|
On the subject of animal morality:
Lets say a cat needlessly kills a mouse just for sport and doesn't even eat him/her. What does this prove? I think is pointless to argue about morals of other animals. We're not going to convince them to live more morally, nor does any immorality on their part excuse our own.
Note: I do not call this murder. The cat doesn't have a reasonable choice not to kill for his or her survival. In that sense, I don't think it is comparable.
For the record, while I do believe that humans killing animals needlessly is comparable to murder, but I generally refrain from calling it that. I do not call the humans that do so murders. Murder has cultural connotations and it's a tricky thing to define. I don't look at my friends and family (mostly all non-vegans) as "murderers."
|
On June 04 2011 02:58 travis wrote:Show nested quote +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?
It's a holier-than-thou approach, and for the sake of convincing non-believers in their eating choices, it will most likely fail.
|
living in a cage, chewed by lion. animals kill animals. which is good or bad depending on you. an issue i have is people who say its wrong, but don't act. if meat is murder, do something about it. eating vegetables isn't really the strongest response. invest all your money, all your effort, all your resources to free animals from these farms, burn them down, blow them up. you see a hamburger in someones hand, take a baseball bat to their knees.
if meat is murder, and you stand by while it happens. you need some new beliefs
|
Plants don't want to die just as much as animals. It's easy to see the pain and suffering of animals when they're slaughtered for meat because they have faces, but it's not easy to see the pain and suffering of plants! They can respond to touch and know when parts have been cut off and respond to that in a variety of ways, some of which we don't even understand yet. They scream too, we just can't hear it. Why are you ignoring the rights of plants, the lowest rung of the food chain and what ecosystems and societies are built upon?
In all seriousness, this moral debate is dumb. To even argue about the morality of this is ridiculous when considering ecology and historical evidence. Even today there are people that depend on meat to survive simply because their home environment is unsuitable for agriculture; are you going to tell the Inuit hunter and Mongol herder not to eat meat because some fellow living in America with access to more food than other people can imagine has the luxury of nothing to do but think of a moral issue with it? Come to think of it, we humans and our ancestors have hunted and eaten meat for tens of thousands of years and never had a moral issue with it because it was essential to their survival, and possibly even essential to our presence as a species. It's a truth that when people today argue all the things about meat being unsustainable as well, it's only valid when describing factory farming and other mass production schemers. Meat can be sustainable and in terms of land use efficiency (maximum number of people fed), a diet integrating some meat and dairy is actually superior to a full vegan diet. I have nothing against veganism/vegetarians and I respect the choices of people that are, but I do have a problem with morality being used to argue for it because it's a luxury. It's never said how many of the people arguing for veganism are the ones with access to all the food from industrial agriculture, nor is it even said that vegan diets are in many ways unsuitable for infants and children. It's ridiculous to make a moral argument for or against veganism/vegetarianism period and even more foolish on a social/scientific basis when you don't know all the details and exceptions.
|
On June 04 2011 03:01 garlicface wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:58 travis wrote: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? It's a holier-than-thou approach, and for the sake of convincing non-believers in their eating choices, it will most likely fail.
Maybe he is just interested in saying what he thinks is the truth. As for "most likely failing in convincing...", isn't that the case for any argument he presents?
|
On June 04 2011 03:00 f ync wrote:
On the subject of animal morality:
Lets say a cat needlessly kills a mouse just for sport and doesn't even eat him/her. What does this prove? I think is pointless to argue about morals of other animals. We're not going to convince them to live more morally, nor does any immorality on their part excuse our own.
Note: I do not call this murder. The cat doesn't have a reasonable choice not to kill for his or her survival. In that sense, I don't think it is comparable.
well lets get philosophical for a minute.
1.) how do you know it doesn't
2.) how you do know we do?
3.) what is "reasonable choice"
4.) why would some cats kill an animal like a mouse while other cats do not? how is this different than the differences in humans?
you don't really need to reply if you don't want to. not wanting to would be entirely understandable. but I think it is a good topic for thought.
|
OP's "answers" to those questions addressed in the OP are trivial at best. One analogy, opinion, and excuse after another to avoid really answering the question.
The best answers are the clear and concise ones; the fact that the OP has to write 5 paragraphs to address a simple questions exposes the OP's attempt to avoid really answering "loaded" albeit striking questions anti-vegan people ask.
It is my opinion that vehement vegans deserve a massive facepalm; their "logic", no, their warped reasoning, are riddled with paradoxes and hypocrisies.
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)?
|
On June 04 2011 03:02 albis wrote:
living in a cage, chewed by lion. animals kill animals. which is good or bad depending on you. an issue i have is people who say its wrong, but don't act. if meat is murder, do something about it. eating vegetables isn't really the strongest response. invest all your money, all your effort, all your resources to free animals from these farms, burn them down, blow them up. you see a hamburger in someones hand, take a baseball bat to their knees.
if meat is murder, and you stand by while it happens. you need some new beliefs
I don't agree with this at all. I also don't want to be represented as intolerable of vegans and vegetarians in my earlier posts - sorry if that's how I came off.
Conscious decisions to exclude the purchases of meat and other animal products, by a group of people, does make a difference. Reduced demand.
The most valuable initiative people can make is actually by the current consumers of meat. Buy your meat from reliable, sustainable sources. Pay the extra few dollars if that's what it costs you. We can at least hope to reduce the number of shitty meat factories in America if enough people start and continue to buy "protected" meat.
It's still not something a vegan would agree with, but it's a good compromise to hopefully saving a lot of animals.
+ Should just add that my meat is sourced by sustainable farmers in Canada. The overwhelming number of meat factories, however, are in America.
|
On June 04 2011 02:52 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:47 Enervate wrote: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?
I haven't said anything in favor of or against veganism or animal welfare. Ad hominems are always welcome though. I only pointed out that the word murder is misleading to use in the context of killing animals for food.
It's misleading because murder is a heinous crime, and this connotation permeates through all definitions of the word. An animal is also not referred to as "someone". I don't particularly like it when people purposely misuse language for self-serving reasons. It's not that I let language be constricted. I let diction be meaningful.
|
well I'll try to use best words to describe what I think not to be looked like a troll or to offend someone.
Many of my friends are vegetarians, so when we have lunch together in the college's cafeteria. I tend to go with them and it vegetarian foods. At first I was ok but then all the stuff was so "bad" that I can't eat anymore. I mean I always thought that vegan = vegetables and stuff like that. But here there are more than that. That comes across the real vegan. It's like they're trying to be normal like normal food with "steak-alike" (fake steak with vegetables). Well it's not the point of vegerian anymore, it's eating for your "belief" and still yearn for the "taste" of the real food. What's the point of vegan anyways?
Edit: To the "belief" thing with animal cruelty. I do hate that, I must admit. I'm like animal person. I even loved my cat more than my GF (please dont make fun of that). But our world is a cruel world. There are hunting animals who live from eating another kinds that are weaker. We are stronger and we have to eat to live so eating foods like Pork, Rind or Chicken. But I always avoid other foods like bunnies, wild boars, birds or something like that.
If you have any things to discuss to my point. Please be contructive, not like "stfu".
|
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.
Did anyone ever give you a reason as to why it is ok to kill an animal but wrong to kill a human? I mean, did you ever see a plant? Or an animal? Ever considered the difference?
Really, why do all these meat eaters go into vegetarian threads and say stupid things. Makes me ashamed to be a meat eater.
On June 04 2011 02:58 Sated wrote:
If everyone in the world was a vegan then animals like cows would no longer be bred at all and, considering how stupid and incapable of defending themselves they are, would probably become extinct. Isn't it better to give them a chance to exist, even if they will end up being slaughtered, than for them not to exist at all?
TL;DR: Vegans want to make cows et. al. extinct and that's just wrong.
The ancestor of the domesticated cow is already extinct.
Have you ever seen a milk cow. It's an aberration. Of course they want it to go extinct. It's cruel to want them alive.
Do you think it is wrong to let inbred dogs that suffer from their skull being too small for their brain to go extinct? For dogs that can't breathe without pain to get extinct? Especially as many of these dogs can't reproduce without human help. Is it cruel and wrong? Really silly argument here. Ever saw a factory farm chicken. Didn't you want that chickens were genetically more endowed than such a specimen?
On June 04 2011 03:04 Ig wrote:
Plants don't want to die just as much as animals. It's easy to see the pain and suffering of animals when they're slaughtered for meat because they have faces, but it's not easy to see the pain and suffering of plants! They can respond to touch and know when parts have been cut off and respond to that in a variety of ways, some of which we don't even understand yet. They scream too, we just can't hear it. Why are you ignoring the rights of plants, the lowest rung of the food chain and what ecosystems and societies are built upon?
Maybe you should stop anthropomorphizing plants. Plants aren't animals. They don't have a will or a desire. They can't suffer and they don't feel pain.
Their response to touch isn't anything like that of mammals. They don't have a central nervous system. It's like saying a computer suffers pain because it can respond to touch. It's silly.
And even if you weren't factually wrong, your argument is still a fallacy as it is an issue of less pain. Even if plants felt pain like mammals, from a pain argument it would still be better to eat plants. And one has to eat. Do you really thing vegetarians would starve themselves to death if plants didn't exist?
We meat eaters shouldn't be so insecure and attack their position if we don't even understand their arguments or the fact behind them.
|
Firstly, im a meat eater. However I do know that keeping pets of any kind, particularly carnivorous ones, are worse for the environment than having a 4x4. Keeping such lumbering great stupid animals as cows and sheep for the sake of their meat is even worse (and im not just talking methane, but food supplements, grass usage and fertilizers etc).
Vegans clearly have the winning argument here, but I would like to see us branch into eating insects (because they are high protein, zero fat (on some), tasty and extremely easy to breed cheaply) as well as vegetables rather than not eating any animals full stop. I just think its bad the way vegans go about it, saying its "murder" etc, because hyperbole loses you respect quicker than anything else. It's pretty much the law of the wild, but no we don't have to eat animals. I just loves me a juicy steak.
|
|
|
On June 04 2011 03:04 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 03:01 garlicface wrote:On June 04 2011 02:58 travis wrote: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? It's a holier-than-thou approach, and for the sake of convincing non-believers in their eating choices, it will most likely fail. Maybe he is just interested in saying what he thinks is the truth. As for "most likely failing in convincing...", isn't that the case for any argument he presents?
From the OP, yes. If you're trying to connect to someone, don't talk down to them. Speak to them on the same level. I find the OP's tone incredibly condescending.
My friend, who is vegetarian, has done a much better job of convincing me to eat more vegetarian. He's level-headed about it, and doesn't distinguish himself as better than non-vegetarians. In my opinion, it's a more effective approach, and it garners more respect from more people.
|
Dear OP: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=229315¤tpage=7#124
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
|
On June 04 2011 03:11 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +The ancestor of the domesticated cow is already extinct.
Have you ever seen a milk cow. It's an aberration. Of course they want it to go extinct. It's cruel to want them alive.
Do you think it is wrong to let inbred dogs that suffer from their skull being too small for their brain to go extinct? For dogs that can't breathe without pain to get extinct? Especially as many of these dogs can't reproduce without human help. Is it cruel and wrong? Really silly argument here. Ever saw a factory farm chicken. Didn't you want that chickens were genetically more endowed than such a specimen? Presumably, based on this, you believe that it's cruel to let disabled humans live since they're just going to suffer too much compared to a "normal" human. Well played...
It's cruel to mass produce human with genetic defects. If you think that means to exterminate and murder them (as they are humans) go along. See you in a mental hospital soon as that is where you belong if you really believe the arguments you make.
You are an idiot and you should never presume anything else in your life. Well played, idiot.
|
On June 04 2011 03:08 Enervate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 02:52 travis wrote:On June 04 2011 02:47 Enervate wrote: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? I haven't said anything in favor of or against veganism or animal welfare. Ad hominems are always welcome though. I only pointed out that the word murder is misleading to use in the context of killing animals for food.
you actually didn't say that until now.
It's misleading because murder is a heinous crime, and this connotation permeates through all definitions of the word. An animal is also not referred to as "someone". I don't particularly like it when people purposely misuse language for self-serving reasons. It's not that I let language be constricted. I let diction be meaningful.
I think an animal absolutely is someone. I think it's old-timey, restricted thinking, that leads people to think that only a human is "one". I also think it's old-timey, restricted thinking that leads to all those definitions of murder.
So if you want to argue that by definition "someone" only refers to persons I will have to concede, but I think that the definition is just lagging behind reality.
|
On June 04 2011 03:15 Hekisui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 03:11 Sated wrote:The ancestor of the domesticated cow is already extinct.
Have you ever seen a milk cow. It's an aberration. Of course they want it to go extinct. It's cruel to want them alive.
Do you think it is wrong to let inbred dogs that suffer from their skull being too small for their brain to go extinct? For dogs that can't breathe without pain to get extinct? Especially as many of these dogs can't reproduce without human help. Is it cruel and wrong? Really silly argument here. Ever saw a factory farm chicken. Didn't you want that chickens were genetically more endowed than such a specimen? Presumably, based on this, you believe that it's cruel to let disabled humans live since they're just going to suffer too much compared to a "normal" human. Well played... It's cruel to mass produce human with genetic defects. If you think that means to exterminate and murder them (as they are humans) go along. See you in a mental hospital soon as that is where you belong if you really believe the arguments you make. You are an idiot and you should never presume anything else in your life. Well played, idiot.
Relax bro.
u gotta skate
|
On June 04 2011 03:15 Ig wrote:Dear OP: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=229315¤tpage=7#124Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
|
On June 04 2011 03:19 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 03:15 Ig wrote:Dear OP: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=229315¤tpage=7#124Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do. Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury". imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
