• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:28
CEST 07:28
KST 14:28
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension1Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles7[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China11
StarCraft 2
General
TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
$5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL [Guide] MyStarcraft BW General Discussion [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 552 users

Vegan Thread 3.0 - Page 17

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 15 16 17 18 19 24 Next All
RoseTempest
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada196 Posts
June 04 2011 06:55 GMT
#321
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.

"It is my opinion.."

"To me, it is...."

See where I'm going at?

The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.

I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
Ig
Profile Joined January 2011
United States417 Posts
June 04 2011 06:55 GMT
#322
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
E-warrior of the China brigade, 50 cent party member.
tryummm
Profile Joined August 2009
774 Posts
June 04 2011 06:56 GMT
#323
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.


Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Laerties
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States361 Posts
June 04 2011 06:56 GMT
#324
On June 04 2011 15:49 MrProb wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
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.



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.



Your totally right. I'm only human and I'm going to respond more dramatically to what I can relate to. I would definitely prefer to kill an ant or a snail than a cow. I can only base my interpretations off of what I can observe and the more sophisticated the animal the more pain I observe. It is definitely MORE wrong IMO to kill a cow than an ant for pleasure but I still see killing anything for pleasure as inherently wrong, some are just wrong-er to kill.
Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
RoseTempest
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada196 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-04 07:00:51
June 04 2011 06:58 GMT
#325
On June 04 2011 15:51 Impervious wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


The analogies in this thread are terrible

I'm not arguing for a moral high ground, I'm arguing for the fact that morals in question here are subjective, fluid and have an enormous range* and have no place in discussion or debate.

And since OP based ALL of his arguments on his own brand of morality, his arguments, and in extension, this thread is moot.

*There's no widely accepted, generalized view, there's a broad spectrum of beliefs.
Laerties
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States361 Posts
June 04 2011 06:59 GMT
#326
On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.


Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
RoseTempest
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada196 Posts
June 04 2011 07:02 GMT
#327
On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:
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.


Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.


Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.


You're right, but quite a few proponents of veganism/vegetarianism in this thread have been quite condescending, smug and "persuasive". I'm guessing thats where he's coming from. Don't take it personally ;D
Ig
Profile Joined January 2011
United States417 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-04 07:03:38
June 04 2011 07:03 GMT
#328
On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:
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.


Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.


Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.

The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.
E-warrior of the China brigade, 50 cent party member.
Laerties
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States361 Posts
June 04 2011 07:04 GMT
#329
On June 04 2011 15:55 RoseTempest wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
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.


True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.

"It is my opinion.."

"To me, it is...."

See where I'm going at?

The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.

I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.


I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?

Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
VIB
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
Brazil3567 Posts
June 04 2011 07:04 GMT
#330
Morality is a bad argument for any discussion whatsoever.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.
Romantic
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1844 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-04 07:11:58
June 04 2011 07:08 GMT
#331
On June 04 2011 13:33 Lexpar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 13:24 BlackJack wrote:
On June 04 2011 12:19 Laerties wrote:
On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?


Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it.


Yeah, I was exaggerating, but I was also talking about all animals, including insects. But yeah, even some non-insect animals die to produce vegetables.


So the only thing you're saying is "You're not perfect!"? Very nice contribution to the thread.


Would you only hand farm without using chemicals or machines to reduce the deaths of snakes, birds, squirrels, field mice, wildlife, etc?

The point here is that to reduce animal suffering you would probably have to go to extreme measures that most people wouldn't do or care to do, even if they refrain from eating meat.

I don't find eating meat, building cities, cutting down forests, and using chemicals\machines among a million other things that improve human well being at the expense of other animals as necessarily bad. There would have to be a technical discussion about the impacts on other animals and alternatives. It isn't outright wrong (to live better at the loss of other species).


On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote:

Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.


You didn't HAVE to cut down that forest to build a home that resulted in the local deer dying off; you could have lived in a cave. You killed them for pleasure.
Laerties
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States361 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-04 07:10:03
June 04 2011 07:08 GMT
#332
On June 04 2011 15:55 Ig wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
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.

So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html


Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
RoseTempest
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada196 Posts
June 04 2011 07:09 GMT
#333
On June 04 2011 16:04 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:55 RoseTempest wrote:
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
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.


True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.

"It is my opinion.."

"To me, it is...."

See where I'm going at?

The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.

I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.


I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?

Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).


But once again, we might disagree on what is and isn't moral, thus grinding the debate to a halt. My preferred course of action would be to look at ecological, nutritional, health and possibly environmental issues presented by both and look at which one makes more sense.

A few moral high grounds off the top of my head would be the 3rd world nation, lack of choice argument. A tribesman hunts to feed his family because that is all he can do in the arid country that he lives in. Is it morally wrong for him to feed his family?
Laerties
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States361 Posts
June 04 2011 07:13 GMT
#334
On June 04 2011 16:03 Ig wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:
On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:
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.


Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.


Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.

The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.


None of the moral issues I have with eating meat were invalidated by any ecological or evolutionary information posted. If you really believe this, pls post the info or quote the previous post or w/e.
Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-04 07:16:11
June 04 2011 07:14 GMT
#335
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.


No, more animals suffer as a result of agriculture for food. And if we stopped eating meat we'd need to grow larger numbers of high-quality plant foods than we do now, which would require more fertilizer and water and pesticides which would cause even more animals to suffer.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Ig
Profile Joined January 2011
United States417 Posts
June 04 2011 07:14 GMT
#336
On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:55 Ig wrote:
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
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.

So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:


Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.

I understand your argument perfectly, but as we've been saying, the whole rationale is only possible in the industrialized world, which has oh boy, moral issues with how it's supported by exploitation of the rest of the world. You also failed to mention how industrial agriculture is one of the things that enable you to have a diet to go along with this rationale, bringing in other issues of morality with small farmers being bought or squeezed out, subsidies to large agricultural corporations that have questionable ethics, and a whole slew of other things. Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions, but if you're saying I don't understand your argument, I'm going to say you don't even understand the whole picture behind your argument.

Greater land use efficiency can more or less translate to greater economic efficiency with best management practices. Pasture is also more or less free to use.
E-warrior of the China brigade, 50 cent party member.
RoseTempest
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada196 Posts
June 04 2011 07:15 GMT
#337
On June 04 2011 16:13 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 16:03 Ig wrote:
On June 04 2011 15:59 Laerties wrote:
On June 04 2011 15:56 tryummm wrote:
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.


Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.


Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.

The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.


None of the moral issues I have with eating meat were invalidated by any ecological or evolutionary information posted. If you really believe this, pls post the info or quote the previous post or w/e.


Humans evolved bigger brains after eating meat, canine teeth, high fat diet, millions of years of omnivorous existence blah blah blah

It's been said before, not exactly relevant to the issue at hand, but I can see where he's coming from
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
June 04 2011 07:16 GMT
#338
On June 04 2011 16:04 Laerties wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2011 15:55 RoseTempest wrote:
On June 04 2011 15:41 Laerties wrote:
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.


True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.

"It is my opinion.."

"To me, it is...."

See where I'm going at?

The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.

I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.


I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?

Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).


Moral consistency - meateaters are willing to kill all animals equally to improve their situation whereas vegans are only willing to kill those they deem as pests (spiders, ants, the likes). Thus being a meateater is morally superior as it stays true to the demand of universalism which is the aim of morals.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-04 07:24:13
June 04 2011 07:18 GMT
#339
Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions,


tbh I'm pretty sure the tens or hundreds of millions who didn't starve in India and Pakistan and China (once Deng finally beat the idiot Maoists) over the last forty years outweigh "questionable ethics" by Monsanto or whoever the corporate bogeyman of the industry may be.

The Green Revolution isn't connected to vegans, it's the best thing we've done for ourselves as a species since the original invention of farming probably.

Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).


Easy, I'm keeping myself alive by eating meat in diet that through including meat is more balanced and healthy for myself. The only animal raised for food in an even possibly objectionable way is chickens, but then I think of all the poor voles and mice more or less vaporized by tractors and combines and all kinds of animals killed by pesticides and fertilizers directly or through runoff and I just don't care.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Brotkrumen
Profile Joined May 2010
Germany193 Posts
June 04 2011 07:19 GMT
#340
There are only two mainstream moral systems: Idealism and Utilitarianism. Well to be honest, those are the only two schools with a universalist approach that aren't hogwash. There are a few relativistic moral systems out there but you can simply justify anything with them, making them irrelevant as a guide. Why? Depending on what flavor you prefer, the act of raping a young girl is either immoral, moral or amoral, all with a justification of the same value.

Idealism being founded by Kant argues, among other things, that no rational being ought be used as a means to an end and that one should act in a way that the principle of ones acts may be natural law.

I don't think I have to define "rational being" here but it basically excludes non self-aware animals. The "acts can be natural law" principle or the categorical imperative means, that if I steal, I can want that everyone else also steals.
Applied to animals that would be "I treat animals poorly, therefore I can want that everyone treats animals poorly" or "I eat meat therefore I can want that everyone eats meat"
It's only in the second part where we run into a problem: If everyone ate meat, we would have too much methane produced. That can be rectified by saying "I eat only non-methane producing meat".

Second school: Utilitarianism.
Most vegans or vegetarians must follow this school. Utilitarianism searches to maximize "pleasure" and avoid "suffering" as Bentham and Mill put it. More recently Peter Singer argued for vegetarianism with preference utilitarianism. Meaning, we ought to maximize whatever is preferred. Animals simply prefer not to be killed.

For his argument Singer assumes one thing though: an "aware" animal can suffer. Aware here is basically just more interactive with the environment than a plant and less so than a self-aware being.
Question is, can you really suffer without being self-aware? Imagine yourself without an I. Can you suffer? What is pain if there is nobody to experience it?
Prev 1 15 16 17 18 19 24 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 33m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 235
StarCraft: Brood War
Free 435
Leta 254
PianO 241
EffOrt 235
Mind 58
Noble 28
Bale 10
Icarus 5
Dota 2
monkeys_forever622
League of Legends
JimRising 840
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K926
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox784
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor91
Other Games
summit1g15791
shahzam680
WinterStarcraft500
ViBE217
NeuroSwarm76
RuFF_SC267
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick4523
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH339
• practicex 37
• davetesta28
• OhrlRock 1
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush2554
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
5h 33m
Replay Cast
1d 4h
WardiTV European League
1d 10h
ShoWTimE vs sebesdes
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
PiGosaur Monday
1d 18h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Epic.LAN
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
Epic.LAN
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.