|
On February 09 2011 20:24 Sotamursu wrote:
If option a) was exactly as effective as animal testing without animals and option b) was animal testing. This situation is highly unrealsitic, but it would be a coinflip. Both would be equally good.
How are morals about doing something without getting anything in return? Do you believe objective morals exists? If you do, please explain why you believe so and what evidence do you have for it.
This is starting to become an arguement about altruism. I don't believe true altruism exists, but it's almost like arguing about free will.
What are you really trying to prove?
I think better scenario to illustrate the point is :
a) Medical research without animals but somewhat more expensive than with animals
b) Medical research with animals
What would you decide in this scenario based on the cost difference. What if the cost difference is very small and easily affordable for the society. Would you still prefer testing with animals ?
Also of course there is objective morality possible, and not only possible. You think that every moral judgment on any situation is as valid as any other ?
|
On February 09 2011 21:47 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 20:35 Grantalf wrote:
I've been vegan for 9 years. And from my experience and research, the health and environmental benefits would be enough to suggest it to anyone even if they don't agree with the animal rights argument.
It may be worth it to do research a few layers deeper than both PETA and Penn and Teller. Regardless, it's all incredibly interesting no matter how you feel.
And I also think that all of the Protoss race would be vegan if they had mouths. There is absolutely no data to support any benefits of being vegan as opposed to being vegetarian. Actually opposite is true.
Source please. I would guess milk and cheese is an evolutionary irrelevant source of nutrition.
|
On February 09 2011 21:47 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 20:35 Grantalf wrote:
I've been vegan for 9 years. And from my experience and research, the health and environmental benefits would be enough to suggest it to anyone even if they don't agree with the animal rights argument.
It may be worth it to do research a few layers deeper than both PETA and Penn and Teller. Regardless, it's all incredibly interesting no matter how you feel.
And I also think that all of the Protoss race would be vegan if they had mouths. There is absolutely no data to support any benefits of being vegan as opposed to being vegetarian. Actually opposite is true.
Meat consumption creates problems by inflicting unnecessary suffering (current form of meat harvesting), being inefficient (requiring more land to sustain a population than non-meat diet) and by releasing gases emanating from dung which can have an impact on global climate.
I haven't read anything invalidating these claims yet. If you have any information in that regard please share.
|
saved this list from somewhere, can't remember where, but i feel its appropriate to re-post in this situation.
- Tires : You cannot drive a vehicle, ride a bus or a bike. No transportation except walking (horses are forbidden) . And no walking on asphalt or concrete, they contain animal products. Anti- freeze, brake fluid and oil also contains animal products.
- Plastic: Several fatty acids from animals are key ingredients in plastic. No combs to untangle your greasy hair. Your B-12 and other supplements come in plastic bottles ( read more to find out about those vitamins and supplements) , so you can' t take them. No using those little plastic produce bags at the grocery store for your veg. Oh yeah, and since almost every thing is made out of plastic or contained by it you are shit out of luck.
- Tooth paste and mouth wash: Cows provide a substance called glycerin that helps to fight dental plaque. The tooth brush is also mostly plastic. No wonder vegans have such horrible breath.
- Medicine: 350 modern pharmaceuticals are made from animal products. Anything in a gel cap contains gelatin which is made from animals. Cortisone and insulin (the synthetic stuff is very expensive and hard to get) too. Also, Latex surgical gloves contain tallow, x- ray film contains gelatin.
- Perfume/ cologne/ deodorant: made from whales, deer or beaver. No synthetic has ever been made to match the natural animal shit. So you' ll have to keep smelling like a cheap whore with BO.
-Wax paper , cellophane , cardboard and paper containers your processed foods come in is all made from animals.
- White sugar : purified bone ash is used to refine sugar .
- Your house or apartment: paint , wallpaper, linoleum, carpet, plywood, drywall, insulation all made from animal products, ceramic tile.
- Furniture: foam rubber contains egg whites, wood glue contains animal products.
- Laundry detergents , fabric softeners, disinfectants, house hold cleaners and polishes. You have to live a filthy life in filthy rags.
- Sunscreens , soaps , shampoos, cosmetics: all contain animal products. Lotion and makeup contain lanol in which comes from sheep' s wool.
- Vitamins and mineral supplements: which ever vegan requires are also derived from animals.
- Fire extinguishers: use animals products.
- Electrical devices: Electrical circuitry is made from animal products. Your printers ink and/ or toner is also made from animal products
|
If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then our bodies wouldn't be able to handle eating meat.
Meat is tasty.
There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat that I see. They are lower than us on the food chain, and their animal contemporaries certainly have no problem with ripping them to shreds and eating them alive. Why aren't you people crying out for the murder of all predators to keep all these poor animals from being mangled by lions and wolves and such?
It is good for you.
I eat meat, and don't ever intend to stop.
|
On February 09 2011 21:58 Mahoogee wrote:
saved this list from somewhere, can't remember where, but i feel its appropriate to re-post in this situation.
- Tires : You cannot drive a vehicle, ride a bus or a bike. No transportation except walking (horses are forbidden) . And no walking on asphalt or concrete, they contain animal products. Anti- freeze, brake fluid and oil also contains animal products.
- Plastic: Several fatty acids from animals are key ingredients in plastic. No combs to untangle your greasy hair. Your B-12 and other supplements come in plastic bottles ( read more to find out about those vitamins and supplements) , so you can' t take them. No using those little plastic produce bags at the grocery store for your veg. Oh yeah, and since almost every thing is made out of plastic or contained by it you are shit out of luck.
- Tooth paste and mouth wash: Cows provide a substance called glycerin that helps to fight dental plaque. The tooth brush is also mostly plastic. No wonder vegans have such horrible breath.
- Medicine: 350 modern pharmaceuticals are made from animal products. Anything in a gel cap contains gelatin which is made from animals. Cortisone and insulin (the synthetic stuff is very expensive and hard to get) too. Also, Latex surgical gloves contain tallow, x- ray film contains gelatin.
- Perfume/ cologne/ deodorant: made from whales, deer or beaver. No synthetic has ever been made to match the natural animal shit. So you' ll have to keep smelling like a cheap whore with BO.
-Wax paper , cellophane , cardboard and paper containers your processed foods come in is all made from animals.
- White sugar : purified bone ash is used to refine sugar .
- Your house or apartment: paint , wallpaper, linoleum, carpet, plywood, drywall, insulation all made from animal products, ceramic tile.
- Furniture: foam rubber contains egg whites, wood glue contains animal products.
- Laundry detergents , fabric softeners, disinfectants, house hold cleaners and polishes. You have to live a filthy life in filthy rags.
- Sunscreens , soaps , shampoos, cosmetics: all contain animal products. Lotion and makeup contain lanol in which comes from sheep' s wool.
- Vitamins and mineral supplements: which ever vegan requires are also derived from animals.
- Fire extinguishers: use animals products.
- Electrical devices: Electrical circuitry is made from animal products. Your printers ink and/ or toner is also made from animal products
You're absolutely right, individual lifestyle changes are insufficient. Political reform is also needed.
|
On February 09 2011 21:53 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 21:36 mcc wrote:On February 09 2011 19:17 MiraMax wrote:On February 09 2011 18:04 mcc wrote:On February 09 2011 17:51 Sotamursu wrote:On February 09 2011 17:35 mcc wrote:On February 09 2011 17:17 Sotamursu wrote:On February 09 2011 17:06 mcc wrote:On February 09 2011 16:37 Sotamursu wrote:
To be honest they can torture those animals twice as harder, if the quality of the meat stays good and it ups production. No one still has told me why I should give a flying fuck about farm animals. Just use the most efficient method which maximizes quality, if animals suffer because of it, well tough shit.
Going vegan makes you more healthy?
You can be an omnivore and stay healthy. If all you eat is 12 hamburgers and 5 pizzas a day, it doesn't matter what diet you start to follow. Of course you will lose weight and be healthier.
You should give a fuck because of that thing called empathy. Your reaction indicates that you are either sociopath or playing a tough guy. Hopefully the latter. So you make a massive lifestyle choice based on feeling sorry for some animals you saw in a video? Ok. Did I say anything about lifestyle choices ? I reacted to you saying you don't give a fuck if animal is tortured or suffers. It's pretty easy to justify veganism, if you can argue that you should care about animals. There's pretty much no other good reason to be a vegan. I assumed you're a vegan and you probably watched some of these vegan propaganda videos which influenced your decision. I'm making generalizations here, so if you aren't a vegan just ignore this. 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? By that happy phrase I meant that I have no moral problems with eating meat per se. Empathy is emotion(even towards animals) that most normal people have, you just have to use reason to look at the practical side of things. So of course I feel empathy towards tortured animal, but that just means I don't want it to suffer, but killing them for food is natural. And by saying that you think you should care shows that you actually at least slightly care. I think if you saw screaming and crying tortured animal you would feel sorry for it, yes it is possible to grow accustomed to human/animal suffering, but that is not the case for most citizens of first world. Of course you are not feeling bad for every suffering animal on the planet, because that is not humanly possible as it is not possible to be actively 24-7 sorry for the people in the third world or in disaster areas. But thanks to that empathy you acknowledge that something is wrong and using your brain support practical measures to rectify it. PETA people go too far with the emotional part, on the other hand people who do not really care about animal suffering (and as I said by caring I mean just that, there is no action required, although than you run risk of being kind of hypocrite) are just kind of inhuman. Also note that there is big moral distinction between humans and animals. So it is easily possible to have "absolute" moral system where there is no problem with eating meat and even using animals for research (specific one). At what level of intellectual sophistication do you draw the line between it being ok to kill an organism for food and it being not ok? Which criteria does an organism have to fulfill for you to consider other factors additionally to just suffering and efficiency?
The general criterion used by my vegan friends is the question of whether or not an organism is capable of "suffering."
Generally speaking a nervous system with a central unit capable of processing the pain in a meaningful way is sufficient.
|
On February 09 2011 22:00 Sm3agol wrote:
If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then our bodies wouldn't be able to handle eating meat.
Meat is tasty.
There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat that I see. They are lower than us on the food chain, and their animal contemporaries certainly have no problem with ripping them to shreds and eating them alive. Why aren't you people crying out for the murder of all predators to keep all these poor animals from being mangled by lions and wolves and such?
It is good for you.
I eat meat, and don't ever intend to stop.
Because those other animals don't share human level of awareness and reasoning capability. Animals have little choice to act on anything but instincts. Humans do have that choice and if you do not make use of those capabilities but choose to ignore them then you are degrading yourself back to animal level, in fact placing yourself below the level of animals, because animals do not have such a choice.
|
On February 09 2011 20:31 danielsan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 20:27 FrozenFlare wrote:On February 09 2011 19:52 Samurai- wrote:I need to paste this here.. Save the planet RIP George Carlin, genius comedian. not really, he was a dumbass.
jeah, for close-minded people..
|
On February 09 2011 21:58 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 21:47 mcc wrote:On February 09 2011 20:35 Grantalf wrote:
I've been vegan for 9 years. And from my experience and research, the health and environmental benefits would be enough to suggest it to anyone even if they don't agree with the animal rights argument.
It may be worth it to do research a few layers deeper than both PETA and Penn and Teller. Regardless, it's all incredibly interesting no matter how you feel.
And I also think that all of the Protoss race would be vegan if they had mouths. There is absolutely no data to support any benefits of being vegan as opposed to being vegetarian. Actually opposite is true. Meat consumption creates problems by inflicting unnecessary suffering (current form of meat harvesting),
Breaking news, animals eat eat other, and they certainly don't do it efficiently. Is is NECESSARY for us to kill and eat them? No, but it isn't exactly necessary to drive cars and play on our computers either now is it? I'm pretty sure humanity got along just fine without either.
being inefficient (requiring more land to sustain a population than non-meat diet)
That certainly sounds like a great argument to CHANGE HALF THE WORLD'S EATING HABITS because of. Until land becomes scarce, and people struggle to produce enough food to feed everyone, this isn't even remotely relevant to the conversation.
and by releasing gases emanating from dung which can have an impact on global climate.
I haven't read anything invalidating these claims yet. If you have any information in that regard please share.
And quite possibly the worst argument I've ever heard. Do you drive cars? Do you use electricity? Then fark you.
None of these arguments mean anything to me, considering our current lifestyle. Focus on saving tortured and starving kids, worry about animals when you have that problem solved.
|
On February 09 2011 22:00 Sm3agol wrote:
If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then our bodies wouldn't be able to handle eating meat.
Meat is tasty.
There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat that I see. They are lower than us on the food chain, and their animal contemporaries certainly have no problem with ripping them to shreds and eating them alive. Why aren't you people crying out for the murder of all predators to keep all these poor animals from being mangled by lions and wolves and such?
It is good for you.
I eat meat, and don't ever intend to stop.
Pretty convincing line of reasoning you have there ... and I guess if humans were not supposed to kill each other they would not have brains to develop guns, nor fingers to trigger them, right?
Furthermore might makes right, so the strongest is obviously entitled to eat a weaker contemporary. Why exactly doesn't this rule apply among humans again? Or does it?
We got that animals cannot be held morally responsible, so we don't judge a lion in court. We also don't allow them to buy cars by the way, and nobody is arguing that we should. But animals are able to sustain themselves (in principle) and seem to prefer living from non-living and well-being from suffering. Don't you think you might at least want to try an argument as to why we can completely ignore their preferences?
|
On February 09 2011 21:46 BrogMeister wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 21:35 TrinitySC wrote:On February 09 2011 19:41 Humppis wrote: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. See, this is the problem. Rather than attempting to offer up a decent rationale as to why animals should have rights, you react emotionally. You're basically telling me this is so because you're right and I'm wrong. Just because this is how you feel things should be, you label me as a sociopath at the slightest implication of disagreement from your views rather than taking the time to explain to me with reason why animals should have rights. "You are wrong because your views are not the same as mine." In that sense, how are you any different from religious extremists? I could even go so far as to reduce to ad hitlerum, and it would apply. There actually are many reasons why animals, to an extent, should have rights. An obvious one is that there is virtue in avoiding and discouraging cruelty (i.e. deliberate infliction of pain or suffering), whether it is to a human or animal. Even so, many factory farms around the world utilize methods that cause unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals they raise, and some people inflict pain to animals for no other reason than simple pleasure. Such forms of cruelty can expand as a menace to society as a whole, yet they can be avoided with little or no cost, and therefore it is good that we do so. But alas, no; we must give animals rights because you "believe" and "feel" that it's wrong. Bah. This is why I personally consider many of the opinions and arguments of PETA and other animal rights activists to be utter shit. Because even though some of them are valid efforts towards worthy causes, most of them amount to little more than delusional outcries of self-righteous drama queens pickled in confirmation bias. When you consistently resort to emotional, perjorative responses based upon faulty judgements (availibility, overconfidence, confirmation... you name it, you probably have it), all you manage to do is encourage reciprocation from those who disagree with you. But then again, maybe it's no coincidence this trait is so common among the more active activists... P.S. as for veganism.. I honestly don't care what you eat or don't eat, and to an extent I can empathize with your choices; the treatment of animals at certain facilities can be too much for me, too, sometimes. A lot of it is definitely unnecessary and, by all means, it's worth it to raise awareness in an effort to bring needless cruelty to an end. But consider this that somebody once told me: "Religion is like a penis; it's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of one, but it's not fine to go around shoving it in other peoples' faces." The same pretty much applies to beliefs or practices of any kind, not just religion. Even so, some people have been being rather assertive with their beliefs regarding dietary habits of others, and even proceeded to call others out for reciprocating a response. This just ties right back to the ad hitlerum statement I made a few paragraphs above and it's downright annoying there's a thread with such an ulterior motive. Sometimes I'm genuinely embarrassed that I belong in this genus. </wall of text> The whole farming industry is unnecessary and inherently cruel. Even if we disregard the animals in the industry, it's still a source of unhealty food, a great waste of resources and a major cause of global warming. The reason vegans want to spread their lifestyle is not (mainly) because they are self-righteous, but because they care about the animals. "Superior intelligence is like a penis; it's fine to have one and fine to be proud of it, but it's not fine to use it to exploit less intelligent animals."
You realize you just helped prove my point with that first sentence, right? But it is true that farming, the way it is done now, is a major source of global warming. It doesn't have to be, though, and it's much more realistic to have people buy organic meat than to have them stop eating meat altogether.
As your second paragraph... you do realize that's what having superior intelligence is all about, don't you? That's how we got this far in the first place, and that's how we're staying here. Civilization itself is grounded in, and would have never got this far without, exploitation of less intelligent animals.
|
On February 09 2011 20:49 Kirameki wrote:
Reading these posts, if people here wouldn't be:
1)ignorant
2)stupid
3)more loyal to their own beliefs and moral standards
Half of you would be at least vegetarians. These posts are really stupid and all meat eaters should be ashamed of them. If you eat meat at least be able to defend your views in a reasonable way when you feel so insecure you have to respond. Only then you can be a 'proud' meat eater. Really, you people all seem to be 'self hating' meat eaters.
Defend our views ? haha.. we eat meat, thats all there is to it.. Its you who have problems with it... proud meat eaters ? What ? we eat because we enjoy meat, its taste, and because we have been eating it for thousands of years..
its you who calls us insecure, self hating.. so who is insecure, and self hating now?
|
On February 09 2011 22:03 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 22:00 Sm3agol wrote:
If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then our bodies wouldn't be able to handle eating meat.
Meat is tasty.
There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat that I see. They are lower than us on the food chain, and their animal contemporaries certainly have no problem with ripping them to shreds and eating them alive. Why aren't you people crying out for the murder of all predators to keep all these poor animals from being mangled by lions and wolves and such?
It is good for you.
I eat meat, and don't ever intend to stop. Because those other animals don't share human level of awareness and reasoning capability. Animals have little choice to act on anything but instincts. Humans do have that choice and if you do not make use of those capabilities but choose to ignore them then you are degrading yourself back to animal level, in fact placing yourself below the level of animals, because animals do not have such a choice.
So because we are smarter than animals, we shouldn't eat them? Eh? You're making the grand assumption that eating meat is wrong in the first place. I happen to disagree with you.
|
Vegeterians = Ok. Absolutely no problem with that.
Vegans = Retarded. Just wait until science discovers that plants also feel "true" Pain and so on... I wonder what their next step will be...
I eat meat because i like the taste of it. Animals die because we want to eat them (and tons of other stuff), big shocker.
|
Its hard enough to argue that there are human rights so there certainly are no animal rights.
|
On February 09 2011 22:09 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 22:00 Sm3agol wrote:
If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then our bodies wouldn't be able to handle eating meat.
Meat is tasty.
There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat that I see. They are lower than us on the food chain, and their animal contemporaries certainly have no problem with ripping them to shreds and eating them alive. Why aren't you people crying out for the murder of all predators to keep all these poor animals from being mangled by lions and wolves and such?
It is good for you.
I eat meat, and don't ever intend to stop. Pretty convincing line of reasoning you have there ... and I guess if humans were not supposed to kill each other they would not have brains to develop guns, nor fingers to trigger them, right?
Wow, that's quite the deviance in argument. I'm pretty sure humans weren't meant to fly either, herp derp. If eating meat was bad for humans, then we wouldn't have evolved with the ability to eat it. You're the people saying humans eating meat is unnatural...as if we haven't been eating it for umpteen thousand years.
Furthermore might makes right, so the strongest is obviously entitled to eat a weaker
contemporary. Why exactly doesn't this rule apply among humans again? Or does it?
Because humans are fundamentally equals. To each other, not to the tasty piece of meat sitting in my freezer atm. Tasty animals are not my equals. Until they develop the ability to interact with us in a reasonable way, I'll continue to eat them.
We got that animals cannot be held morally responsible, so we don't judge a lion in court. We also don't allow them to buy cars by the way, and nobody is arguing that we should. But animals are able to sustain themselves (in principle) and seem to prefer living from non-living and well-being from suffering. Don't you think you might at least want to try an argument as to why we can completely ignore their preferences?
Because we are at the top of the food chain, and they serve a useful purpose to the human race. So their opinion doesn't matter. And it can't matter because it isn't an opinion....it's merely their instinct.
|
On February 09 2011 21:53 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 21:36 mcc wrote:
By that happy phrase I meant that I have no moral problems with eating meat per se.
Empathy is emotion(even towards animals) that most normal people have, you just have to use reason to look at the practical side of things. So of course I feel empathy towards tortured animal, but that just means I don't want it to suffer, but killing them for food is natural. And by saying that you think you should care shows that you actually at least slightly care. I think if you saw screaming and crying tortured animal you would feel sorry for it, yes it is possible to grow accustomed to human/animal suffering, but that is not the case for most citizens of first world.
Of course you are not feeling bad for every suffering animal on the planet, because that is not humanly possible as it is not possible to be actively 24-7 sorry for the people in the third world or in disaster areas. But thanks to that empathy you acknowledge that something is wrong and using your brain support practical measures to rectify it. PETA people go too far with the emotional part, on the other hand people who do not really care about animal suffering (and as I said by caring I mean just that, there is no action required, although than you run risk of being kind of hypocrite) are just kind of inhuman. Also note that there is big moral distinction between humans and animals. So it is easily possible to have "absolute" moral system where there is no problem with eating meat and even using animals for research (specific one).
At what level of intellectual sophistication do you draw the line between it being ok to kill an organism for food and it being not ok? Which criteria does an organism have to fulfill for you to consider other factors additionally to just suffering and efficiency?
Except for being human, there is no big line line as far as killing for eating goes (of course as everything in real life it is more complicated, as factors like killing 1000 bisons "for eating" when in the end only 2 will be actually eaten). I am all for drawing that line beneath humans somewhat, but I never put that much time into thinking about details or if there is any reasonable justification for it, it just feels right. I would exclude animals like primates, dolphins, ... hope you see the pattern. But as far as eating is concerned any line except animal/plant or humans/rest one is arbitrary. And the line animal/plant without also including humans/rest line has its own set of problems if you would like to apply it consistently to other areas.
I think the best approach is to just accept that it is continuum or at least a lot of different groups on some scale and draw the line somewhere in reasonably safe point, same as with other stuff like when to allow abortions.
|
If you are that well informed, you just plainly lied. In 2009, the US imported 9,669,000 barrels/day, produced 9,141,000 barrels/day and wasn't even in the top 15 of oil exporting countries (the lowest was qatar with about 1,000,000 barrels/day). Consumption was 18,810,000 barrels/day, so I don't there was a lot of exporting.
Thanks for the site, I like it.
I know trends have been showing the US importing more oil as a total percentage of oil used, but I can't believe it's that drastic already. But, I'll assume you read the data correct, no reason not to, and worse case I exaggerated a bit, my point still stands that the US exports a lot of the oil we produce - according to these numbers, we roughly produce enough oil to be self sustaining yet we still import a large portion of it (actually I think I might've said 15%, sorry, I meant 15% of imports are from OPEC, the rest is mostly canada). The TOTAL point being, is that trading is better than trying to be self sustaining. Poor countries are better off making useless stuff for the West and than making a large margin of money and economy for jobs and to spend, and then use the money to buy more sustenance then they would have if they were self-reliant.
Just look at North Korea, or even how detrimental trade sanctions are when imposed by the UN (despite what some pundits and talking heads may say. Personally I dont know if I agree with sanctions because of the damage they do to the people, as dictators will always live comfortably).
For the hypocrite discussion: I smoke pot, but I think that people selling crack to children should go to jail. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Children are an exception. If you wanted to argue that children shouldn't be able to eat meat, I don't know if I could argue against you on that - I already said that I think vegan is healthier than eating meat. I think more in line with vegan activism is "Pot is bad, therefore we should show over the top videos of how badly marijuana tar messes with your lungs and campaign for legislation and laws that will make it illegal for you to smoke pot, and make laws that make it harder to cultivate pot such as regulations to make sure that the pot was grown in a humane manner"
|
On February 09 2011 22:03 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2011 22:00 Sm3agol wrote:
If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then our bodies wouldn't be able to handle eating meat.
Meat is tasty.
There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat that I see. They are lower than us on the food chain, and their animal contemporaries certainly have no problem with ripping them to shreds and eating them alive. Why aren't you people crying out for the murder of all predators to keep all these poor animals from being mangled by lions and wolves and such?
It is good for you.
I eat meat, and don't ever intend to stop. Because those other animals don't share human level of awareness and reasoning capability. Animals have little choice to act on anything but instincts. Humans do have that choice and if you do not make use of those capabilities but choose to ignore them then you are degrading yourself back to animal level, in fact placing yourself below the level of animals, because animals do not have such a choice.
Yup, I agree. Forgoing free choice would be putting yourself down.
But most of us in this thread arent ignoring that choice. We are actively choosing to put our own desires to eat meat in front of our sympathy for suffering animals. Yea, animal cruelty sucks, I wish those farms that are being cruel would treat their animals better (before slaughtering them for consumption lol). But I like to eat meat, those few instances of excessive cruelty won't stop me from eating it. Just like how blood diamonds wont stop a loving couple from buying an engagement ring, how environmental hazards wont stop people from driving cars or using electricity, how animal testing wont stop people from using pretty much any critical medical innovation in our modern day, etc.
Oh, and you should really choose another argument. All youre trying to do is shame us meat eaters into thinking that we are somehow "sub-human". Theres no logical reasoning behind your argument. By putting yourself on a high horse and judging us to be "below the level of animals", you really make an ass of yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
