|
On September 22 2012 01:34 Monsen wrote:
I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself-
The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
Only relevant if you show that eating meat is morally wrong.
|
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
|
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
|
On September 21 2012 23:55 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 23:51 Badgesc wrote:On September 21 2012 23:48 Feartheguru wrote:On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote:
It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it. This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious. Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol. Yes, there is http://www.vegetarianvegan.com/Vegan_Vs_Vegetarian.htmlBy the way, there is a lot of criticism on that study saying that it is biased and flawed. Also, many studies show the disadvantages of a grain/bean diet. I'm doing Paleo right now : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=261918 I wasn't asking if there is a difference, I was sarcastically asking if he knew the difference. Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 23:53 tomatriedes wrote:On September 21 2012 23:48 Feartheguru wrote:On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote:
It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it. This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious. Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol. I know there is a difference. However even though I was only a vegetarian I got a lot of shit from self-righteous people. I imagine for vegans it's even worse, so my post is pretty relevant. Edit- If you like I'll go back to edit my post to say vegetarian/vegan but, yeah, you are being kinda dumb lol. Sorry you didn't understand the sarcasm, thought it was dumbed down enough that even you could figure it out. Not really surprised though lol.
That was sarcasm to you? You actually thought you were being funny then? Wow, you are lame.
|
On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Damn, all those people who buy products from China must be supporting sweatshops. Better notify all those Apple product owners that they're responsible for the suicides of Foxconn workers.
|
On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
|
Thanks for the post, but I will stick to my delicious meats. I would be living a miserable life if I couldn't enjoy a nice steak every so often, or some hamburgers, or eggs for breakfast, or milk on my cereal (seriously I never understood the no milk thing but w/e).
|
On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Exactly, its like saying "I buy ivory artifacts and tiger skin products, but I am not responsible for the poaching and extinction that is happening in order to support my buying habits."
I am not trying to judge non-vegans/non-vegetarians here, and I usually hate to get into this debate because (like with most other debates), its impossible for either side to convince the other about the advantages/flaws of their viewpoints. However I just feel like calling out some really fallacious arguments that make no sense.
|
On September 22 2012 03:16 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. Exactly, its like saying "I buy ivory artifacts and tiger skin products, but I am not responsible for the poaching and extinction that is happening in order to support my buying habits." I am not trying to judge non-vegans/non-vegetarians here, and I usually hate to get into this debate because (like with most other debates), its impossible for either side to convince the other about the advantages/flaws of their viewpoints. However I just feel like calling out some really fallacious arguments that make no sense.
also not true, you compare supporting a criminal act (poaching) which is illegal and criminal pretty much everywhere with behaviour that may or may not be unethical, basically you compare apples and oranges.
If you want to live without the inherent unethicness of our system, have fun with the other guy in the woods.
|
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
|
On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on. If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
Are you honestly, honestly saying "By buying a product from someone you're NOT supporting him"? I'm amazed at your experience when it comes to living in a forest but last time I checked the market regulates itself based on demand and supply. If you buy something you create demand. If you create demand you're responsible for it. Once again, it's not rocket science.
Like.. seriously?
On September 22 2012 03:09 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. Damn, all those people who buy products from China must be supporting sweatshops. Better notify all those Apple product owners that they're responsible for the suicides of Foxconn workers.
Once more. Very slowly. If you buy a product from a slave driver, you support slavery. You as the customer chose with your money what you do or don't support.
How can you be oblivious to such a damn basic and simple fact about how markets operate? If the majority of people decide that they do NOT want to buy meat from places where animals are treated like shit the business has to choose between going bankrupt or adjusting their methods (aka supply) based on what the consumer wants to buy (aka demand). It's. Not. Rocket. Science.
|
On September 21 2012 17:46 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 17:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:On September 21 2012 16:47 StayPhrosty wrote:On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote:
I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?) If i remember correctly, this has been previously discussed, but I'll try to add what I got out of it. Assuming you already understand the terrible conditions of animals in factory farms, it should be quite obvious that these methods are unethical and inhumane. To have an animal be tortured and put through extreme agony for most of it's life just for lower prices seems quite wrong to a lot of people. This being said, assuming perfect conditions I understand that a lot of vegans/vegetarians would rather not kill an animal just to be eaten when they have the choice of just eating fruits/veggies/legumes/etc. instead. I would think the idea of raising a living being just for the purpose of eating it is not something they agree with. To me personally I would not say such a thing is wrong, but I can still see a benefit to changing your lifestyle so that you truly understand what nutrients goes into and out of your body to maintain weight, health, etc. Choosing one style or diet over another I think is perhaps a much more nuanced debate, and one that I think needs more research. I appreciate the reply, and I know you're already aware of this because you seem like a smart dude, but you didn't answer either of my questions. You say that killing animals is not something that vegans "agree with." And you said a few lines before that that the inhumane conditions in factory farming "seem quite wrong." Niether of those, however, constitute legitimately reasoned responses. What I would like to hear from a vegan/vegetarian is why they categorically disagree with killing animals. Why is it wrong? And the corollary question is: granting that factory farming is wrong, why does that mean I ought to give up consuming any animal products whatsoever? How does that follow? im headed to bed after this, but ill try and give you an answer really quickly. i tried to write a sentence to calrify like 4 times but deleted it each time because i'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "legitimately reasoned responses". I suppose the best i can do is to say that they value the life of an animal more than they value their appetite for meat.
I'll try to be a little more clear about what I mean by "legitimately reasoned."
My original question was "Why is it wrong to kill animals?" Your response, if I am following you correctly is that vegetarians think it is wrong to kill animals because they value an animal's life more than they value their appetite for meat. OK. I'll grant you that formula: killing animals is wrong for x person if x person values the life of animals more than his or her appetite for meat.
I don't value the life of an animal more than I value my appetite for meat. Is that wrong? Why? All we've really done at this point in the conversation is defer the question of "why is it wrong to kill an animal?" to "why is it wrong to value an animal's life less than an appetite for meat?" The question still remains.
I'm not sure what else to say really. relating it to myself, i would say that if 1 person had to die to save 1000 people's lives then i would let that 1 die. if i had the choice, though, to kill a person for fun or not to kill that person, i would chose not to, because i believe that person has the right to live a happy life how they chose to. similarly, i would kill an animal if i had to because my family were starving and i had no other choice. then they would continue by saying they, given the choice, they would let and animal live rather than killing it for fun.
Here we have a different set of moral criteria in play. Now you seem to be elaborating on your previous point about valuing life. Now you seem to be suggesting that it is the "necessity" of the act that determines whether or not it is right. So the second formula could be stated as follows: "If killing an animal is necessary for survival, then killing an animal is morally acceptable. If, however, killing an animal is not necessary for survival, then killing an animal is morally unacceptable."
This second point is even more problematic than the first, though. First of all, you're selecting an arbitrary point (i.e. the threshold of survival) as "necessary." My first question would be "Why is survival necessary? (An interesting corollary to this question is why your survival ought to trump the survival of the animal you have to consume in order to survive).
But even leaving aside the impossibility of demonstrating that survival is somehow intrinsically "necessary," you have the impossibility of definining "necessary to survival." Our civilization would literally collapse overnight if we stopped doing everything that was not either a) absolutely necessary to survival or b) unable to result in the death of an animal.Clearing land for a new construction is not necessary for survival and it certainly results in the deaths of animals, as does mining natural resources. Having electricity is not necessary for survival, but the maintenance of power on a national scale results in the death of animals. Think of all the squirrels that get offed by power lines! Operating automobiles is not necessary for survival, and pollution is doing a goddamn number on animal life worldwide. Wearing clothes is not necessary for survival in many climates, but the textile industry kills animals.
What would the world look like if human beings had never done anything that unnecessarily endangered animal lives? If we had subsisted in perfect equality with our brother and sister animals? I'll give you a hint: you and I wouldn't be having this conversation on the internet right now.
All of this isn't a logical argument against your criteria of necessity, of course. But I am trying to suggest to you that you don't really believe in that argument because you act in no way consistent with it. What I would like for you to do is to unpack it a little more. What factors really govern for you when it is right to kill an animal? Or does it really all just boil down to your first formulation, i.e. that you value the life of an animal more than you do eating meat?
as for the factory farming conditions, i would ask you, do they seem right? honestly. i dont personally believe we cant eat meat at all, but it seems obvious that living conditions as well as milk/egg etc. extraction procedures and euthanasia practices all need to be improved. i find torture for no other purpose than convenience to be unacceptable, plain and simple.
I have granted that factory farming conditions are wrong.
as for your last bit, i would say that i disagree that vegans should force all other people not to eat meat, as i believe it should be every persons own choice, but i would say that it is quite a logical step to attempt to convince your friends and family of something that you are so passionate about. pushing it on other people may not be sensible, but another poster recently talked a bit about how painful it is seeing your loved ones suffer from unhealthy lifestyles after you have learned so much about them yourself. i cant argue for veganism over other healthy lifestyles, but i can say that many people live unhealthily simply due to ignorance, so it should be no surprise that people are attempting to spread what they believe to be good information on living a healthy lifestyle.
Agreed. There are a lot of people emotionally invested in veganism, which I am not. But what I'm interested in are the alleged ethical reasons for not eating meat.
|
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote:
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
Not only that -- if your aim is actually to get people to change their minds, this is probably the worst way to approach it. Calling people immoral or stupid isn't going to attract them to your cause 
|
On September 22 2012 03:20 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:16 Piledriver wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. Exactly, its like saying "I buy ivory artifacts and tiger skin products, but I am not responsible for the poaching and extinction that is happening in order to support my buying habits." I am not trying to judge non-vegans/non-vegetarians here, and I usually hate to get into this debate because (like with most other debates), its impossible for either side to convince the other about the advantages/flaws of their viewpoints. However I just feel like calling out some really fallacious arguments that make no sense. also not true, you compare supporting a criminal act (poaching) which is illegal and criminal pretty much everywhere with behaviour that may or may not be unethical, basically you compare apples and oranges. If you want to live without the inherent unethicness of our system, have fun with the other guy in the woods.
No, I'm just comparing the underlying supply and demand mechanism in both the instances.
And your argument is utter bullshit. I don't have to go and live in the woods - its enough if I am aware of things, and try to make changes given a set of constraints . If anything, more people need to gain awareness of the situation that is being created as an indirect consequence of their purchasing habits, and then they will act as drivers to force companies to change their sourcing and manufacturing practices.
For the last time, I don't think meat eating is wrong. I just think the way meat is mass produced today like a factory line to satisfy the consumer demand is wrong.
|
Everyone should see for themselves how animals are raised treated and killed in a factory like envoirentment and then choose. Just educated yourself a little bit and see where milk comes from for example. the cows have to get in there lifespan 3 to 5 times pregnant to give milk in the end give like 50 (!) liters a day to be "economically useful"
if you dont want to educate yourself also fine. i think its in the responsibility of oneself to decide what to do and what not.
if you decide to go vegan its REALLY hard.
you have to do alot of research. for example like in orange juice there is a pig inside in the form of gelatin (pig skin and bones) and they dont even have to say that on the boxes.
i try but its hard.
the best way i found dont eat processed food. if you want potato chips peel a potato cut it really thin and but it in the oven.
|
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote:
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
|
On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on. If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
edit: lol I should have left it to r.evo. Oh well I felt compelled to add in my version
|
On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Evidently it is. I am not responsible for other peoples' actions. If I buy shoes made in China, I am not responsible for their economic policy. I am not responsible for the factory owner cheating on his wife. I am not responsible for the factory workers having a broken AC unit. I am not responsible for the campaign contribution that the department store made to a political campaign that has values I do not agree with.
A woman who is raped in a revealing dress does not bear moral responsibility for rape. I am not responsible for animal abuse because the farmer who killed my chicken nugget threw the bird against a brick wall.
We all have choices.
|
On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote:
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it. What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ. Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
You are a moron because you say plainly that I am responsible for animal abuse because I eat meat, which is wrong on so many levels that it shouldn't need to be explained to you.
1. Do you know who I am or where I get my meat from? No
2. Considering #1 you still blindly make the assumption that I must be getting it from a source that abuses animals
3. Even if 2 was true (which you dont know) then me not buying it does not stop it from happening, the demand is still there and the process will still continue.
4. You are ignorantly connecting the 2 in such a fantastical way as to make us look like we are some kind of demonic evil "If you saw someone torture an animal and then offer the meat to you , you would eat it, that's what your doing, blah blah blha"
|
On September 22 2012 03:39 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. Evidently it is. I am not responsible for other peoples' actions. If I buy shoes made in China, I am not responsible for their economic policy. I am not responsible for the factory owner cheating on his wife. I am not responsible for the factory workers having a broken AC unit. I am not responsible for the campaign contribution that the department store made to a political campaign that has values I do not agree with. A woman who is raped in a revealing dress does not bear moral responsibility for rape. I am not responsible for animal abuse because the farmer who killed my chicken nugget threw the bird against a brick wall. We all have choices.
Allright.
-Woman wears revealing dress. Gets raped. Where did someone buy something from someone else?
-Guy forces his child to make shoes. You buy that shoe. You support the guy who forces his child to make shoes.
-Farmer throws chicken against wall. You buy chicken from that farmer. You support his methods. You support throwing chicken against walls.
-You buy from McDonalds and not from Burger King. You support McDonalds, not Burger King.
You choose where your money goes. Your money supports a certain product which in return supports the way the product was made. It's your money. You're responsible for what you do with it. If you think someone does something you don't want to support, you don't buy his product. By buying his product you support his methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
