|
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.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
|
On September 22 2012 03:49 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote: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"
Read what I said.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. - if you're unable to distinguish that from "eating meat is supporting animal abuse" then I can't help you.
#1 doesn't matter because my above statement is absolutely true due to the way our markets work.
#2 is about you failing to read my above statement.
#3 is about you failing to understand how supply and demand works. Less demand, less supply. The claim that "Oh, I'm just one person I don't change anything" is ignorant, not proven to be true by history and not supported by economics. It's a stupid claim with the intent of shifting away responsibility.
#4 Once again, read my original statement.
You taking a completely accurate statement, removing half of it and then arguing what a horrible person I am for making it surely makes me a moron.
|
On September 22 2012 03:35 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag 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. 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.
Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion.
Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment.
You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing.
The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
Your comparison to Syria and stuff is highely unethical itself as you equate human and animal suffering, nearly as fitting as the comparison between 8 year old girls and cows already brought in this thread.
|
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.
Illogical.
You cannot buy a tiger skin off of a live tiger. You can buy meat that was not abused. Your analogy is terrible. The person who chooses to abuse is soley responsible for their actions.
I have neither the time, means, nor ability to investigate the origin of every product I purchase and the background of every retailer, manufacturer, and employee of these organizations.
Edit: I quoted the wrong person but I cant fix it on my phone in a reasonable amount of time
|
On September 22 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo 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. You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
|
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.
While logical and consistent you don't take several points of view into account(your first sentence is fallacious as well). I for once had the exact same views you have(I'm vegan nowadays). The difference is that my conscience resonated with the intelligence of these animals whilst your have not(or you chose not to care, valid as well), you see I am not a Cheetah hunting, I am(was) a conscient human being buying a dead animal that was created only for feeding me and lived in a cage, this is not hunting for survival, this is choosing to eat meat cause it tastes awesome.
I have not the same instinctive nature those animals have I have not the presumption to assume that I have any real instinct left. I am not a Cheetah, I am a social being with awareness and conscience of the whole world. All moral is arbitrary you have that right, but for me this is as morally obvious as not fucking a prostitute from human traffick, it just feels sad.
Even though in the end I'd say 80% of my reasons to be a vegan are more related to how the way meat/milk/eggs industry works is too much polluting and how much we eat it, consumerist...reeks of everything I personally despise, feeling guilty every time I ate meat just wasn't cool.
|
On September 22 2012 03:59 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:35 radscorpion9 wrote:On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag 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. 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. Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion. Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment. You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing. The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
"Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?"
Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
|
On September 22 2012 04:14 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:59 AngryMag wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 radscorpion9 wrote:On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag 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. 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. Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion. Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment. You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing. The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in. "Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?" Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
Not as pointless as arguing with a pretentious one. Do vegens realize that their snobby attitude is not doing them any favors?
|
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.
This is incorrect. Nice strawman.
You are (deliberately?) conflating human behaviour with animal behaviour. It is entirely consistent to expect that human beings' ability to reason imparts on us a moral responcibilty not possessed by animals (lacking such an ability), at least in classical philosophy (and the arguements in this thread really haven't developed beyond this).
Psuedo-rationalist are the worst of all as they appeal to their own argumentative subterfugue to appeal to entirely arbitrary views.
|
On September 22 2012 03:49 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:39 U_G_L_Y 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. 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.
I bought a chicken. I increased demand for chicken. Farmers increase supply. I don't choose HOW they increase supply or how they treat their animals.
|
On September 22 2012 04:16 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:14 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:59 AngryMag wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 radscorpion9 wrote:On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag 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. 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. Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion. Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment. You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing. The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in. "Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?" Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it. Not as pointless as arguing with a pretentious one. Do vegens realize that their snobby attitude is not doing them any favors?
You're the one who turned :
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it.
into:
"you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse"
..and continued to call me a moron for it. Now you take your quote again and call me pretentious for it. I'm really, really not sure what you're trying to get across besides that you don't care what anyone besides you writes or says. That's pretentious.
|
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. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
|
On September 22 2012 04:20 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:49 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:39 U_G_L_Y 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. 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. I bought a chicken. I increased demand for chicken. Farmers increase supply. I don't choose HOW they increase supply or how they treat their animals.
It all started with me claiming that "If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it."
If you buy the "happy chicken with a cool life from the farmer next door" you increase demand for those and decrease demand for the one living on the equivalent of a piece of paper for his entire life. That's what I'm going at here. You make a conscious choice with your money to support something or not.
|
On September 22 2012 04:16 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:14 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:59 AngryMag wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 radscorpion9 wrote:On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag 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. 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. Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion. Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment. You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing. The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in. "Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?" Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it. Not as pointless as arguing with a pretentious one. Do vegens realize that their snobby attitude is not doing them any favors?
Could you clarify on why you hold this unfalsifyable opinion that vegan's have a 'snobby attitude'? How is it that you imagine a number of people all having the exact same attitude? Isn't it more that the belief itself is what rattles you? Why else would you make such claims about a phenomena that can only exist in your imagination?
EDIT:
On September 22 2012 04:22 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote: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. ...................... If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You sound like an anti-capitalist in the making 
|
On September 22 2012 04:22 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote: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. ...................... If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh?
One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor.
If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity.
If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
PS: If you know that company Z only employs people who aim to produce child porn in their basement... dingdingding. You're supporting it.
|
On September 22 2012 04:34 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:22 U_G_L_Y wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote: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. ...................... If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly. You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh? One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor. If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity. If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia.
|
On September 22 2012 02:38 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:34 Ayoeme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote:
I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place. although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you. So the arguments which I called out to be horribly wrong are wrong in your opinion. Thanks for agreeing! -_-
Evolution and mind aren't as related to make something the mind comes up with a part of evolution. The existence of mind, as we know it, compared to that of other animals and what not, is a part of evolution, indeed. As it is(was) necessary for the human to survive. What we do with it afterwards evolution has no impact on. For example, the teaching in schools simply remove the evolutionary aspect at all.
That said, you seemed to simply call the extremes to show how the arguments often made by people are wrong. Which indeed they are, as i stated in a wall of text some pages before. Though yours wasn't correct as well, we are often able to understand if something's wrong even if we don't know what is right.
cheers. .__.
|
On September 22 2012 04:39 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:34 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 04:22 U_G_L_Y wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote: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. ...................... If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly. You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh? One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor. If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity. If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat. It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia.
Well, yeah, obviously there has to be a point where you draw the line. "If I eat more beans and onions I will fart more and impact the ozone layer negatively" would be over the top for example. =P
However, that's a whole different level than "If I buy products produced via child labor I support child labor" or "If I buy meat from someone who abuses animals you're supporting animal abuse" which is kinda what this was about.
|
Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you.
+ Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
|
On September 22 2012 04:43 Ayoeme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:38 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:34 Ayoeme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote:
I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place. although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you. So the arguments which I called out to be horribly wrong are wrong in your opinion. Thanks for agreeing! -_- Evolution and mind aren't as related to make something the mind comes up with a part of evolution. The existence of mind, as we know it, compared to that of other animals and what not, is a part of evolution, indeed. As it is(was) necessary for the human to survive. What we do with it afterwards evolution has no impact on. For example, the teaching in schools simply remove the evolutionary aspect at all. That said, you seemed to simply call the extremes to show how the arguments often made by people are wrong. Which indeed they are, as i stated in a wall of text some pages before. Though yours wasn't correct as well, we are often able to understand if something's wrong even if we don't know what is right. cheers. .__.
Oh, now it makes sense. Sorry for being an ass then. I guess you did notice the slight sarcasm while I thought you didn't and were just trying to make a point for the sake of making a point. Welp. Sorry and thanks for clarifying. <3
Edit: Found your walls of text. Even though I don't agree with you on all points they are among the best posts in this thread. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
