On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
On September 21 2012 11:26 Retgery wrote: [quote] What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 11:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:51 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:43 SupLilSon wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:23 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
Because, other than a passing reference to some universal equality of "beings", you and other defenders of veganism fail to provide a good reason to equate humans with animals.
"I can see how it suffers for my pleasure. I don't want other beings to suffer for my pleasure."
That's all the reasoning I need personally. :o ... Where do you disagree? You think it's okay for someone to suffer because of weakness or lesser intelligence?
Anecdotally, I once struggled with obesity. Throughout high school, I toyed around with vegan, low carb, and paleo diets. After a great deal of hard work and careful attention paid to my eating habits, I've found that I am most healthy with a protein heavy, low carb, vegetable rich diet. I give thanks before every meal, not to any God in particular, but to the grace of having the ability to eat that which satiates me and enables my health. I also luckily live in Washington and have a great deal of access to organic and small farm animal products. I've gotten to the point where pleasure is a tiny component of my food choices, so your oversimplistic premises simply do not reflect my reality.
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
But they didn't. A pig did not suffer like a Jew that was murdered in the holocaust. A pig did not have hopes and dreams as well as a complete understanding of the fate that awaited it. Then have to watch its close family is taken or killed in a gas chamber. You comparing a pig to that is disgusting.
We don't care whether a pig has hopes and dreams or suffers if he has to watch other pigs die. Substitute "pig" with "jew" and you have "the moral basis" of the holocaust. That line is way too thin to just let it slide. We don't care if a mother cow feels badly about her child being taken away. I'll throw some examples at you about elephants because those are some I knew where to find them easily:
"Joyce Poole documented an encounter told to her by Colin Francombe on Kuki Gallman's Laikipia Ranch. A ranch herder was out on his own with camels when he came across a family of elephants. The matriarch charged at him and knocked him over with her trunk, breaking one of his legs. In the evening, when he did not return, a search party was sent in a truck to find him. When the party discovered him, he was being guarded by an elephant. The animal charged the truck, so they shot over her and scared her away. The herdsman later told them that when he could not stand up, the elephant used her trunk to lift him under the shade of a tree. She guarded him for the day and would gently touch him with her trunk."
"Elephant researcher Martin Meredith recalls an occurrence in his book about a typical elephant death ritual that was witnessed by Anthony Hall-Martin, a South African biologist who had studied elephants in Addo, South Africa, for over eight years. The entire family of a dead matriarch, including her young calf, were all gently touching her body with their trunks, trying to lift her. The elephant herd were all rumbling loudly. The calf was observed to be weeping and made sounds that sounded like a scream, but then the entire herd fell incredibly silent. They then began to throw leaves and dirt over the body and broke off tree branches to cover her. They spent the next two days quietly standing over her body. They sometimes had to leave to get water or food, but they would always return."
"Occurrences of elephants behaving this way around human beings are common throughout Africa. On many occasions, they have buried dead or sleeping humans or aided them when they were hurt.[21] Meredith also recalls an event told to him by George Adamson, a Kenyan Game Warden, regarding an old Turkana woman who fell asleep under a tree after losing her way home. When she woke up, there was an elephant standing over her, gently touching her. She kept very still because she was very frightened. As other elephants arrived, they began to scream loudly and buried her under branches. She was found the next morning by the local herdsmen, unharmed."
Is that about sadness? Protecting other weaker "animals"? I don't know. I just know that a dog can be a wonderful mother to a cat. I know that a cat that likes me will notice when I'm sad will try to comfort me. Do I consider myself as more empathic than a cat? Yes. That's why I don't want to look away when I see a pig OR a human being OR a cat suffer needlessly. It doesn't boil down to eating meat for me personally, it boils down to unnecessary suffering. It shouldn't be tolerated for any species that can suffer.
I remember a leopard killing an ape, seeing it had a cub and it seemed that it suddenly felt bad about it and started caring. I don't know what it's about. But I can't stand up and say "lol, look, it's just a random thing that's meant to be used for my pleasure".
Oh this thread makes me facepalm, from the comparison between killing animals and minorities (wtf????) to the suspect of chickens surviving years without a head...
Oh and yeah in my opinion we are just another animal, basically a mammal without fur and a bigger, better brain, I honestly think it is pretty funny that some posters deny that notion. If we would indeed be able to make individual decisions based on available information why do we need stuff like anthropology, human psychology, biology? If individuals on a large scale would make rational decisions, behaviour could be exactly foreseen, as there should be always something like a best way. Infact the world does not work this way.
Sometimes it seems that we are smart enough to rationalize stupid behaviour but unable to do the right things...
I don't care if someone tries to eat vegan or whatever, it is the stupid rationalizations behind it, that make me facepalm hard
As a vegetarian my whole life mainly due to religious reasons, I am fairly biased. However, I have come to realize the true ethical reasons why killing animals is cruel. Animals kill each other because they have no way to reason and they have no alternative that humans do. If humans can survive well without putting other animals in horrible living conditions and brutally executing them, why do we feel so compelled to do the opposite?
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
On September 21 2012 11:23 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote: [quote] this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the stupidity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others (HUMAN BEINGS) and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote: [quote] this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Your comparison is invalid, there is no need for "Any other takers" ....
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others (HUMAN BEINGS) and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
Allright. I doubt you or anyone else with your stance will ever do it because it could compromise your views and your attitude but there's usually a point in those discussions where there's no other choice but this one. If you can watch the movie below through the end and still say "I don't give a fuck, animals are supposed to be slaughtered for my food" then just tell any vegan/most veggies who tries to talk to you about this topic that you did just that. They will most likely never bother you again.
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
I never said I was a vegan, nor superior, nor do I wish to denegrate mentally disablled people. I am simply searching for the root cause of why many people have little to no ethical obligation to non-human animals. If you could kindly post a reasonable defence, that doesn't appeal to either reasons (a) and (b) which I posted above. Or if they do then explain why they are sufficient. I assume you would more likely suggest that (b) is the case. Accepting that intelligence is the sole factor in determining ethical obligation, do I have more obligation toward an animal than a human, assuming it were possible to demonstrate that a regularly farmed and eaten animal was more intelligent than the human in question.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
Substitute "animal" in your post with any minority that was treated badly in the past but which we try to treat equally now (take blacks, jews, whoever you want to) and you can be pretty damn sure that someone said the exact same thing about that group during that time.
Now we call that type of thinking barbaric, immoral and unethical. A few million years ago we used to chop another guys head off for trying to live next to us. We still chop other guys heads off for having a different belief or color of their skin but we can say that "anti-racism" is an appreciated concept in the western world. "Anti-specicism" is nothing more or less than extending that chain of thought.
All minorities = human. Thus any minority still > animals. Why are you comparing minorities to animals, that is very degrading.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Sadly, Hitler is the ultimate destination for every internet forum that is slightly related to violence, human rights, and just about any topic actually.
On September 21 2012 12:48 DropBear wrote: How many starving kids in Africa are vegan?
Veganism is only possible from being in a society that allows excess.
Close to 100% of them are vegans, or at best vegetarian. You need to understand more about the nature of meat eating to realize that you have it backwards. Meat farming is absurdly more costly than farming grains, fruits, and vegetables. Eating meat in places of poverty is considered more of a delicacy than an everyday consumption like we are used to in the west. It is several times more inexpensive to harvest grains and vegetables than it is to produce meat and dairy products. I think you are imagining veganism from the point of view of the western world, when you see organic products at the store twice as expensive as non-organic, or when our meat and dairy is subsidized by the government, but broccili and asparagus and strawberries aren't. You might be used to seeing expensive restaurants that offer vegan food that is 50% more expensive than your average sit-down place, or even compare it to going to McDonald's and getting a "meat" burger for $1. It's much different than that in reality.
On September 21 2012 11:36 farvacola wrote: [quote] Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
I never said I was a vegan, nor superior, nor do I wish to denegrate mentally disablled people. I am simply searching for the root cause of why many people have little to no ethical obligation to non-human animals. If you could kindly post a reasonable defence, that doesn't appeal to either reasons (a) and (b) which I posted above. Or if they do then explain why they are sufficient. I assume you would more likely suggest that (b) is the case. Accepting that intelligence is the sole factor in determining ethical obligation, do I have more obligation toward an animal than a human, assuming it were possible to demonstrate that a regularly farmed and eaten animal was more intelligent than the human in question.
Cheers.
Same for you Lombard.
How about I choose C, the option that you failed to give, you dont eat your own. Retarded children are still human and can be interacted with in a human way. If some retarded aliens showed up at out doorstep, I'd think about eating them, depending on what weapons they have and how they taste.
You have some really good arguments here, which is a first for a vegan by my book
I am generally ill disposed against vegans because most view it as a fad.
I have no notion of nutrition whatsoever and i dont really care that much about my nutrition to look into it, so i have nothing to offer in this part of the discussion.
Ethically, i believe that unless they were consumed as meat or dairy products, most animals would have a very low population, similar to endangered species. Therefore, i believe that a life on the premise of slaughter is still better than no life at all. If everyone turned vegan we would see animal's population thin down to almost nothing, since why would anyone have farms if he can;t use the animals for food. In conclusion veganism would kill many more animals than it would save due to not eating them.
The enviromental part is something i don't agree at all. Animals definetely produce more CO2 and methane. however their effect on global warming is still something scientists dispute. Methane and CO2 are produced from other sources heavily, therefore it is unclear how much livestock contributes to this. Also as a sidenote we still don;t know just how much CO2 we need in the atmosphere for the greenhouse effect to be in the best stage, so for all we know maybe this co2 cows make is needed for the world to survive. In addition since most vegans i know are like fashion victims and just follow a fad after another, every single vegan i know owns a pet. 1 pet is worse for the environment than 10 farm animals, given that pets actually consume meat products aswell. Therefore it is highly hypocritical when a vegan talks about environmental reasons while he owns a pet and feeds it meat...
Something you did not include is taste, where i think veganism takes its biggest hit.
All i have to say in the end is that everyone should eat whatever they like. However spewing out hatred and declaring everywhere you go that you are a vegan is fucking stupid. I dont care what people do with their body, and when i BBQ i always toss some mushrooms for the vegan girls. however i swear if i get anyone else to tell me "how do you eat that?" i am gonna slap him so hard with my meat-eating hands...
On a lighter note, some thousand years back, vegans were just the village loosers :D
Hunting and killing animals is something we have in our blood, why try to get rid of it so hastily.
On September 21 2012 12:48 DropBear wrote: How many starving kids in Africa are vegan?
Veganism is only possible from being in a society that allows excess.
Close to 100% of them are vegans, or at best vegetarian. You need to understand more about the nature of meat eating to realize that you have it backwards. Meat farming is absurdly more costly than farming grains, fruits, and vegetables. Eating meat in places of poverty is considered more of a delicacy than an everyday consumption like we are used to in the west. It is several times more inexpensive to harvest grains and vegetables than it is to produce meat and dairy products. I think you are imagining veganism from the point of view of the western world, when you see organic products at the store twice as expensive as non-organic, or when our meat and dairy is subsidized by the government, but broccili and asparagus and strawberries aren't. You might be used to seeing expensive restaurants that offer vegan food that is 50% more expensive than your average sit-down place, or even compare it to going to McDonald's and getting a "meat" burger for $1. It's much different than that in reality.
You know growing foods with pesticides and herbicides and hormones produces many times the food compared to the "pure" foods vegans eat right. No starving kid in Africa can afford to be a vegan.
On September 21 2012 11:36 farvacola wrote: [quote] Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others (HUMAN BEINGS) and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
Allright. I doubt you or anyone else with your stance will ever do it because it could compromise your views and your attitude but there's usually a point in those discussions where there's no other choice but this one. If you can watch the movie below through the end and still say "I don't give a fuck, animals are supposed to be slaughtered for my food" then just tell any vegan/most veggies who tries to talk to you about this topic that you did just that. They will most likely never bother you again.
We get it you love animals and wouldn't hurt them.
Stop trying to convert us and go about your life while we lead ours the way we like it.
And no, i don't have to watch a militant video just to get you off my back. being a vegan doesn't give you the right to get on your high horse and insult people or tell them what to do. Live and let live. wanting people to be like you only reveals your insecurities.
EPT
