| Blogs > Tony Campolo |
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:13 Offhand wrote: Well you equated cows and jews. I haven't. What makes a cow better then, say, a pepper? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7879950 | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life. This following statement just takes the cake. "All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. " are you serious? Its just a change in diet right? you realize revolutions have started over much lesser offenses on human rights such as taxation on tea and gun ownership and you think that forcing people to go vegan is not an infringement of human rights? There is a reason specie-cism (not sure thats even a word) is not in the same league as sexism or racism. Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump? Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk. What a ridiculous overreaction. There's no evidence whatsoever that OP is "pushing his beliefs onto others". Rather, he has given his thoughts on the matter in a constructive and rational way, while you reward his effort by being as irrational, agressive and blunt as possible. The notion that OP is "forcing people to become vegan" and is thus "offending your human rights" is simply laughable. Becoming a Vegan IS "just a change in diet" and OP's point was that his views on animal rights are completely non-related to his position on human rights. I also want to adress your short mindedness for a bit: "animals are not human" No, because humans are in fact animals too. Sure, we can think on a higher level and have as such felt the need to distinguish ourselves from "the animals" by calling ourselves "humans". But when you get realistic about it, we're still "just" evolved monkeys that claim to be different/ superior from other mammals. If an alien race visited our world they wouldn't distinguish us as humans and animals, we'd all be in one group. "Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk." I feel like this is a cheap attempt at baiting OP. Other than that, it's just based on your assumptions. Saying that human rights matter more than animal rights is just your opinion, and although that opinion is pretty widespread, there's never been an actual discussion on explaining why animal rights are less important than human ones. The biggest argument for human rights being more important is that the people judging the matter are humans themselves. Going back to the aliens vistiting Earth scenario, what reasons would they have to hold "human rights" above that of the other living creatures on earth? Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded? | ||
|
agarangu
Chile274 Posts
On February 10 2011 07:53 Tony Campolo wrote: The fact is though the majority of the billions of animals are created solely for the purpose of consumption thus having to go through the torturous factory farm process. These animals would not exist in the first place if not for the factory farms. They would not be out in the wild suffering, being hunted, starving, or any other danger etc. As they wouldn't exist. The fact that they do and go through a slaughterhouse process is unnecessary, they would not 'otherwise' be out in the wild in a 'situation where suffering or death is present'. It is true that factory farms should not permit the behavior towards animals that is shown in the video you posted in the other thread, but that is not an argument against specie-cism or "meat-eating", only against factory farms or their policies. Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world. It happens even in nature, and it happens to people too. I would happily feed a million pigs to people who are starving. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote: It is true that factory farms should not permit the behavior towards animals that is shown in the video you posted in the other thread, but that is not an argument against specie-cism or "meat-eating", only against factory farms or their policies. Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world. It happens even in nature, and it happens to people too. I would happily feed a million pigs to people who are starving. You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to. And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries. | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world. I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote: It is true that factory farms should not permit the behavior towards animals that is shown in the video you posted in the other thread, but that is not an argument against specie-cism or "meat-eating", only against factory farms or their policies. Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world. It happens even in nature, and it happens to people too. I would happily feed a million pigs to people who are starving. Predators don't perceive anything as cruel, they just do whatever they need to kill their prey. At a factory farm there's tons of ways to kill animals in a "humane" way if the people involved chose to do so. And shouldn't we be above these "animalistic" practices, since we're superior to them? | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4212 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:40 Tony Campolo wrote: You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to. And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries. You don't seem to understand nutrition that well..... There are many different nutrients that can be found in meats that will not be found in other sources of food in the abundance required to eat healthy. And suppliments are capable of covering some of that deficiency in someone who chooses to eat vegan/vegetarian. However, they will not replace the real thing, and the effectiveness of those suppliments vary from person to person. It can actually be dangerous to some people to switch to a vegan/vegetarian diet, because the suppliments simply won't be able to compensate for the lack of meats in their diet..... It can be working fine for you, and many other people. But that does not mean everyone will be able to handle that type of diet. I know that, personally, I haven't had a steak or a beef burger or any other kind of beef in well over 2 weeks, and I have been craving it for the last few days, meaning that I know my body wants some nutrients in beef that my diet has not been giving me without it. Well, I must be a fucking monster to advocate eating meat, right? ..... Actually, I'm all for improving animal rights. However, I have a lot of other things to do instead of preaching for these improvements. Would I pay more money for meat that was raised and slaughtered in a more animal friendly way? Yes. And I do, when I get the chance. Unfortunately, there are not too many options out there, because it is generally twice the price, or more, for the same quantity and quality meats, and most people simply don't give a shit, and would rather buy something for a lower price. This entire thread seems to make it look like anyone who eats meat is the fucking devil..... I'd argue that it's more about people's priority being money over the welfare of animals. And money is going to win that battle. PS - I have gone hunting and fishing many times in the past. I have killed animals that I have eaten later on. I don't fucking torture the things..... And I'm sure that you'd find that almost every hunter/fisherman is the same. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:17 Tony Campolo wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7879950 The argument of sentience is just semantics. Vegans are murderers. | ||
|
lixlix
United States482 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:31 Saechiis wrote: Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded? fair? its survival. of course we wouldn't find being bred by aliens very fair. But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
Do vegans try to push their lifestyle on to others? Sometimes, yes. They feel very strongly about their lifestyle. Imagine, they gave up bacon and cheese because they felt so strongly about it. For some reason others react very negatively to someone who feels strongly about a subject they don't. This guy made this thread because his last thread was shut down by a surge of people rushing to tell him he was wrong. All he's doing is defending himself. The last thread exploded to 20 pages in a few hours. People couldn't get there fast enough to explain how the OP wasn't going to be healthy, how he wasn't actually going to change anything, how his kids would be retarded, and how what he was doing was actually detrimental. He believes very strongly in what he does. Sciences backs him up. Logic backs him up. Every single argument against vegans is bullshit. Vegans live perfectly healthy lives, and their bodies can be completely nutritionally satisfied without animal products. Vegans create a change in the demand of a supply/demand production scheme. 1% less people eating meat means 1% less meat raised, tortured, and slaughtered. By consuming only plant energy, vegans are more environmentally friendly by creating the least amount of waste in their food chain. Vegans prevent the unnecessary killing of animals that are intelligent and capable of experiencing emotions and feeling pain. These are facts. No amount of opinion can change them. Droves of people clamor to refute these facts. Maybe its because they don't like to be told what to do, maybe they like arguing-- fuck this I'm saying it. In the same way that someone who rescues dogs from shelters are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that people who are environmentally conscious are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that someone is who is willing to make self sacrifices for the good of others is a good person, a vegan is a good person. Does this make vegans better than you? Maybe. | ||
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:20 Lexpar wrote: I'm just going to make one post in this thread, since I was up all night in the last thread. I hope you'll read it and think about it. Do vegans try to push their lifestyle on to others? Sometimes, yes. They feel very strongly about their lifestyle. Imagine, they gave up bacon and cheese because they felt so strongly about it. For some reason others react very negatively to someone who feels strongly about a subject they don't. This guy made this thread because his last thread was shut down by a surge of people rushing to tell him he was wrong. All he's doing is defending himself. The last thread exploded to 20 pages in a few hours. People couldn't get there fast enough to explain how the OP wasn't going to be healthy, how he wasn't actually going to change anything, how his kids would be retarded, and how what he was doing was actually detrimental. He believes very strongly in what he does. Sciences backs him up. Logic backs him up. Every single argument against vegans is bullshit. Vegans live perfectly healthy lives, and their bodies can be completely nutritionally satisfied without animal products. Vegans create a change in the demand of a supply/demand production scheme. 1% less people eating meat means 1% less meat raised, tortured, and slaughtered. By consuming only plant energy, vegans are more environmentally friendly by creating the least amount of waste in their food chain. Vegans prevent the unnecessary killing of animals that are intelligent and capable of experiencing emotions and feeling pain. These are facts. No amount of opinion can change them. Droves of people clamor to refute these facts. Maybe its because they don't like to be told what to do, maybe they like arguing-- fuck this I'm saying it. In the same way that someone who rescues dogs from shelters are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that people who are environmentally conscious are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that someone is who is willing to make self sacrifices for the good of others is a good person, a vegan is a good person. Does this make vegans better than you? Maybe. a debate is perfectly fine to have and i have gone into this rationally and reasonably. paragraph 4 there shows you not entering into it rationally and reasonably and i think shows you to be very arrogant and unable to debate in this way. i agree with your first three paragraphs he is presumably passionate on the subject and i am happy to debate the subject with him. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:17 lixlix wrote: fair? its survival. of course we wouldn't find being bred by aliens very fair. But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority. I think we can all agree that most of us aren't in a direct struggle for survival. The fact that people like their daily meat doesn't mean they require it to stay alive. Your condescending tone also gives me the impression that you're annoyed by the notion that others can withhold from eating meat based on their beliefs, good. TL:DR Don't portray vegans as pretentious people to justify your eating of meat. | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:31 rolfe wrote:a debate is perfectly fine to have and i have gone into this rationally and reasonably. paragraph 4 there shows you not entering into it rationally and reasonably and i think shows you to be very arrogant and unable to debate in this way. i agree with your first three paragraphs he is presumably passionate on the subject and i am happy to debate the subject with him. Just because he's making a claim that could be seen as arrogant doesn't mean it's not a rational claim to make. It would be irrational to assume it's invalidity because it comes across as arrogant. | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick. | ||
|
drewcifer
United States192 Posts
| ||
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:46 Robstickle wrote: Just because he's making a claim that could be seen as arrogant doesn't mean it's not a rational claim to make. It would be irrational to assume it's invalidity because it comes across as arrogant. no. i think hes mixing together facts, half truths and opinions together intentionally and presenting it purely as facts. he is also offering no justification at all for why he considers these things self evidentally true. he is completely ignoring the debate saying he is better than it and above it. this is why i think it is arrogant. if there was any attempt at validation of what he presents as facts i could decide whether i thought it was invalid or not but as there is not i cannot. | ||
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
| ||
|
MrRicewife
Canada515 Posts
I know that the amount of animals we have in captivity to feed ourselves (ei, cattle farms, fish farms, etc) is exponential. We (1st world countries) have so many animals, it has a direct impact on world hunger. We feed so much food to these animals, that instead, we could feed the world with that food; of course this means we would all have to be vegetarians and that will never fly. We spend so many resources to keep cows, chickens, and fish alive to feed the world that we could easily solve world hunger. If we change the way we consume, increasing crop yields, cramming more plants into an area, watering and feeding crops more efficiently, world hunger can become a thing of the past - also solving the way we slaughter billions of animals a year AND we could use the resources for other things; space exploration, developing 3rd world countries without taking much profit loss. Then again, capitalism did win and here we are - trying to fix a broken system while individuals become obscenely rich. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:48 LoLAdriankat wrote: Vegeterianism, veganism and everything PETA stands for are first world luxuries being supported by places where human rights are worse than the first world. Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick. So basically what you're saying is: Everything you eat is "cruelty" so you shouldn't even try? Seems like a defeatist attitude; make it seem like all food is bad so you don't have to try and be conscious of your foods' origin. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:48 LoLAdriankat wrote: Vegeterianism, veganism and everything PETA stands for are first world luxuries being supported by places where human rights are worse than the first world. Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick. Okay I lied about the one post. You're wrong. In fact, your statement is exactly the opposite of true. Developing nations and third world communities eat hundreds of times less meat than first worlders. Some guy in the last thread mentioned that some Chinese communities eat less than a pound of meat per year per person. I can't attest to that being true or false, but I imagine its not far from the truth. MEAT is a luxury. It takes 7 times as much land, ie 7 times as much water, ie 7 times as much work to raise 1000 calories of meat than it does to raise 1000 calories of vegetables. Factory farming, ie meat 3 meals a day, is a first world luxury. Its amazing how you could think that eating meat every meal of the day is not a luxury. News flash: slaughterhouse machinery and other equipment used to raise animals is made in the same place as the equipment to harvest vegetables. What the hell made you think that tilling machines were evil and tainted by Chinese sweat, while a slaughterhouse machine is obviously made and operated by well paid, highly trained, and respected individuals? You makes no sense. Even if by some odd and highly unlikely twist of fate, farming equipment was all made by a uniquely evil corporation that employs only the blindest, stupidest, youngest Chinese girls, the fact remains that livestock eat grain: 7 times as much grains as they can offer in nutrition to human beings. On February 10 2011 09:53 drewcifer wrote: People will literally never stop eating meat until it runs out so it is really futile to even make posts like these or have any vegan efforts at all. Instead, go to school and study biochem and learn how to create tasty fucking steaks out of inorganic material because it will actually help your cause. The definition of a vegan is a person who has stopped eating meat. By your logic, why vote, or protest the things you care for? This "you're only a drop in the ocean" mentality is deadly. The ocean is made of drops. Every one of them counts. Look at whats happening in egypt. What if the tens of thousands of protesters concluded that they were only one person and couldn't make a difference? I swear to god this mentality is destroying the world. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV 2025
Spirit vs YoungYakov
Rogue vs Nice
Scarlett vs Reynor
TBD vs Clem
uThermal vs Shameless
PiGosaur Cup
WardiTV 2025
MaNa vs Gerald
TBD vs MaxPax
ByuN vs TBD
TBD vs ShoWTimE
OSC
YoungYakov vs Mixu
ForJumy vs TBD
Percival vs TBD
Shameless vs TBD
The PondCast
WardiTV 2025
Cure vs Creator
TBD vs Solar
WardiTV 2025
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
