible, and from your perspective I can see that preserving the lives of millions of animals certainly isn't worth the time, or money.
Maybe setting up preserves is the right thing to do. Tear down the slaughterhouses and open up green pastures. The government could subsidize the preserves. We give billions to farmers to grown corn for ethanol which is wasted, why not for the lives of millions of animals?? These domesticated animals also make great pets... Cows milk, chicken eggs, pigs are more intelligent than dogs and are very loving. Perhaps, individuals who choose to help take care of a certain number of animals ought to be given a subsidy by the government as well?
These responses are not the answer, but just suggestions, and are much better than throwing up road blocks as you are. No problem has ever been solved with the attitude you're taking. You're not even thinking of ways to solve the problem, you're only thinking of questions that justify your belief.
Once again, you make it sound like this is an impossible problem!! You ask important, and difficult questions, but they do not justify the continued suffering of animals. What did the Allied forces do for the millions of neglected Jews in concentration camps after WWII? They saw that they needed help and did everything they could to help them. They didn't say, 'OMG there are so many starving, half-naked people here, what are we gonna do????' They immediately set about helping them as best they could and some lived, while others died, but ultimately the atrocity ended.
If we held animal life to the same value as human life we would do everything we could to stop, then help, and solve the problem faced by these animals. A situation, let me remind you again, WE put them in.
It's pretty simple. Nature will take care of itself. It's impossible to stop the suffering of all animals, especially in the wild, but we can stop the horror show that is far more devastating than any natural death of a deer. The animals that die due to over-population lived free lives, were able to reproduce, and lived out the course their lives in Nature. Billions of chickens, cows, and pigs never see the light of day, ever! They are cramped into tiny cells, body to body with other animals their entire lives. This is no way to live. Imagine living your whole life like that... It would be a nightmare... Hell.
More of the same... just throwing up road blocks to justify your beliefs...
Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you know how the majority of animals are treated before they are killed and processed? Not like this. Very few live lives like this.
Their quality of life isn't even the point, though. That's just a problem. The point is we don't need to kill animals to survive. Millions of people live healthy lives being vegan and vegetarian. It's unnecessary death. And because we share that same life force and are essentially no different than animals, we ought to treat them like we would like to be treated. Human beings don't want to die prematurely, they want to live full, happy, and healthy lives. Why should this be any different for an animal?
Let me ask you a question. Do you want to eat your neighbors grandma after she dies?
I'm not saying we should run out and save the animals over the lives of humans, or that human problems should be addressed after animals either. I merely feel that a change in attitude is needed, and that change in attitude will positively effect many of the factors of suffering in the lives of humans and animals. We as humans have the power to do so much, yet we are severely hindered by unconscious primitive tendencies.
In the future, if we ever get there, things will be much different, and the human species will look back in regret and horror for what we've done to animals.
Since when is this a question about numbers?
Are you saying that eating a cow is less "sickening" than eating shrimps?
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
Also, to the guy that got suspended: Some cultures do eat dog(and cats), and consider it a delicacy. That is up to them. Dogs are also significantly more coherent/aware/etc than cows and pigs.
There's nothing wrong with eating meat. It's what we've been programmed to do. We've been eating meat since the goddamn caveman days, and you're never gonna get people to stop.
I'm all for stopping torture in slaughterhouses and everything (actually tbh I don't really care, but if it'd stop activists whining at me, then do it), but stopping the killing of animals for food, period? Get the **** out of my office.
I'm going to eat a massive steak tonight. In honor of everyone here.
For most of the history of human civilization, most children were raised on farms. They saw animals slaughtered regularly - in fact, they were probably doing some of it themselves from a very early age. You know what slaughter meant to them? Meat for dinner, oh boy!
Your own revulsion to bloodshed is most likely a result of the luxury of modernity. Unlike 99% of the human race through history, you have had access to meals delivered bloodlessly to your table, and the prosperity to be able to decide whether you want your next meal to be meat or vegetarian. Kids fortunate enough to be raised in such a cultural and economic context are of course going to be more sensitive to slaughter than kids for whom slaughter equals a hearty and delicious supper. But even so, most of us still eat meat, and it's awfully presumptuous of you to think this is simply a result of ignorance. Take me, for example. I'm upper-middle-class, from the suburbs, and the last time I actually killed my food was when I ate a bug as a toddler. And yet I really am unmoved by the fact that meat I'm going to eat for dinner tonight was once a living, breathing creature, and the transition from one state to the other involved a bloody mess.
So I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to GuacoJeep: don't overgeneralize about others based on your own personal emotional responses.
Your argument from "life force" would seem to apply with equal force to plants as to animals. The thing is, it doesn't actually apply to either of them. It's simply a non sequitur to say "This thing is alive, therefore the Golden Rule". Rather, the Golden Rule springs from the concept of reciprocal altruism - a concept most animals don't share with us. If that chicken doesn't give a damn about my well-being, why should I give a damn about its?
Not really; pigs at least are cognitively more intelligent than dogs.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How do you know this, to "know" is to assert some form of metacognition. Instinct does not inform one is alive, rather metacognition informs oneself that one is alive. An insect based on stimuli and instinct isn't sentience, even with a liberal categories and definitions to establish an animal as sentient. Rather, the point is that your thought has placed the value on the fly's life.
Furthermore, if we take this from being "pro fly," why is there is a separation with plants, especially if one is to presume they have a "life force?" Specifically, certain religions only take to consuming things such as roots or fruits from specific plants with the plant being able to survive the harvest.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To add to this, I pointed out three instances earlier: a marketplace in China where you can have a chicken slaughtered right in front of you, a person boiling a lobster alive, and a person who works as a butcher. None of these instances are seen as traumatic experiences. Given the distinct lack of butchers and people at lobster shacks having post-traumatic stress disorder, I think it's safe to say a human being can deal with the idea of animals being slaughtered and then eating them just fine.