|
On June 04 2011 16:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Indeed, but some aspects of it should be changed or at the very least done more responsibly, notably pesticides, herbicides and the issues of over-fertilizing and runoff associated with all three.
|
On June 04 2011 16:09 RoseTempest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 16:04 Laerties wrote: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?
I still dont see how a disagreement of moral distinction between two people would invalidate their respective rationals for not eating meat or eating meat. They might not be able to come to a conclusion on which one is 'correct' but they just as many tools to argue each of their points as you would for arguing the ecological, nutritional environmental etc effects of meat eating vs non meat eating. It would definitely be possible to find both people who could agree and people who couldn't over all of these reasons to eat/not eat meat. right?
|
On June 04 2011 16:19 Brotkrumen wrote:
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. No. Nihilism is the only one that makes logical sense ^^
An Utilitarian is just a nihilist who didn't conclude the next logical step, yet 
|
On June 04 2011 16:21 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 16:09 RoseTempest wrote:On June 04 2011 16:04 Laerties wrote: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? I still dont see how a disagreement of moral distinction between two people would invalidate their respective rationals for not eating meat or eating meat. They might not be able to come to a conclusion on which one is 'correct' but they just as many tools to argue each of their points as you would for arguing the ecological, nutritional environmental etc effects of meat eating vs non meat eating. It would definitely be possible to find both people who could agree and people who couldn't over all of these reasons to eat/not eat meat. right?
It wouldn't invalidate their rationales per say, but it would make them useless as each "reason", each "point" would be true only to the person making the point, thus making it useless for a debate. I'll always see my point as right, and you'll always see your point as right.
I'm not sure I'm reading your post as you intended when you wrote it but it's getting late and I work in 6 hours.
TBH, it was a pleasure discussing this with you, completely uncharacteristic from the ignorant shitstorm you normally find in these threads
I bid ye good evening and may we continue this at a later date :D
|
On June 04 2011 16:14 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote: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.
Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do with necessity which was what you were discussing before.
|
On June 04 2011 16:28 RoseTempest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 16:21 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 16:09 RoseTempest wrote:On June 04 2011 16:04 Laerties wrote: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? I still dont see how a disagreement of moral distinction between two people would invalidate their respective rationals for not eating meat or eating meat. They might not be able to come to a conclusion on which one is 'correct' but they just as many tools to argue each of their points as you would for arguing the ecological, nutritional environmental etc effects of meat eating vs non meat eating. It would definitely be possible to find both people who could agree and people who couldn't over all of these reasons to eat/not eat meat. right? It wouldn't invalidate their rationales per say, but it would make them useless as each "reason", each "point" would be true only to the person making the point, thus making it useless for a debate. I'll always see my point as right, and you'll always see your point as right. I'm not sure I'm reading your post as you intended when you wrote it but it's getting late and I work in 6 hours. TBH, it was a pleasure discussing this with you, completely uncharacteristic from the ignorant shitstorm you normally find in these threads I bid ye good evening and may we continue this at a later date :D
I enjoyed debating with you as well good sir. Maybe again soon? We will see.
|
On June 04 2011 09:51 BackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote:
So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)? I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Ah, lovely. You are against animal testing. Let me list a couple (sorry, definitely not an exhaustive list!) of things that you are not allowed to use then, by your own standards:
- virtually any medicine, to test for possible side effects and LD (lethal dose), chemicals are tested on rats, usually
- honorable mention #1: vaccines
- honorable mention #2: insulin (because now, diabetes will fuck you up in no time at all)
- transplants
Good luck surviving.
The only way to get a basic understanding of how substances work is by looking at how they affect an organism. The closer to humans, the more likely it is that we get comparable results.
|
Eating meat in the volumes we do is morally not a beautifull thing. However, this corresponds to a lot of things we do that are morally unpretty; for example we like our tv's, shoes, shirts etc cheap and get them manufactured in 3rd world countries. It's not that there is no way for us to afford stuff where people or animal weren't abused to make it, it's just that when we get our stuff cheap we can get more stuff, and stuff we like.
I've asked myself why I don't buy biological meat (I don't buy biological vegetables etc because I couldnt give a toss about the wellbeing of the vegetable as long as it tastes good, and I havent seen any conclusive test in favor of biological vegetables, and quite a few with opposite results), since I do think it would be morally preferable if the animals didnt suffer. I can afford biological meat (which is about 3 times the price of non-biological meat), it would simply mean having to cut back on other things I like. Turns out, I don't care that much apparantly. I like the taste of meat too much (and dislike the taste of replacements, altho I guess Quorn (or however you spell it) is decent) and like my living rythm too much to buy biological meat and as such alleviate the suffering of those animals.
It sounds really harsh, but then again, I prefer going to the pub on a saturdaynight to spend ~~30+bucks as opposed to giving that to starving children in Africa. I like to get a new T-shirt instead of donating that money to the latest fund for a disaster. Now I could say that that was because I'm not sure the money would be spent well or come to the right people or whatever, but that would just be a lie. Apparantly I don't care that much for people and animals I cant see. I can live with that.
|
On June 04 2011 16:30 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 16:14 Ig wrote:On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote: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. Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do about necessity which was what you discussing before.
10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste.
Your specific rationale is indeed based on the fact that you live in the industrialized world, religion is a different matter as it's a belief system separate from personal rationale, which is what you're presenting, though I won't say there's anything wrong with using either as a basis for strictly personal choice. Industrial agriculture includes factory farming of animals, which happens to be the whole issue concerning the lack of sustainability of eating meat along with the general over-consumption relative to our physical needs for protein/calories. The only rationale against eating meat is a personal one when you don't need it to fulfill your protein requirements, which is a luxury (excluding those who don't eat meat based on religion). On another note, India is not a predominately vegetarian country because not all Hindu sects require followers to be vegetarian.
I find it strange that you still insist I don't understand your argument when I've made it clear that I do. I know your point is that we don't need to eat them because we have enough fruits, grains, and vegetables (thank California for that). You for some reason though don't seem to understand mine: My point is that when compared against the hard facts and research in agroecology, the choices based on your rationale lose out. I'm not all over the place, you're just not following since you've been regurgitating the same thing over and over again - morality. Don't say I don't have morals either because I do, I've just accepted that things die so I can live, but there are ways to improve the lives of animals we eat while reducing our ecological footprint.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
|
On June 04 2011 16:55 Promises wrote:
Eating meat in the volumes we do is morally not a beautifull thing. However, this corresponds to a lot of things we do that are morally unpretty; for example we like our tv's, shoes, shirts etc cheap and get them manufactured in 3rd world countries. It's not that there is no way for us to afford stuff where people or animal weren't abused to make it, it's just that when we get our stuff cheap we can get more stuff, and stuff we like.
I've asked myself why I don't buy biological meat (I don't buy biological vegetables etc because I couldnt give a toss about the wellbeing of the vegetable as long as it tastes good, and I havent seen any conclusive test in favor of biological vegetables, and quite a few with opposite results), since I do think it would be morally preferable if the animals didnt suffer. I can afford biological meat (which is about 3 times the price of non-biological meat), it would simply mean having to cut back on other things I like. Turns out, I don't care that much apparantly. I like the taste of meat too much (and dislike the taste of replacements, altho I guess Quorn (or however you spell it) is decent) and like my living rythm too much to buy biological meat and as such alleviate the suffering of those animals.
It sounds really harsh, but then again, I prefer going to the pub on a saturdaynight to spend ~~30+bucks as opposed to giving that to starving children in Africa. I like to get a new T-shirt instead of donating that money to the latest fund for a disaster. Now I could say that that was because I'm not sure the money would be spent well or come to the right people or whatever, but that would just be a lie. Apparantly I don't care that much for people and animals I cant see. I can live with that.
I've asked myself this questions about organic meat as well.. The first point is that cheap supermarket meat is filled with water. You should compare the price based on the amount of meat that is actually left after cooking ;-) My second point is more personal, but i'm enjoying meat a lot more, now that i eat less meat of higher quality.
|
Feed grain takes much less resources to grow than grain suitable for human consumption, so talking about how much agriculture it takes to support industrial meat production is misleading. It would take possibly less land but more resources to grow grain to replace meat in the world's diet.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
Death is not ultimate pain, and cattle are not killed in a way that causes emotional stress. I find it hard to believe it would be stressful or painful to be instantly killed without knowing it was coming.
And of course a human's life is more valuable than a cow's. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Human life is the most sacrosanct thing we know to exist.
|
On June 04 2011 17:01 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 16:30 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 16:14 Ig wrote:On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote: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. Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do about necessity which was what you discussing before. 10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste. Your specific rationale is indeed based on the fact that you live in the industrialized world, religion is a different matter as it's a belief system separate from personal rationale, which is what you're presenting, though I won't say there's anything wrong with using either as a basis for strictly personal choice. Industrial agriculture includes factory farming of animals, which happens to be the whole issue concerning the lack of sustainability of eating meat along with the general over-consumption relative to our physical needs for protein/calories. The only rationale against eating meat is a personal one when you don't need it to fulfill your protein requirements, which is a luxury (excluding those who don't eat meat based on religion). On another note, India is not a predominately vegetarian country because not all Hindu sects require followers to be vegetarian. I find it strange that you still insist I don't understand your argument when I've made it clear that I do. I know your point is that we don't need to eat them because we have enough fruits, grains, and vegetables (thank California for that). You for some reason though don't seem to understand mine: My point is that when compared against the hard facts and research in agroecology, the choices based on your rationale lose out. I'm not all over the place, you're just not following since you've been regurgitating the same thing over and over again - morality. Don't say I don't have morals either because I do, I've just accepted that things die so I can live, but there are ways to improve the lives of animals we eat while reducing our ecological footprint. Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
Ill say it again, and again and again. "You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?" The distinction between what makes it moral or not is the purpose it is being killed for. If its being killed for pleasure than I see it as immoral, if it is being killed for survival than that is justifiable to me. THIS is why I keep saying you don't understand my rationale. This is the central distinction I keep making. You wouldn't say "Where is your moral rationale now?" if you understood what I was saying. You clearly haven't up to this point.
"10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste."
This is such a minor issue. I'm sure the statistic for any kind of meat is similar to 10:1. This is such a non-issue that it seems like your only arguing with it because your just running out of points to make.
Now to what my rationale is based on. Nothing in my rationale is dependent upon living in an industrialized world. The points still hold true in many different settings. I made the comparison to india because many vegetarians there aren't part of the industrialized world. It is also not a luxury to get daily doses of protein without eating meat. Gandhi wrote an entire book on how to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet in impoverished settings. Since you didn't put up a counter argument that runs against my point that vegetarian diets require less agricultural industrialization I assume your conceding that point.
You ARE all over the place, first you say that my moral argument is flawed, then you say that there are moral repercussions to adopting vegetarian diets, then you try and make the point that vegetarians are harming local farmers, you then try and connect it to the green movement which isn't even related.... So yes you are all over the place. I've been arguing about these things because I feel that I gain some insight when I do but your ideas are just becoming weaker and weaker to the point that some of them just dont make sense and that I am just not benefitting at all from reading them so sorry if I just ignore your next post.
|
On June 04 2011 17:58 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 17:01 Ig wrote:On June 04 2011 16:30 Laerties wrote:On June 04 2011 16:14 Ig wrote:On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote: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. Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do about necessity which was what you discussing before. 10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste. Your specific rationale is indeed based on the fact that you live in the industrialized world, religion is a different matter as it's a belief system separate from personal rationale, which is what you're presenting, though I won't say there's anything wrong with using either as a basis for strictly personal choice. Industrial agriculture includes factory farming of animals, which happens to be the whole issue concerning the lack of sustainability of eating meat along with the general over-consumption relative to our physical needs for protein/calories. The only rationale against eating meat is a personal one when you don't need it to fulfill your protein requirements, which is a luxury (excluding those who don't eat meat based on religion). On another note, India is not a predominately vegetarian country because not all Hindu sects require followers to be vegetarian. I find it strange that you still insist I don't understand your argument when I've made it clear that I do. I know your point is that we don't need to eat them because we have enough fruits, grains, and vegetables (thank California for that). You for some reason though don't seem to understand mine: My point is that when compared against the hard facts and research in agroecology, the choices based on your rationale lose out. I'm not all over the place, you're just not following since you've been regurgitating the same thing over and over again - morality. Don't say I don't have morals either because I do, I've just accepted that things die so I can live, but there are ways to improve the lives of animals we eat while reducing our ecological footprint. Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now? Ill say it again, and again and again. "You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?" The distinction between what makes it moral or not is the purpose it is being killed for. If its being killed for pleasure than I see it as immoral, if it is being killed for survival than that is justifiable to me. THIS is why I keep saying you don't understand my rationale. This is the central distinction I keep making. You wouldn't say "Where is your moral rationale now?" if you understood what I was saying. You clearly haven't up to this point. "10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste." This is such a minor issue. I'm sure the statistic for any kind of meat is similar to 10:1. This is such a non-issue that it seems like your only arguing with it because your just running out of points to make. Now to what my rationale is based on. Nothing in my rationale is dependent upon living in an industrialized world. The points still hold true in many different settings. I made the comparison to india because many vegetarians there aren't part of the industrialized world. It is also not a luxury to get daily doses of protein without eating meat. Gandhi wrote an entire book on how to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet in impoverished settings. Since you didn't put up a counter argument that runs against my point that vegetarian diets require less agricultural industrialization I assume your conceding that point. You ARE all over the place, first you say that my moral argument is flawed, then you say that there are moral repercussions to adopting vegetarian diets, then you try and make the point that vegetarians are harming local farmers, you then try and connect it to the green movement which isn't even related.... So yes you are all over the place. I've been arguing about these things because I feel that I gain some insight when I do but your ideas are just becoming weaker and weaker to the point that some of them just dont make sense and that I am just not benefitting at all from reading them so sorry if I just ignore your next post.
I have understood your point and have stated numerous times that your ability to even make such a point and I assume live by it is because of where you live. To deny the fact that your rationale is only possible because you have access to the fruits of industrial agriculture is an outright lie. Basically, if you live outside of an industrialized nation, unless you're Buddhist (some can eat fish and iirc other meats occasionally) or part of a Hindu sect that doesn't allow you to eat meat or another religion that bars it, you probably depend on meat as a primary protein source. Your rationale is very clearly based on your relatively privileged life, how many times do I have to state that before you'll finally admit that there's truth in these words because you live in America? You also bring up an example of Gandhi's book but fail to state that the inability to grow enough staple food crops to consume or sell due to environmental conditions is a major cause of poverty. I'll put it this way, there are two main reasons why people in Africa starve: the inability to create demand and have food shipped over and buy it, and the inability to grow their own food due to lack of suitable seed or environmental degradation. You can't just go say something like "just eat some quinoa!" to everyone either - oh hey, it's shipped thousands of miles from South American while people in Bolivia starve (Bolivia is a major producer of quinoa)! Looks like quinoa is off the menu now.
10:1 is indeed an issue as you're using the worst statistic among those on grain used to produce meat to better prove your point as well as assuming it is "close" to the other examples when it actually isn't, there's a reason people tell you to eat less meat (if you do) and when you do to eat free range poultry. Again you've also ignored the fact that this statistic is based around factory farming. Will you deny the facts or just call it a minor issue again so you can continue misinforming people?
You can say I'm all over the place all you want, I've just been covering several bases while you've been on your moral high horse this whole time. I mean hell, I didn't see you adamantly opposing RoseTempest when he said that the moral argument has no place but that's probably because he was willing to descend to your level to discuss morality, and even after he pointed out how stupid it was you...kept doing it. Besides, the only insight you would gain by arguing something like this is insight into how foolish it is to base anything on morality when it comes to food, though it seems you're refusing to open your mind to the bigger picture.
If you would ignore this post, it just shows that you're down to your last straws since you have nothing to bring up against scientific and social facts besides regurgitating sheltered morality and saying "I'm all over the place" because I went past the issue itself to provide more information, expose your follies, and the foolishness of this discussion. In no particular order, I mentioned: greater land use and associated economic efficiency from integrating small amounts of meat and dairy in diets, how vegan diets are unsuitable for infants and children, the history of human consumption of meat including our evolution, integration of animals into agroecosystems for greater sustainability, and how factory farms are the real unsustainable side of eating meat, not eating meat itself. I'm only "all over the place" to those that choose not to follow. Keep in mind again that I have nothing against individuals choosing to be vegan or vegetarian or to eat a ton of meat (though I frown upon the latter), only the use of morality as an argument for it, so do yourself a favor and stop it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Stay fixated on that one stroke in the painting, it suits your mindset well.
|
Every time I have seen a Vegan person, they look skinny, unhealthy and pale white. The human body is designed to eat meat. Being a vegan is not a healthy way to live at all.
|
![[image loading]](http://mmajunkie.com/dyn/images/fighters/mac-danzig-3.jpg)
He doesnt look too skinny, unhealthy and pale to me ^^
(Mac Danzig, UFC fighter and vegan afaik)
|
On June 04 2011 19:43 Promises wrote:He doesnt look too skinny, unhealthy and pale to me ^^ (Mac Danzig, UFC fighter and vegan afaik)
He does, to me.
|
On June 04 2011 16:43 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 09:51 BackHo wrote:On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote:
So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)? I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following: Ah, lovely. You are against animal testing. Let me list a couple (sorry, definitely not an exhaustive list!) of things that you are not allowed to use then, by your own standards: - virtually any medicine, to test for possible side effects and LD (lethal dose), chemicals are tested on rats, usually - honorable mention #1: vaccines - honorable mention #2: insulin (because now, diabetes will fuck you up in no time at all) - transplants Good luck surviving. The only way to get a basic understanding of how substances work is by looking at how they affect an organism. The closer to humans, the more likely it is that we get comparable results.
You obviously didn't read the OP, as what you have written was already addressed.
|
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
Ahahahaa. I'm gonna start reading this now, I just think it's cute that you think you've solved a debate thats been going on for pretty much a hundred years :3
|
You obviously didn't read the OP, as what you have written was already addressed.
You obviously didn't read the OP, as the section containing his "addressing" of animal testing was one of the most offensively repugnant parts of it. Comparable to worrying about slaveowners more than slaves? Totally despicable.
The issue is not whom we care about or value most; the question is whether it is morally justifiable to treat sentient beings
It's not about caring or value, it's about... caring or value! What are morals again? Value judgments about things people care about? Hmm...
I'm kind of flabbergasted that the OP got away with so many bad arguments.
Since you didn't put up a counter argument that runs against my point that vegetarian diets require less agricultural industrialization I assume your conceding that point.
You never made a point, you made a totally unsupported assertion.
To properly make your point you'd need to know:
1. Tons of feed grain used to feed food animals;
2. How much higher-quality grain would be needed to replace meat;
3. How many resources it would require to grow that grain.
Then you can say it would require less industrialized agriculture. Common sense says it would require more.
Now to what my rationale is based on. Nothing in my rationale is dependent upon living in an industrialized world. The points still hold true in many different settings. I made the comparison to india because many vegetarians there aren't part of the industrialized world. It is also not a luxury to get daily doses of protein without eating meat. Gandhi wrote an entire book on how to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet in impoverished settings
All those stupid Indians still suffering from poverty-induced malnutrition, why aren't they smart enough to read Gandhi?????????? Right???
All those people who starved to death in the millenia before industrialized farming, vegan or not, they just simply didn't understand how to live as good as you and Gandhi.
How does it feel knowing you're better than 99.9% of all the humans who ever lived? It must be really, really awesome.
|
On June 04 2011 19:13 Ig wrote:
I have understood your point and have stated numerous times that your ability to even make such a point and I assume live by it is because of where you live.
This isn't the part you haven't understood. Its the difference between killing meat for survival and enjoyment, you keep saying my point is invalid because I would eat meat to survive and I keep re-explaining what I mean.
To deny the fact that your rationale is only possible because you have access to the fruits of industrial agriculture is an outright lie. Basically, if you live outside of an industrialized nation, unless you're Buddhist (some can eat fish and iirc other meats occasionally) or part of a Hindu sect that doesn't allow you to eat meat or another religion that bars it, you probably depend on meat as a primary protein source
Wrong. Animals consume around 5 times more protein than they produce. People in rural settings who eat meat for protein would presumably have access to milk and eggs as well, so any protein needs would just as easily be satisfied with that. 16 oz milk = 18-24g of protien 1 egg= 7g protein usually. I don't know why poor people only would be able to find meat and not other animal products but whatever.
"http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html"
Your rationale is very clearly based on your relatively privileged life, how many times do I have to state that before you'll finally admit that there's truth in these words because you live in America?
Probably many more times since your wrong. Vegetarian diets don't depend on privileged life styles. People with access to meat generally has access to other animal products.
You also bring up an example of Gandhi's book but fail to state that the inability to grow enough staple food crops to consume or sell due to environmental conditions is a major cause of poverty.
Umm, I 'failed to state' this because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't need you to tell me people are starving because there isn't enough food. and it doesnt contrast any of the points I made.
I'll put it this way, there are two main reasons why people in Africa starve: the inability to create demand and have food shipped over and buy it, and the inability to grow their own food due to lack of suitable seed or environmental degradation. You can't just go say something like "just eat some quinoa!" to everyone either - oh hey, it's shipped thousands of miles from South American while people in Bolivia starve (Bolivia is a major producer of quinoa)! Looks like quinoa is off the menu now.
Same thing as above
10:1 is indeed an issue as you're using the worst statistic among those on grain used to produce meat to better prove your point as well as assuming it is "close" to the other examples when it actually isn't, there's a reason people tell you to eat less meat (if you do) and when you do to eat free range poultry. Again you've also ignored the fact that this statistic is based around factory farming. Will you deny the facts or just call it a minor issue again so you can continue misinforming people?
Sooooo nearly all meat comes from factory farming... It wouldn't make sense to focus on free range farming since it accounts for so little of meat eaten. 10:1, 5:1 hell, 2:1, the point that meat production is less efficient still holds, thats why its a minor issue, because there can be so much variance and the point is still true.
hell, I didn't see you adamantly opposing RoseTempest when he said that the moral argument has no place but that's probably because he was willing to descend to your level to discuss morality, and even after he pointed out how stupid it was you...kept doing it.
No you see its actually because he had interesting and good points. Yours are just wrong.
Besides, the only insight you would gain by arguing something like this is insight into how foolish it is to base anything on morality when it comes to food, though it seems you're refusing to open your mind to the bigger picture.
I'm refusing to open my mind to bad arguments. You keep asserting that morality is not a viable basis for not eating meat but none of your evidence implies this. Maybe you should find some that does.
I mentioned: greater land use and associated economic efficiency from integrating small amounts of meat and dairy in diets,
It isn't more economic. The article was saying it has slightly greater land efficiency.
how vegan diets are unsuitable for infants and children, the history of human consumption of meat including our evolution, integration of animals into agroecosystems for greater sustainability, and how factory farms are the real unsustainable side of eating meat, not eating meat itself. I'm only "all over the place" to those that choose not to follow. Keep in mind again that I have nothing against individuals choosing to be vegan or vegetarian or to eat a ton of meat (though I frown upon the latter), only the use of morality as an argument for it,
All these points don't invalidate the validity of morality to my rationale. They just take stabs at the potentially negative aspects of the lifestyle which no one is denying. Nothing you have said actually attempts to invalidate morality as a valid point to base diet off of. If that is what you have a problem with, address that. This is why your argument is bad, you assert 1 thing but provide evidence for another, its non sensical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
