EPTAlso our right to eat meat involves our dominance over those species. We are at the top of the food chain and so we have the right to eat everything always. In fact I'm pretty sure the only reason we don't eat each other is because humans taste like shit (trust me long story).
[Veganism] Fucking humanity - Page 23
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Zim23
United States1681 Posts
Also our right to eat meat involves our dominance over those species. We are at the top of the food chain and so we have the right to eat everything always. In fact I'm pretty sure the only reason we don't eat each other is because humans taste like shit (trust me long story). | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
I say we just let natural selection play out. | ||
|
Spyfire242
United States715 Posts
Edit:And indeed if eating animals is evil surely us meat eaters will be reborn as cows, so whats the problem? | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On February 09 2011 18:04 mcc wrote: I am definitely not  I dislike vegans, more specifically vegans that keep their children on vegan diet. I am happy eating meat. Eating meat has nothing to do with not having empathy with animal suffering.Maybe I missed it, but could you share with me your main argument for "eating meat happily". I eat meat happily, but only because I decided that I don't care (too much) about animal well-being, even though I think I should, much like I decided that I will not care (too much) about the poverty in the world, even though I know I should. I have taken these decisions mainly out of convenience, since I cannot fight all evil in the world at once. I nonetheless grant to people who actively fight for animal rights and against poverty that they have "the moral high ground" (in the respective field). What's your take on it? | ||
|
TrinitySC
101 Posts
| ||
|
Spyfire242
United States715 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:22 TrinitySC wrote: At this point I'm actually curious. Why should animals have rights? Because their brains allow them to sense and react to pain. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
I recently watched a TEDtalk about how the ancient prehistoric humans obviously must have been eating animals, but they never found any tools or weapons as to how they captured these animals. They theorize that they used to just form packs and run down an animal for hours/days until it became exhausted and collapsed. Because humans are slow but we have the highest endurance. Is that a more or less humane in your opinion? sure someonealready mentioned this as well, they only do the throat slit thing for jewish/hebrew kosher techniques. So blame the jews lol | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
I'd appreciate vegans way more if they weren't trying to pull this biased shit on everyone. | ||
|
Robellicose
England245 Posts
Vegetarians and Vegans are ridiculous hypocrites. Just because they anthropomorphise animals because they act a little like humans they get squeamish about eating them. There are plenty of plants that react to damage in much the same way as animals do (although they usually give off odours rather than screams) yet because they look nothing like humanity, they are happy to eat them. Long story short, if you're vegan for ethical reasons, you shouldn't be eating plants either. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Will focus on this part of the post. Western countries do produce a lot of meat, i will give you that. But they largely DONT produce the the food used to raise the cattle. A prime example is the european meat industry, which, while exporting lots of meat to african countries, imports even greater amounts of grain from those same countries to feed the cattle from. I think that you might be oversimplifying the issue a bit, because you completely disregard the fact that the cattle used in meat production has to be fed as well. In that light, i find arguing that "meat production in the west feeds the poor" highly questionable, since it is the same poor peoples resources that drive the meat production to begin with. That helps my point even more. Western countries making inefficient meat leads to a greater demand for grains, which poor countries may be able to supply. The poor countries end up supplied with cheap surplus meat while at the same time have someone to sell their grains to, whereas if rich, fatcat westerners didn't demand meat, the poor both wouldnt have food nor a job. I am completely oversimplifying things, of course. But what does that have to do with anything, and your point is just a talking point for me, not you. First, there is a lot of meat import. Second, producing meat requires insane amounts of crops. If you do not need the forage, you have more soil to grow crops. If you have more soil in order to grow crops, prices for food will drop. No logistics issue, no nothing, this is just how basic economics work, Mr. No need to be snarky, we all like TeamLiquid and SC here. Yes, it does require lots of crops. As I said, it's inefficient, but better to have inefficiency than nothing at all. American can either eat meat, or not. The latter hurts poor people more. And I don't think I've ever heard of the soil being sold as a commodity on the NYSE. I could be wrong though, maybe soil is a great way to invest money these days. PETA might be hurting the cause of vegetarianism because they are stupid. I don't like PETA either. So your point is that if someone does not eat meat, he hurts people far away - what?!?! I stated quite a few times that I think vegan is a much healthier choice than meat eating. If you have visited a country you know all about it, of course. This is not about beef, there are just a lot of vegetarians in India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#india read please. Not a lot of vegetarians in India, despite what you may think. So while you say this is the wrong way to go, you also say that keep living life like that? You contradict yourself a little... no, completely. If you say living like that is wrong, why do you advocate it? Because I want to eat a fucking hamburger when I'm hungry, not a salad! And I really could care less for shock tactics like the OP to sicken people away from meat. It's nasty, no one wants to see where their food came from. But what of it? So pigs are nasty, who didn't know that? I disagree with the idea that eating animals is wrong. And it's not even the premise that eating animals is wrong that I have a problem with, it's the idea that someone else knows what's good for me. Pardon me, and I do not aim this towards you, but my opinion to that kind of thinking is "go fuck yourself". Again, let me make clear I mean no disrespect to you, I just feel strongly about it, and dislike it when others try to control me, or tell me what I should be doing. I'll be the judge of that. If I want to go smoke crack, I'll damn well do as I please. Are you talking about US "ghettos"? There is no issue anywhere in rich countries for kids to be fed. McDonald's is far more expensive than buying healthy stuff like vegetables, potatoes and so on at a supermarket. Uneducated people will feed their children with crap like that, not because it is the only way to do so (what the fuck do you even believe what you are writing yourself T_T) but because they don't think about it. I wouldn't say you are wrong here. If you said education is key to healthy living, and we should get rid of McDonalds by encouraging healthy living at a young age and to lower income families, I wouldn't disagree at all. I agree with you on this. Our living in excess does not help other countries. Our lust for gold and diamonds fuels civil wars in Africa. Our driving fast cars and blowing greenhouse gases in the air sustains Arabian dictatorships because they are "stable" and creates natural catastrophes that pull poor countries down even further (I am not talking about catastrophes caused by tectonic shifts btw). Our love for junk foods does not give luxury. On the contrary, it drives food prices up and thus fuels starvation. As I said above, I agree that PETA can go suck it. Gold and Diamonds were fueled by war lords in Africa, not by British Diamond firms (however there was a point where the British Diamond firms became responsible and unethical). If Afghan war lords chose to make computer chips instead of opium, and sold them at competitive market prices, then they would profit from people buying computers. That is the nature of capitalism, and it is also the nature of capitilism for strong policing, and sellers like this will be punished, in an ideal system. The idea is to provide strict policing and regulation with free trade. I'm not going to discuss greenhouse gases, but the US only imports 15% of the oil they use, while exporting over 50% of the oil we produce domestically. It has nothing to do with "arabian dictatorships" as we do not buy oil from countries that are dictatorships (however if you wanted to argue that all muslim countries are dictatorships to some level, I wouldnt argue with you, and if you wanted to say when Venezuela lied and said they would us our oil proceeds for humanitarian reasons, we were at fault, I wouldnt argue either). The reason the US uses foreign oil, despite producing enough at home to fuel our appetite, is because of the global nature of a global commodity. Our love for junk foods does not give luxury. On the contrary, it drives food prices up and thus fuels starvation. No, I don't think it works that way. i would say the market is more like the increased supply lowers food prices and fuels tummies. | ||
|
feaynnewedd
Germany41 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:28 Robellicose wrote: Have you ever seen a combine harvester go to town on crops? That's extremely cruel and brutal to do to the plants... Vegetarians and Vegans are ridiculous hypocrites. Just because they anthropomorphise animals because they act a little like humans they get squeamish about eating them. There are plenty of plants that react to damage in much the same way as animals do (although they usually give off odours rather than screams) yet because they look nothing like humanity, they are happy to eat them. Long story short, if you're vegan for ethical reasons, you shouldn't be eating plants either. what the... really? Because plants have a nervous system and all... REALLY? Or are you just trolling? | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
RoseTempest
Canada196 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:30 feaynnewedd wrote: what the... really? Because plants have a nervous system and all... REALLY? Or are you just trolling? So having a nervous system is it then? Ever step on an ant? Ever swat a fly? fucking hypocrite | ||
|
Sotamursu
Finland612 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:10 MiraMax wrote: I am not at all trying to "argue semantics", but I thought you would argue for objective morality, since I thought you said that "killing humans" would be wrong for humans (maybe I mixed up your statements). I only wanted to point out that if a moral system exists for humans I don't see any consistent way to limit it to humans merely on the basis of species. I think if it exists, it necessarily exists for all moral agents with comparable cognitive abilities and has to consider all sentient beings. Do you hold that humanitarianism just means that you are feeling sorry for other humans, too? So if a person feels more sorry for other animals than for humans he is perfectly entitled to hold their happyness in higher regards than the happyness of humans? Our moral system is meant to keep our society alive and going. Most people agree to "You don't hurt me and I don't hurt you." Humanitarianism is just a way of enforcing this. In the case of animals it is "I don't hurt you and I don't get anything in return." Why would I want to do something that offers me absolutely nothing, but limits my choices? Are you starting see what I mean? If you hold animals in higher regard than other humans, other humans will not like you. Sure that person is entitled to his opinions, but he/she has to be ready to handle the consequences. Some people are against animal testing, even though it has given us huge leaps in medicine and saved thousands, if not millions of human lives. These same people would rather see all of those saved people die, if it meant that a few rats didn't have to suffer. These people can go fuck themselves. | ||
|
feaynnewedd
Germany41 Posts
I'm not going to discuss greenhouse gases, but the US only imports 15% of the oil they use, while exporting over 50% of the oil we produce domestically. It has nothing to do with "arabian dictatorships" as we do not buy oil from countries that are dictatorships (however if you wanted to argue that all muslim countries are dictatorships to some level, I wouldnt argue with you, and if you wanted to say when Venezuela lied and said they would us our oil proceeds for humanitarian reasons, we were at fault, I wouldnt argue either). The reason the US uses foreign oil, despite producing enough at home to fuel our appetite, is because of the global nature of a global commodity. I am not American, I am German, we import all of our oil. But can you please give me a link for your numbers? By the way, non-constitutional monarchies = dictatorships (like Saudi Arabia, Kuweit, Bahrain, UAE, etc.) So having a nervous system is it then? Ever step on an ant? Ever swat a fly? fucking hypocrite Insects do not have a central nervous system. Insects have very basic ganglions that enable them to react to their environment. Also, by killing them (swatting, stepping on), you do not make them suffer. If you read my posts, you would know that I am against making animals suffer,and against industrial livestock farming, not against the consumption of meat and killing per se. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
PS- this wouldn't be a vegan thread without this pic http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg | ||
|
Apexplayer
United States406 Posts
Comment = Pending approval. Afraid of free speech, vegans? I'm going to stop by Sonic tomorrow just to get an egg-bacon-chicken burrito. | ||
|
Humppis
Finland52 Posts
On February 09 2011 19:22 TrinitySC wrote: At this point I'm actually curious. Why should animals have rights? A sociopath could ask why anyone else than him/her self has rights. Its showing empathy to our fellow earth dwellers, and not everybody can understand this. We humans define rights for our selves, whitch tends to end up in very selfish rules. On February 09 2011 19:01 MiraMax wrote: Well, from what I get of vegans/vegetarians they base their argument on sentience and cognition, not common ancestry, so their view seems pretty consistent to me. While I eat meat, I have to agree that I find it difficult to argue for "my right" to eat meat and stay consistent with my other values. It dosent matter if vegan dosent acknowledge our common ancestors. They are simply selecting truths that fit their agenda, and that i dont respect one bit, especially when they are trying to force their twisted ideas on me. To sum it up, we are living in a world of cruelty. We humans are perhaps the first animals to begin pondering our cruel relationship with our surrounding. We are living our intellectual infancy, developing one step at a time. Those in future might look at 21st century people with disgust for our meat and plant eating habits, similar to how we look at slavery today. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
I eat meat because i enjoy eating it, i wont stop, even though i disagree with how animals are treated in those huge factories that produce a lot of meat by demand, but what did u expect ? We are humans after all, master killers.. The system needs to change, not someone becoming a vegan, because its money that drives the big machinery and its wheels.. Damn, today everyone would like to save something.. Save this, save that bla bla bla.. | ||
|
InsaniaK
Sweden120 Posts
I eat meat though. | ||
| ||
