EPTIt's not. We don't need animal meats to survive, or even to thrive. People eat it because it tastes good and it's what we've always done. I went over this before, read the first few pages.
[NSFW?] Beautiful bull-fighting fail. - Page 16
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
It's not. We don't need animal meats to survive, or even to thrive. People eat it because it tastes good and it's what we've always done. I went over this before, read the first few pages. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Rising_Phoenix
United States370 Posts
On June 10 2010 03:11 IntoTheWow wrote: I did not use the word pleasure, I said entertainment. I also did not talk about sustaining human life, but eating. Nice try though! Yes, it is entertainment. but apparently you don't understand the cultural, historical, and religious aspect of the entertainment. I'll just link the wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_fighting | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
i'm not happy this guy almost died, and I don't associate myself with the animal lovers here. but i think bull fighting is just a plain dopey form of entertainment -- bottom of the barrel. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On June 10 2010 12:43 Rising_Phoenix wrote: Woah, massive deja vu. Sure you've never said this exact thing? Further proof the world is a program set to test me.Yes, it is entertainment. but apparently you don't understand the cultural, historical, and religious aspect of the entertainment. I'll just link the wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_fighting | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1017 Posts
Now whether it's moral or not is debatable. I went to a fight before reading the book and was appalled, and Hemingway himself thinks it isn't morally defensible. But at the very least, its worth considering that to many bull fighting is vastly more than senseless cruelty - it's a reflection on life, and attending such fights is an incredible experience for a lot of people. As many of our other, often less profound, pleasures are built on the unnecessary suffering of animals, I think singling bull-fighting out for as much virulent criticism as it gets is a bit over-zealous. Whew. | ||
|
Rising_Phoenix
United States370 Posts
On June 10 2010 12:48 Romantic wrote: Woah, massive deja vu. Sure you've never said this exact thing? Further proof the world is a program set to test me. I have no idea. I didn't feel like reading the thread. | ||
|
Monst3r
119 Posts
| ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
On June 10 2010 11:57 jackofclubs81 wrote: I realize that many people are against bullfighting, but there are two points I bring up: 1. Its a part of their culture. Your opinion of civilized isnt necessarily theirs. People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On June 10 2010 15:06 Vei wrote: People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. Here is your problem: You are comparing killing an animal to all these other things which, in the eyes of many people, vastly outweighs it in terms of wrongdoing. You may believe that killing an animal is wrong, or killing it as a form of entertainment is wrong, but others would not agree with you. Other people may think that humans just take that much precedence over animals .If this is an argument about whether discrimination against another group of people is wrong, we would probably reach a consensus. As things stands, you are forcing your cultural norm of what is acceptable on other people, when these things in question doesn't even hurt other human beings, and when there is such a diversity of opinions. Whether killing animal is wrong, that is up to people whose choice it is to decide. If you don't like it, don't do it, don't watch it, but as it stands, it doesn't hurt anybody else. By the way, based on what you are saying, eating meat, wearing hides, perhaps even keeping animals as pets are also harming them in the sense that you are killing them and limiting their freedom. But it draws no criticism since it is people's choice and it doesn't hurt anybody else. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
On June 10 2010 15:06 Vei wrote: People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. By the same token, culture does not justify the way animals are bring bred, kept and killed for you to eat. But culture does not justify a practice as long as it isn't your culture that is being scrutinised, right? | ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
Animals are merely yet another resource to be used as we see fit. They are a resource whose use should be conserved perhaps but a resource nonetheless. I do not garner any utility from bull fighting or similar related activities, but I cannot deny they generate utility for others. | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On June 10 2010 15:21 5unrise wrote: Here is your problem: You are comparing killing an animal to all these other things which, in the eyes of many people, vastly outweighs it in terms of wrongdoing. You may believe that killing an animal is wrong, or killing it as a form of entertainment is wrong, but others would not agree with you. Other people may think that humans just take that much precedence over animals .If this is an argument about whether discrimination against another group of people is wrong, we would probably reach a consensus. As things stands, you are forcing your cultural norm of what is acceptable on other people, when these things in question doesn't even hurt other human beings, and when there is such a diversity of opinions. Whether killing animal is wrong, that is up to people whose choice it is to decide. If you don't like it, don't do it, don't watch it, but as it stands, it doesn't hurt anybody else. By the way, based on what you are saying, eating meat, wearing hides, perhaps even keeping animals as pets are also harming them in the sense that you are killing them and limiting their freedom. But it draws no criticism since it is people's choice and it doesn't hurt anybody else. Cultural relativism is a really ridiculous pseudo-standard of morality. It prevents anything from being called 'wrong' by an outsider. If there were a culture which bred cats and then skinned them alive on their 5th birthday because it was fashionable, you can't call it wrong, even though it's abhorrently evil. If there were a culture which kept a koala alive but strung upside down in the town square, slowly dripping blood from its wrists because the women use it in their blush, you can't call it wrong, even though it's completely sick. If there were a culture who ritually ate the still-living spawn of their pets because they thought it brought them closer to their god, you can't call it wrong even though it's completely SADISTIC. No matter the standard of morality one chooses, one cannot simply choose to which instances it applies and to which it doesn't-- then it's not a standard, but merely a device of convenience. Your outlook is no different, and consequently runs into the problem of not being able to condemn an act even if it involves human beings. All those things I mentioned in my earlier post-- ritual genital mutilation, slavery, etc-- are all protected under the rule of "it's my culture, butt out." But what if we specify? What if we turn the rule into, "The values of one culture are their own to decide, and not an outsiders to interfere with, until the point it harms a human." Is this the same rule? Not the same as before, no; it allows for an infringement of the cultural values of one civilization by another for a greater good. But under this rule, who's to say what culture deserves to criticize another? Wouldn't one civilization be inflicting its morality upon the other? In a world of relativistic morals, what nation, or set of nations, would be called the "most good", and therefore set the standard? There must be another rule outside of "my culture has engaged in this practice for centuries, therefore it's ok". Cultural relativism isn't a rule of morality; it's a way of avoiding conflict by being unable to call something WRONG. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
| ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
don't put words into my mouth and by the way, notice I never said harming another person is wrong (not that I don't think it is), I only said that, in the eyes of most people, it would be considered wrong, and therefore a consensus could be reached. I made not subjective judgement in that post. Please read my words better before you draw your conclusions. And once again, I am not fond of philosophers, don't put philosophical concepts into my mouth | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On June 10 2010 16:22 5unrise wrote: ummm... how do you assume I am using cultural relativism? I'm not a philosopher, and never want to be one, I am simply telling you that it makes no sense for one to denounce the practices of another if it doesnt do anybody harm. don't put words into my mouth I am a philosopher, and I plan on being one for the rest of my life. Your viewpoint correlates nearly exactly with cultural relativism. Whether you acknowledge it by name or not is irrelevant. It does someone harm. The animal. Yes, there are cases in which it is worth causing pain to one, namely a comparable benefit to many. There isn't one in this case. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On June 10 2010 16:28 neohero9 wrote: I am a philosopher, and I plan on being one for the rest of my life. Your viewpoint correlates nearly exactly with cultural relativism. Whether you acknowledge it by name or not is irrelevant. It does someone harm. The animal. Yes, there are cases in which it is worth causing pain to one, namely a comparable benefit to many. There isn't one in this case. errm no I am not using it. I am using my own viewpoint. I know what cultural relativism is, and frankly I too think its philosophical garbage. I am simply making calls based on pragmatic judgements, and I really don't give a ** about philosophical abstracts... If people enjoy doing something that makes them better off, and it doesnt hurt other poeple, then there's no good reason to force them to stop. And no bulls are not people. | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
Bulls go out of their way to avoid harm, and to escape death, right? nm I'm out for the night. We're looking at this from two different ends of an idealogical chasm. As much as I may be on the high ground, there is no convincing you, not on this night. | ||
|
Darcius
Canada16 Posts
Animals are not people. "People" implies humanity. Don't try semantics on this, either, we know I am right. We have been killing animals for millenia. If you feel that nonhuman creatures are people, then you should first start your day by mourning the death of hundreds of thousands of bacteria destroyed when you, inhaling, mix the bacteria from the air in your bedroom with the more malicious ones which live in your mouth. | ||
| ||
