| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Hasmatiks
Finland18 Posts
Its like Intel vs AMD or something like that. People have spent their money on something, they have made a decision, so they are gonna stick to their own head. Giving up would mean admitting that you have to change your way of thinking, people dont do that easily. Both sides are just preaching to their own choirs. The closest thing of something useful coming out of the conversation is "You are right in XXX, BUT..." | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Its like Intel vs AMD or something like that. People have spent their money on something, they have made a decision, so they are gonna stick to their own head. Giving up would mean admitting that you have to change your way of thinking, people dont do that easily. Both sides are just preaching to their own choirs. The point of true believers arguing with true believers is that not everyone is a true believer. The opponents in a presidential debate aren't trying to change each others' minds, they're trying to convince anyone in the audience who might possibly be convinced by them. If people just stopped talking or discussing or arguing or whatever you want to call it because "no one ever changes their mind" no one would have a mind to change after a while. | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:07 DeepElemBlues wrote: Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too. This is very true. We have eyes in front, signaling our need to determine distance in 3-D space. We have a high capacity to learn, predict and change our behavior rapidly, all characteristics of predators but not herbivores. We are very fat-adapted, meaning we can survive long stretches without food and especially without carbohydrates. Our cerebellum is highly developed and intricately linked to our cortex, indicating a high degree of coordination as well as the ability to plan movements. Very few, if any, herbivores have these adaptations. For an herbivore, speed or defense is paramount. The stupidest gazelle in the world will survive it's simply faster than all the other gazelle. Very few dumb predators will survive because it won't be able to catch any prey. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 04 2011 13:33 Lexpar wrote: So the only thing you're saying is "You're not perfect!"? Very nice contribution to the thread. No, if you re-read my first post you can see that I am asking a question to vegans for them to explain their position on dwelling on the life of a cow when that cow's life represents .00001% of the animals that were killed so that somebody could enjoy a burger. If you don't have an answer for me then you can just ignore my post. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
On June 04 2011 14:35 BackHo wrote: Because veganism isn't about the taste of food, but rather the ethics behind where food comes from. If I posted pictures of delicious food people would just argue that veganism is just trying to appeal to meat-eaters when meat dishes are more delicious. You'd think people can think about the topic objectively without having to be advertised to. If you have a colony of ants outside, do you regularly leave an extra plate of dessert out so they can enjoy a feast? Or do you kill the colony? How about a colony of termites that wants to move into your attic? Do you give them a warm welcome? What about that mouse that found its way into your garage and made itself comfortable over the winter? Do you make sure it has access to food and water? What about when you get a cold or flu? Do you welcome the bacteria/virus with open arms, or do you try to get rid of it ASAP? What if you ended up contracting a parasite? Would you just let it live inside of you? They're pests to you, and you get rid of them without a second thought. Right? So, clearly, you're also a hypocrite for suggesting that it's purely ethics behind your decision. We both feel the same way about 99.99999999% of living creatures. Our only difference is on a few specific creatures. And somehow, your approach is more "ethical"? Think about it yourself, man..... While I'm not suggesting that factory farming is the way to go (I do support local butcheries whenever I get the chance because they are far more likely to participate in more "ethical" methods of producing and preparing the meat), some of these "ethical" or "moral" based arguments are actually really terrible. | ||
|
MrProb
Thailand794 Posts
On June 04 2011 14:57 MrProb wrote: I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that 1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right? 2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ? 3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"? 4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ? 5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle? someone answer this pls  | ||
|
RoseTempest
Canada196 Posts
Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals? “For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.” Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with the argument, a severely retarded human, is still, by all intents and purposes a human. There’s no way you can retard a human into cattle, thus the point is invalid. I can give rights to a rock if I wanted to, there’s no reason to arbitrarily give rights to things that don’t deserve rights. Enable laws, lobby for changes in legislation, sure. Rights? No. If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research? “This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.” Once again, logically unsound. You’re making the assumption, once again, that humans, this time slaves, are the same as animals. Of course we can’t argue against you if you consider a lab rat or dog to be the equivalent to a human being. Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified? I’ve never heard of meat-eating being argued as “traditional”, but yes, it is natural. We were meant to live on a varied diet, which includes meat. You don’t need to morally justify everything just because you can. Once again, you can’t apply morals to anything you want. “Morally” speaking, the domestication and consumption of cattle and chickens worldwide has actually greatly benefited cattle and chickens. Their survival as a species is now guaranteed because they have desirable traits that we enjoy. Forget the morality of killing an animal, think of the morality of ensuring the survival of a species. See what I did there? Morality can be argued whichever way you want because morality is FLUID. It changes, and people have different ideals of morality, thus you can’t just slap “it’s immoral” on things and expect it to float as an argument. If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture? Not an argument for either side. Livestock cost much more land than farming (in general), meat-eaters that argue this are misinformed. If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source? “Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources.” Was I asleep when someone a Universal Declaration of animal rights, or are you just making things up now? Once again, you cannot place humans and animals in the same categories. Just because humans have rights, doesn’t mean that the same rights are instantly applicable to animals. Humans also have the right to dignity and equality, do these apply to animals too? Of course not. Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat? How has eating meat “clouded the minds” of Darwin and Bentham? They still did their work, thought their brilliant thoughts, and contributed greatly to mankind. There’s nothing proving that meat makes you stupid. CONCLUSION Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution. Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding. One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics. /Thread | ||
|
Laerties
United States361 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:07 DeepElemBlues wrote: Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too. You've confused me so much. First of all, the brain needing a lot of energy doesn't imply that eating meat made humans evolve large brains, that just doesn't make sense. Also, a "massive amount of quickly generated energy" doesn't come from meat. Meat is valued primarily for its large quantities of protein, proteins help build tissue. Carbohydrates which primarily come from plant based products, are what the body uses to quickly turn into energy. So......thats just not right. | ||
|
RoseTempest
Canada196 Posts
1. Yes, humans evolved as omnivores. 2. It's a possibility, since some cultures may not have had access to meat and were predominantly farming based societies (Iriquois tribes of Native Americans etc.), however this would be the fault of circumstances, not choice. 3. You are absolutely right, modern luxuries for developed nations is what gives us the opportunity to feel bad about an animal. If you're a starving tribesman in Africa and you wander upon a wounded gazelle, you're gonna eat the shit out of it. Because we're fat and rich, we have the choice to be snobbish and discriminate on what we eat. 4. Humans definitely are NOT naturally vegetarian. 5. Yep. I'm no vegetarian, but I hope I answered your questions :D | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
On June 04 2011 14:57 MrProb wrote: I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that 1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right? 2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ? 3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"? 4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ? 5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle? 1. Humans are omnivores and have been for at least 2 million years 2. There isn't a single recorded instance of a hunter-gatherer society subsisting solely on plant matter. Zero. Every HG society seems to derive between 40-75% of their total calories from animal matter. 3. Vegeterianism is only possible in today's society because of the concentration of calories, importation of plant matter to shore up nutritional deficiencies, massive genetic intervention in plants to increase caloric density, and massive processing to make plant matter digestable. If one was to subsist on only locally acquired plant matter, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to meet all the nutritional needs in this manner. Likewise, if one were to eat the ancestral version of plants, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet caloric needs in this manner. 4. There is not a single recorded instance of a vegetarian society in human history. 5. Yes. | ||
|
MrProb
Thailand794 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:28 RoseTempest wrote: 1. Yes, humans evolved as omnivores. 2. It's a possibility, since some cultures may not have had access to meat and were predominantly farming based societies (Iriquois tribes of Native Americans etc.), however this would be the fault of circumstances, not choice. 3. You are absolutely right, modern luxuries for developed nations is what gives us the opportunity to feel bad about an animal. If you're a starving tribesman in Africa and you wander upon a wounded gazelle, you're gonna eat the shit out of it. Because we're fat and rich, we have the choice to be snobbish and discriminate on what we eat. 4. Humans definitely are NOT naturally vegetarian. 5. Yep. I'm no vegetarian, but I hope I answered your questions :D lol im glad you understand my english and thanks for the answer.It might or might not be all correct but its one of the opinion out there xD | ||
|
tbrown47
United States1235 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote: + Show Spoiler + The End to this Debate, and possibly this thread Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals? “For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.” Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with the argument, a severely retarded human, is still, by all intents and purposes a human. There’s no way you can retard a human into cattle, thus the point is invalid. I can give rights to a rock if I wanted to, there’s no reason to arbitrarily give rights to things that don’t deserve rights. Enable laws, lobby for changes in legislation, sure. Rights? No. If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research? “This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.” Once again, logically unsound. You’re making the assumption, once again, that humans, this time slaves, are the same as animals. Of course we can’t argue against you if you consider a lab rat or dog to be the equivalent to a human being. Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified? I’ve never heard of meat-eating being argued as “traditional”, but yes, it is natural. We were meant to live on a varied diet, which includes meat. You don’t need to morally justify everything just because you can. Once again, you can’t apply morals to anything you want. “Morally” speaking, the domestication and consumption of cattle and chickens worldwide has actually greatly benefited cattle and chickens. Their survival as a species is now guaranteed because they have desirable traits that we enjoy. Forget the morality of killing an animal, think of the morality of ensuring the survival of a species. See what I did there? Morality can be argued whichever way you want because morality is FLUID. It changes, and people have different ideals of morality, thus you can’t just slap “it’s immoral” on things and expect it to float as an argument. If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture? Not an argument for either side. Livestock cost much more land than farming (in general), meat-eaters that argue this are misinformed. If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source? “Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources.” Was I asleep when someone a Universal Declaration of animal rights, or are you just making things up now? Once again, you cannot place humans and animals in the same categories. Just because humans have rights, doesn’t mean that the same rights are instantly applicable to animals. Humans also have the right to dignity and equality, do these apply to animals too? Of course not. Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat? How has eating meat “clouded the minds” of Darwin and Bentham? They still did their work, thought their brilliant thoughts, and contributed greatly to mankind. There’s nothing proving that meat makes you stupid. CONCLUSION Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution. Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding. One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics. /Thread Well, I don't think you should've structured the opening of your post this way (seems kinda condescending) I agree mostly on the conclusion. Like I said earlier in this thread, the vegan argument is a moral one, thus it just depends on how much you care about animals. I don't care that much about them, but I don't want them hurt/killed for entertainment purposes or unnecessarily. But to feed people? Go for it. | ||
|
RoseTempest
Canada196 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:26 Laerties wrote: You've confused me so much. First of all, the brain needing a lot of energy doesn't imply that eating meat made humans evolve large brains, that just doesn't make sense. Also, a "massive amount of quickly generated energy" doesn't come from meat. Meat is valued primarily for its large quantities of protein, proteins help build tissue. Carbohydrates which primarily come from plant based products, are what the body uses to quickly turn into energy. So......thats just not right. He is right in theory, wrong in explanation. It's late. Read these articles and learn something new. Harvard Science: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-led-to-smaller-stomachs-bigger-brains/ NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908 http://www.ethiopianreview.com/health/140058 | ||
|
MrProb
Thailand794 Posts
thanks for the answers guys | ||
|
RoseTempest
Canada196 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:31 tbrown47 wrote: Well, I don't think you should've structured the opening of your post this way (seems kinda condescending) I agree mostly on the conclusion. Like I said earlier in this thread, the vegan argument is a moral one, thus it just depends on how much you care about animals. I don't care that much about them, but I don't want them hurt/killed for entertainment purposes or unnecessarily. But to feed people? Go for it. Well I needed a structured format in which to debunk each of the OP's points, thought this was the easiest way :D | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:26 Laerties wrote: You've confused me so much. First of all, the brain needing a lot of energy doesn't imply that eating meat made humans evolve large brains, that just doesn't make sense. Also, a "massive amount of quickly generated energy" doesn't come from meat. Meat is valued primarily for its large quantities of protein, proteins help build tissue. Carbohydrates which primarily come from plant based products, are what the body uses to quickly turn into energy. So......thats just not right. No, you are incorrect. Building a big brain requires lots of easily accessible protein and fats. The brain is 50% fat by weight. Universally, herbivores have tiny brains for their body size while carnivores have massive brains for their body size. Secondly, the body can produce all the carbohydrate it needs through fat adaptation in tissues that can metabolize both fats and carbohydrates and through generation of glucose though gluconeogenesis, in which protein or fat backbones are converted into glucose. Carbohydrates are not a required macronutrient. You can function better in some aspects with carbohydrate intake, but you can live your entire life without consuming carbohydrates. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
Laerties
United States361 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote: CONCLUSION Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution. Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding. One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics. /Thread I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. | ||
|
MrProb
Thailand794 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote: I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them. One thing about human is they only care what they can see.You're feeling bad to see animal being killed to feed ppl but how about insects or some other small lives that is being killed to grow vegetables, do they count as lives? or are they too small to count as living creatures or too small to have any feelings. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote: -snip /Thread Ok. Dude. That is not going to end this thread. What you've done is a lot like showing up to a gunfight with a shiny desert eagle. Your argument looks badass. Unfortunately, the other side is sitting 1km away with an R700..... If you try this one, you're going to be left a bloody mess..... It's quite easy to see how, if morals do apply to the situation, the vegan view is "superior" to any non vegan view. Less animals suffer. If you're going to attack that point, you need to do it other ways. Either prove how useless morals are in realistic terms (I mentioned it near the top of the page, since there's only a few cases where a vegan and a carnivore will actually have a variation in their views of what animals are okay to kill, whereas they share similar views in the vast majority of cases), or you need to somehow show that morals are either subjective/objective and therefore cannot be compared properly, or you need to show that morals have no place in this argument (which I see you are going for, but it is not very convincing, even when I'm on your side of the fence). If you can think of another way of doing it, by all means, go for it. But know that you will never hold any moral high ground over vegans in any argument, without getting ripped to shreds. EDITed for clarity. | ||
| ||
|
|
Escore
CrankTV Team League
Big Brain Bouts
Spirit vs sOs
GgMaChine vs Percival
Serral vs MaxPax
OSC
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Solar vs Lambo
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Afreeca Starleague
RSL Revival
Clem vs Serral
herO vs Rogue
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
