|
On June 04 2011 02:05 BackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:03 Blix wrote:On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote:
lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer. veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it. Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
Just quoting this because it is hilarious.
Backho.
Your name clearly implies the back of a female who is a hoe. My name has to do with an almighty deity. I am the clear winner of all arguments. Sorry but my words the law.
|
On June 04 2011 02:15 Stashrun wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:05 BackHo wrote:On June 04 2011 02:03 Blix wrote:On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote:
lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer. veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it. Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong. By what definition is it murder to catch and eat a fish? Is a fox killing a rabbit murder?
Oh, I get your logic BackHo...so now when I pull out my fly swatter I'm murdering flies?
How about when I mow my lawn, am I torturing and disfiguring grass?
By providing a home for my cat, and cleaning up the guts of the mice she catches, am I aiding and abetting a murderer?
If you consider killing any animal for food "murder", then your argument is fine. But you have to understand that this is your own definition of the word, and the vast majority of people don't consider it applicable in the circumstance you choose to use it in.
Using the word "murder" with respect to animals is, to me, analogous to using the word "cannibalism" when referring to a human eating pork ribs. It simply doesn't apply or make sense.
|
@BackHo: does this amazing idea also include animal testing?
because if than all the people on this planet that are diabetiks will die and all medical research will stop where we are.
hey that sounds like nice new world!
nice littel info the vice of PETA is a diabetik and they are against it. signing her own death.
|
On June 04 2011 02:22 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:15 Stashrun wrote:On June 04 2011 02:05 BackHo wrote:On June 04 2011 02:03 Blix wrote:On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote:
lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer. veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it. Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong. By what definition is it murder to catch and eat a fish? Is a fox killing a rabbit murder? Oh, I get your logic BackHo...so now when I pull out my fly swatter I'm murdering flies? How about when I mow my lawn, am I torturing and disfiguring grass? By providing a home for my cat, and cleaning up the guts of the mice she catches, am I aiding and abetting a murderer?
yes absolutely lol, cats are major murderers
Using the word "murder" with respect to animals is, to me, analogous to using the word "cannibalism" when referring to a human eating pork ribs. It simply doesn't apply or make sense.
I don't understand your comparison and I don't understand why that doesn't make sense. If you say it's because "murder only applies to humans" well then fine but that's not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is basically "killing another without a justifiable reason". Now obviously a giant philosophical debate could happen over what "justifiable" means, so I hope we can agree that a cat(or anything else) "just wanting to" doesn't make it justifiable.
|
mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
|
On June 04 2011 02:39 tadL wrote:
@BackHo: does this amazing idea also include animal testing?
because if than all the people on this planet that are diabetiks will die and all medical research will stop where we are.
hey that sounds like nice new world!
Check the OP, it was pretty much the first thing that was addressed.
|
On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote:
mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about.
|
I am amused that the previous vegan thread was killed for reductio ad Hitlerium, and this thread's first comment discusses Hitler and Hitler only.
|
Never had a vegan explain how animal killing is morally wrong whereas plant killing isn't. It isn't purely the capacity for thought or pain that determines if something is alive.
|
On June 04 2011 02:43 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote:
mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about.
I actually wasn't really replying to you, just addressing the misuse of the word.
I also didn't pick the definition. Google gave it to me. It was the only primary definition of the word murder as a noun.
Here's some more.
noun /ˈmərdər/
murders, plural
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
- the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer
- he was put on trial for attempted murder
A very difficult or unpleasant task or experience
- my first job at the steel mill was murder
Something causing great discomfort to a part of the body
- that exercise is murder on the lumbar regions
I don't think the others apply.
|
On June 04 2011 02:46 Offhand wrote:
Never had a vegan explain how animal killing is morally wrong whereas plant killing isn't. It isn't purely the capacity for thought or pain that determines if something is alive.
Read the OP.
|
On June 04 2011 02:47 Enervate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:43 travis wrote:On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote:
mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about. I actually wasn't really replying to you, just addressing the misuse of the word. I also didn't pick the definition. Google gave it to me. Here's some more. noun /ˈmərdər/ murders, plural The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another - the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer - he was put on trial for attempted murder A very difficult or unpleasant task or experience - my first job at the steel mill was murder Something causing great discomfort to a part of the body - that exercise is murder on the lumbar regions I don't think the others apply.
What about
"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. "
"to kill brutally"
or if you want to keep using google's dictionary thing:
"Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation"
I am sorry that you let your language be so constricted. Or is it that you care so little about animals that they just don't matter?
|
On June 04 2011 02:12 Cambium wrote:
I don't have a moral issue with killing and eating animals, where do we go from there? I know you do, that's why I don't even bother convincing you that you should eat meat.
This thread is so pointless.
Yep, I'm pretty sure this sums up the whole argument and this thread is, as a result, pointless. Morals aren't absolutes, so why does one side keep trying to convince the other?
|
i feel the OP lacks the fact that veagans don't use any animal products. this means no honey (insect based, as the OP doesn't acknowledge as being vegan), no marshmallows, and no MILK! These products still allow for the mistreatment of animals and therefore any vegan that eats these products needs to rethink their vegan lifestyle.
now i'm all for helping the planet and humane treatment but I think that meat in the diet is essential for well being. by that i do not mean eat meat with every single meal. but i think 3-5 times a weak minimum you should be eating about 6oz. of either fish or chicken and maybe one serving of red meat as it has every single protein that your body cannot produce on it's own.
props to those people who can eat tofu, brown rice, and vegetables for every meal, but in reality to feed the entire world meat products should be used. it's unfortunate, especially as an american, that so many people take this to the extreme and eat several servings of meat with each meal. of course that could lead to a whole other thread so i'll stop here 
|
On June 04 2011 00:26 RoosterSamurai wrote:No, you most certainly can not.
Yes you could, at least technically. The definition is to be sexually attracted to the same sex. You could have sex with someone without being attracted to them, theoretically. I can go to a baseball game without liking baseball.
|
On June 04 2011 02:18 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 01:40 BackHo wrote:On June 04 2011 01:28 zalz wrote: Again you're blinding yourself to economic reality. The number of animals in the world would be drastically reduced BECAUSE of people becoming vegans. Less demand = less supply being produced. As I said - most livestock animals are artificially bred - they do not naturally breed to such an extent in nature. To take an example, sows are kept continually pregnant throughout their six year life cycle - one pregnancy after another, going from sow crate to farrowing crate to sow crate, over and over until they die. In the wild they would generally only get pregnant once or twice, not dozens of times during their lifetime until they die an early death due to the repeated pregnancies. Likewise with cows. Their natural lifespan is up to 30 years yet they usually die after 10 after being forced to be constantly pregnant through artificial insemination. Think about it logically - if you got a human female to give birth every year with no rest in between, she would eventually die early due to exhaustion as well. And all this just to meet human demand for meat. The number would probably decrease given how it's never going to be as optimal as artificial insemination but like you said, the female cows die in 10 years under artificual insemination. If they live out in the wild it would take upwards of 30 years before they die of a natural death. How many years before you can begin to expect some serious declines? Maybe 5 years? Maybe 10 years? Even if it's 5 years you still have the problem of having to take care of billions of cows. That is just saying cows because you also need to take care of pigs, sheeps etc etc etc. Finally since this would be accompanied by a pro-animal approach you can't leave them in their industrial facilities. You need an immense ammount of open land just to house all these animals in a nice way. Show nested quote +@zaltz: Could you please stop derailing this thread with your impossible situation that could never happen. It's pointless. Could you not make false accusations? I am simply discussion a situation brought forth by another. You might dislike it but that would be someone from your side of the argument. Direct all those complaints to that person. You need to learn to keep track of who says what and when in a debate.
1) He said he believes that a vegan world would be a better world. YOU are the one who proposed a ridiculous change that could never happen to discredit his idea. People won't stop eating meat in an instant. If you'd like to argue with him, create a hypothethical vegan world without meat farms, thank you very much.
2) I dislike it because it's derailing and has little to do with what he said.
3) He's not someone from my side. I eat meat and I will eat meat. I don't share his believes, I respect them.
4) Read what you're responding to
???
n) Post something relevant.
|
Was reading the OP until being a vegan was on the same moral high ground as avoiding sexism and racism. Get over yourselves. You can't call it a lifestyle choice and leave it at that?
Respect for sentient beings is fine, but don't make it sound like you are respecting them any more than the people who eat meat.
Edit: Obviously, not every vegan assumes the same moral stance as the OP. I understand that and don't mean to generalize.
|
On June 04 2011 02:56 garlicface wrote:
Was reading the OP until being a vegan was on the same moral high ground as avoiding sexism and racism. Get over yourselves. You can't call it a lifestyle choice and leave it at that?
Respect for sentient beings is fine, but don't make it sound like you are respecting them any more than the people who eat meat.
Why can't he say that or make it sound like that?
|
|
|
On June 04 2011 02:53 KillerPlague wrote:i feel the OP lacks the fact that veagans don't use any animal products. this means no honey (insect based, as the OP doesn't acknowledge as being vegan), no marshmallows, and no MILK! These products still allow for the mistreatment of animals and therefore any vegan that eats these products needs to rethink their vegan lifestyle. now i'm all for helping the planet and humane treatment but I think that meat in the diet is essential for well being. by that i do not mean eat meat with every single meal. but i think 3-5 times a weak minimum you should be eating about 6oz. of either fish or chicken and maybe one serving of red meat as it has every single protein that your body cannot produce on it's own. props to those people who can eat tofu, brown rice, and vegetables for every meal, but in reality to feed the entire world meat products should be used. it's unfortunate, especially as an american, that so many people take this to the extreme and eat several servings of meat with each meal. of course that could lead to a whole other thread so i'll stop here
Well, most vegetables are grown on farms where farmers use pesticides to wipe out huge populations of insects and the fertilizer is from cows who are raised on farms. Also, vegetables require pollination by bees so most farms have a bunch of bee hives in order to keep their plants fertilized. Also rice requires human labor in order to harvest. Aren't these double standards? Not trolling, just trying to understand the logic.
My wife is a vegetarian for health reasons, but I never understood veganism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
