|
On September 22 2012 14:37 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote:True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things. About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to. As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours.  I do respect people efforts (hence the "lol"), but I think most peoples efforts are misguided. For example, the whole "humane slaughter" and "happy cow" thing is so crazy to me. I understand why people go there, but I disagree. I am tired and need to go to sleep now, good talking to you!
Have to agree 150% that the humane slaughter and happy cow thing are pretty crazy
|
On September 21 2012 17:45 Funnytoss wrote:
The thing is, Danglars that you are generalizing, even if you recognize that it isn't enough of a sample size. You've got a tiny subsection of vegans in that area of southern California, and you don't like their image. But you're using that distasteful image to paint a narrative about vegans. That includes those in the United States, and in Taiwan, and everywhere else. Perhaps it is not that they have to change their image (though I'm sure that could help), but that you could acknowledge your image isn't really representative enough to actually mean anything. I can understand if you get turned off by how some of them behave, and that's fair. But please don't block yourself off to whether or not the message is reasonable or makes sense, because it's pretty unnecessarily dismissive of the significant number of vegans and vegetarians who behave otherwise. The world is a large place.
Yeah so, I read the OP. Is this representative of the movement? Or is the OP directly off base. I don't see this big retaliation amongst all the pages here of vegans saying:
* I'm not into this climate change activism, I just [[Reason X]] chose veganism.
* Really, I don't get all these people that say they're making big changes one vegan at a time!
Ethical and Environmental compose 66% of what OP is discussing. Not a personal choice for benefits (Healthy), but generalizable to global topics. And who's to say that someone making life choices in global concerns won't be advocates for these in their personal speech aka to use these as a platform for advocacy in conversations? It basically writes itself. Maybe Taiwan has a peaceful vegan community and maybe they're the atypical one sitting out there in stark contrast. There's a lot of unknowns there.
This is what I want to discuss. The impact of meat production and consumption on the human body and the environment.
Well, what I hear weekly or biweekly is basically this discussion, enthusiastically started by vegans in the supermarket, community, and restaurant.
|
People set the standards of livestock way to high imo... I mean the "greens" you're eating are living organisms too and yet they're sprayed with poison and grown to sizes they simply shouldn't be. Maybe we should start protecting the humane treatment of plants.
Obviously I'm being sarcastic but it's not like there is much point to saying "let's grow chickens, make them live a happy life, then kill them"... I'm all for stopping torture, but to expect everything to go back to the farm (where it actually is a brutal sometimes terrible thing with equpiment that's outdated) is just unrealistic.
|
On September 22 2012 14:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
People set the standards of livestock way to high imo... I mean the "greens" you're eating are living organisms too and yet they're sprayed with poison and grown to sizes they simply shouldn't be. Maybe we should start protecting the humane treatment of plants.
Obviously I'm being sarcastic but it's not like there is much point to saying "let's grow chickens, make them live a happy life, then kill them"... I'm all for stopping torture, but to expect everything to go back to the farm (where it actually is a brutal sometimes terrible thing with equpiment that's outdated) is just unrealistic.
But perhaps there is a point, when the alternative (factory farming) entails chickens growing up covered in their own excrement, eating ground up dead diseased chickens mixed with their corn, so fat they can't take a step without collapsing, etc.
I'm not a vegan, nor a vegetarian, but I do my best to never eat factory farmed (a.k.a. most) meat. For a more in depth look at the food industry, see Food, Inc.
|
On September 22 2012 14:26 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 13:25 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 12:50 StayPhrosty wrote:On September 22 2012 12:17 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 11:59 StayPhrosty wrote:On September 22 2012 09:23 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 09:06 BlueBird. wrote:On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)? I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs. No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated. So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all. It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated? I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together. I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced. Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against. Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness. Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers. You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother? Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception? In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc. You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future. The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue. Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally. I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception. I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine. In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant. Okay, thanks for hearing me out. I wonder, perhaps if you read this and then reread my post you might get a little insight into what i was saying. It's interesting to me that you believe life begins as conception, as in, the instant a sperm touches an egg, life begins. To me, a sperm is just as alive as a zygote (what first forms when sperm and egg meet), though a sperm has a short lifespan, and a zygote does not. I do not feel bad when a sperm dies, just as I do not feel bad when a zygote dies, because ia zygote is honestly only a few cell divisions above a sperm. Sure, a zygote unhindered will form a human, but so will sperm when they're near eggs. The act of touching to me is not quite so significant. I see the decision not to create life as being just the same as killing life before it fully develops. Because, is not the act of finding a partner to have sex with, just as important as the actual act of sex? You cannot form a baby without a sperm and an egg, and in most cases this means two people finding each other and having sex. So would it not be correct to say that if we were (hypothetically) to prevent everyone from having sex on a single day (say, by forcing them to use a condom), that we were killing every baby that would have been made that day otherwise? We would be actively stopping a thing which would naturally happen with human beings which would lead to more human life. So what about a single person? To me the idea of babies not being made is less important than the discontinuation of our species if we all use condoms every time. The result of these masses of people using condoms means potential children are not formed. This is also the result of masses of people getting abortions, more potential children are not formed. Another point would be to say that the quality of one's life is inherently related to the need for one's life. If a pet dog has an inoperable tumor and is in pain, a vet will put it down. I see this as kindness, as the dog had little to no quality left to the remainder of it's life. If a child is in a coma and will never wake and are slowly dieing while the family suffers (can't put food on the table) from medical bills, I would say it would be right for the parents to decide to 'unplug' the equipment keeping them alive and let them die. To me it then follows that if, say, a 16 year old girl living on the street is raped, I would call it kindness to let her make the choice to have an abortion or not. No, I certainly cannot make the decision for her, but if she is in a proper state of mind and is fully aware of the consequences of her actions, I believe she has the right to make her own decision. This is assuming she has received proper consultation, and that she feels that she does not currently posses the ability to raise a child with a quality of life worth living. Perhaps this child would've been born, and she would've gone back on the street and abused substances, and the child would've lived a short life in pain and misery, unloved, and then died. Personally I believe it would be better if such a child were not brought into this world in the first place. Obviously this is an extreme situation, but the point is that such things can happen, and that if the choice is denied to women legally, they often go through other methods which can actually kill the mother as well. Obviously there needs to be improvements to the current system, but this is true of many aspects of our lives. We need to work to create support systems and ensure that the people making these decisions are not doing so uninformed, etc. Perhaps in the future we will develop a way to incubate a human egg all the way into a full grown baby, and perhaps there will be a sort of adoption system with enough checks and balances that it actually creates a loving home and a proper childhood experience. In this case, it would be obvious to me that any life would be preserved, but in our current situation, we cannot afford to decide that all life is worth living. The parents of the child in the coma had to decide to end their child's life, because the child was not in a position to make that decision and the parents understood that he would not have any quality left to his life. So, I believe that because an unborn child cannot make a decision for itself, it must fall to the mother/father to decide whether or not the child will have any quality to it's life. I feel alright killing a plant, as it is not sentient and does not feel pain. I would feel bad killing an animal, because the reverse may be true. I understand your position, and I know it seems reasonable just to want to live and let live, but I think if you give it some more thought you might find that there is merit to my position.
I have to say this has been the most civil and reasonable discussion on this matter I have ever had, thank you for considering my stance and for respectfully giving yours without being condescending or "know-it-all". I have taken everything you stand into consideration and must admit even I am not completely solid on my position as there are so many grey areas and I can't help but feel compassion for women who are just simply not in a good position to have a baby. One thing that kind of intrigues me is that we as human beings tend to draw the line somewhere as to "when it is ok to destroy, and when it is not ok". Most everyone would agree that after a baby is born that it is not ok to destroy it, so the line must be before then. During pregnancy is where many people feel it is right to draw the line. Some say after the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it is wrong to kill it. Some say it is ok all the up until just before the baby is born. Others (including myself) say the line is at the moment of conception. The only reason I refuse to draw the line any farther is because I feel that is similar to playing "God" on deciding whether or not nature takes its course. Why can we decide for the unborn as to whether or not it deserves life?
Like I said before, the difference between a sperm and a zygote is that one is actively growing, the other is not, and to me that is significant, to others maybe not so much. Another thing I tend to look at is trying to put myself in the zygotes shoes. It's impossible, but I want to continue to grow and live now, so I don't think it is completely unreasonable to say I wouldn't have wanted to continue to grow and live then, despite not knowing whether or not I would have cared then. A big thing for me is that there are so many unknowns that it seems wrong for me to assume that it is 100% inconsequential to kill an unborn human. As far as the argument of everyone wearing condoms for a day, that seems kind of moot point. What difference does it make if everyone doesn't have sex? If theoretically you could go back in time (keyword THEORETICALLY) and prevent a pregnancy, would that be murder? I don't think so, because the person who would have been born no longer exist.
|
On September 22 2012 07:37 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 07:17 Hanakurena wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2012 05:45 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:35 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote: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.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden. Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds? 1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit. I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point. lol English must not be your first language for sure. Haha. He gives an example, you respond by giving the exact same example. Huh? In the mean time, read up the word 'suffering'. Anyway, the whole line of arguing you guys are going down is pointless anyway. The 'suffering' is plants is a pretty clear 'issue'; it isn't. Best argument in defense for eating meat is 'It tastes great'. As for milk, it evolved to be an ideal food for mammal infants and the nutritional value and hormones it contains are fine-tuned for that exact purpose by evolution. This means there is a trade-off for drinking it as an adult. You aren't growing like an infant. lol you must be severely mentally handicapped for sure. Haha. He writes unrelated stuff, I respond with asking if he is dumb or misunderstanding something (which he is, as it turned out). Huh? Jokes aside: At least, please, read the actual comments before you start flaming and acting like a douche. It just makes you seem unbelievably immature.
No, he made the rhetorical question of 'what about the cherry?' to counter your argument, which is silly anyway. But then you respond by explaining to him why cherry trees do what they do and ignoring the argument. If he didn't know that, he wouldn't be using it as an argument against you.
Clear example of poor english ability (or poor mental ability in general?) and now a clear example of bad manners. Why was this person not warned? Since this wasn't moderated and considering my history and bad blood with all the moderators here, because they hold a grudge against me because they disagree with my position and feel forced to abuse moderation powers after they run out of arguments and lose their cool, this guy is a retard and I have all the rights to call him that and not be warned. Thank you, TL moderators.
Btw, I like how you spoilered my comment so people have to click to read it, which most won't. I guess you do realize you make yourself look bad. But still you do it.
Reading back the thing now and seeing Deleuze's comment on Poe's law, he is entirely correct in that observation and all this has been futile.
|
the spoilering happens automatically if there are multiple quotes involved doesnt it?
|
I don't mind anyone being vegan. Still:
1. Watching your diet alone makes one more healthy, being vegan is not the only way. Personally I lift a lot of heavy weights, meaning I need a lot of protein+energy; on meat-less diet I'm eating 8 hours per day to reach my needs. Is there a vegan food that is equal to chicken: a truckload of much protein, no carbs and a very good amount of vitamins+minerals? The only vegan food high in protein I can think of is nuts, but it comes with a lot of carbs, a ton of energy, many saturated fatty acids and a lot firbre. In other words, you can't consume very much of it.
2. A diet that contains a moderate amount of meat is easier to find, gives more daily variety and is less expensive . Fact.
3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous.
4. Regarding the above: why is it okay to take plant life but not animals? I've haven't seen any vegan or vegetarian ever address this. Plants have a nerve system. They're life. Again, facts. Is it because they don't have a cute smile?
5. If you're going with the climate argument: power plants still produce the vast, vast majority of human caused CO2, cars are just a few percent. If you want to save the climate, be consistent and stop using electricity, it's a much bigger factor.
6. I think it's good that some people are vegans. However, if everyone was vegan, I think we'd run into a shitload of additional problems. The amount of energy produced per "vegan acre" is pretty low, and the majority of plants we simply can't digest. Ever tried to eat grass? Cattle consumes grass, we consume them - circle of life, efficient cycle.
7. If any vegans out there wonder why there are societal stigmas against you, it's because of opinions like the one below. So judgmental, so much "I'm superior to you".
On September 21 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote:
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
|
On September 22 2012 17:08 Kaptein[konijn] wrote:I don't mind anyone being vegan. Still: 1. Watching your diet alone makes one more healthy, being vegan is not the only way. Personally I lift a lot of heavy weights, meaning I need a lot of protein+energy; on meat-less diet I'm eating 8 hours per day to reach my needs. Is there a vegan food that is equal to chicken: a truckload of much protein, no carbs and a very good amount of vitamins+minerals? The only vegan food high in protein I can think of is nuts, but it comes with a lot of carbs, a ton of energy, many saturated fatty acids and a lot firbre. In other words, you can't consume very much of it. 2. A diet that contains a moderate amount of meat is easier to find, gives more daily variety and is less expensive . Fact. 3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous. 4. Regarding the above: why is it okay to take plant life but not animals? I've haven't seen any vegan or vegetarian ever address this. Plants have a nerve system. They're life. Again, facts. Is it because they don't have a cute smile? 5. If you're going with the climate argument: power plants still produce the vast, vast majority of human caused CO2, cars are just a few percent. If you want to save the climate, be consistent and stop using electricity, it's a much bigger factor. 6. I think it's good that some people are vegans. However, if everyone was vegan, I think we'd run into a shitload of additional problems. The amount of energy produced per "vegan acre" is pretty low, and the majority of plants we simply can't digest. Ever tried to eat grass? Cattle consumes grass, we consume them - circle of life, efficient cycle. 7. If any vegans out there wonder why there are societal stigmas against you, it's because of opinions like the one below. So judgmental, so much "I'm superior to you". Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote:
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
God that quote makes me cringe and just want to sink my teeth into a nice piece of chicken
|
On September 22 2012 14:45 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 14:37 SolonTLG wrote:On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote:True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things. About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to. As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours. I do respect people efforts (hence the "lol"), but I think most peoples efforts are misguided. For example, the whole "humane slaughter" and "happy cow" thing is so crazy to me. I understand why people go there, but I disagree. I am tired and need to go to sleep now, good talking to you! Have to agree 150% that the humane slaughter and happy cow thing are pretty crazy
I don't know much about happy cows, but I've eaten eggs from pretty damn happy chickens before. The family of a friend of mine has like 6 chickens and they have more space together than I had in my old apartement. Half outdoor, half indoor, they can cuddle when it's raining and some of them love it if you pet them a little. Unless their cock sees you, he'll chase you the fuck out. =P
Those eggs. Tasted. So. Incredibly. Good. I honestly didn't think the difference would be that big compared to "free range" eggs at the supermarket.
It's the same for most food imo, I'm pretty lucky because the area around here has lots of smaller farms where you can drive directly into their yard and buy off them. That stuff always beats the crap out of everything you get at your average supermarket.
|
On September 22 2012 17:41 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 14:45 BlueBird. wrote:On September 22 2012 14:37 SolonTLG wrote:On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote:True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things. About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to. As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours. I do respect people efforts (hence the "lol"), but I think most peoples efforts are misguided. For example, the whole "humane slaughter" and "happy cow" thing is so crazy to me. I understand why people go there, but I disagree. I am tired and need to go to sleep now, good talking to you! Have to agree 150% that the humane slaughter and happy cow thing are pretty crazy I don't know much about happy cows, but I've eaten eggs from pretty damn happy chickens before. The family of a friend of mine has like 6 chickens and they have more space together than I had in my old apartement. Half outdoor, half indoor, they can cuddle when it's raining and some of them love it if you pet them a little. Unless their cock sees you, he'll chase you the fuck out. =P Those eggs. Tasted. So. Incredibly. Good. I honestly didn't think the difference would be that big compared to "free range" eggs at the supermarket. It's the same for most food imo, I'm pretty lucky because the area around here has lots of smaller farms where you can drive directly into their yard and buy off them. That stuff always beats the crap out of everything you get at your average supermarket.
Oh yes there are happy cows and chickens, I just don't think they end up on your dinner plate , eggs are slightly different cause you don't eat the chicken eating the egg.
|
On September 22 2012 17:08 Kaptein[konijn] wrote:I don't mind anyone being vegan. Still: 1. Watching your diet alone makes one more healthy, being vegan is not the only way. Personally I lift a lot of heavy weights, meaning I need a lot of protein+energy; on meat-less diet I'm eating 8 hours per day to reach my needs. Is there a vegan food that is equal to chicken: a truckload of much protein, no carbs and a very good amount of vitamins+minerals? The only vegan food high in protein I can think of is nuts, but it comes with a lot of carbs, a ton of energy, many saturated fatty acids and a lot firbre. In other words, you can't consume very much of it. 2. A diet that contains a moderate amount of meat is easier to find, gives more daily variety and is less expensive . Fact. 3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous. 4. Regarding the above: why is it okay to take plant life but not animals? I've haven't seen any vegan or vegetarian ever address this. Plants have a nerve system. They're life. Again, facts. Is it because they don't have a cute smile? 5. If you're going with the climate argument: power plants still produce the vast, vast majority of human caused CO2, cars are just a few percent. If you want to save the climate, be consistent and stop using electricity, it's a much bigger factor. 6. I think it's good that some people are vegans. However, if everyone was vegan, I think we'd run into a shitload of additional problems. The amount of energy produced per "vegan acre" is pretty low, and the majority of plants we simply can't digest. Ever tried to eat grass? Cattle consumes grass, we consume them - circle of life, efficient cycle. 7. If any vegans out there wonder why there are societal stigmas against you, it's because of opinions like the one below. So judgmental, so much "I'm superior to you". Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote:
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
A person who uses their brain and the ability to make conscious choices is, if you consider intelligence a standard, intellectually superior. You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
If someone refuses to use his brain just to feel better about his opinion (aka ignorance) then, well, why would you wonder if someone who actually uses it calls him stupid?
3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous.
Since this comparison is something most people refuse to understand, I'll rephrase it for you: "Jews don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare burning them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
There was a place and time where a pretty significant amount of people saw this as their truth. Few questioned it, lots of people helped making it happen. From todays perspective, do even the people who had some of those involved in their families call this one of the worst things that happened in history? Yes.
The one thing any minority which was treated badly in human history had in common was that they were weaker. Physically, mentally (think handicapped people) or just in plain quantity or social status. The only way to judge a persons true character is if you witness him or her in a situation of total power. In todays society animals are what we have total power over. And while there are lots of people taking great care of their pets and (hinthint) a lot of them are even treating them as equals we as a whole don't want to see or know about what happens in the slaughterhouses.
My great-grandmother (born 1910) was once asked about why she thought that the resistance was as low as it was against the holocaust. Her answer? "Those who didn't know about what happened exactly didn't want to know more, those who did know pretended that it didn't exist." -- partially because of fear of being persecuted, partially because it's impossible to lead a normal live when you think about someone you knew for all your live being moved to his death.
If you consume something without caring what it is, where it came from and how it was produced you're having the exact same mindset. The only difference is that it's about an animal, not about your former neighbour. That's judgemental, that's "I'm so much superior to you that I don't even give a single fuck whether you suffer or not."
We realized it's an incredibly stupid thing to not give the same rights we have for white rich males to poor people, women, black people, jews. Hundred years before those changes people have brought up the exact same arguments you're making to justify something that can't be justified. We justified killing other humans with "They're just dogs, they don't have the same rights as we do." - Now we say the exact same thing about animals to make us feel better about treating them like shit.
|
United States33487 Posts
I'm kind of glad it's moved onto an ethics discussion from the OP's awful awful understanding of nutrition
|
|
|
Omg, by drinking tap water, I am supporting massacre of billions of bacteria/germs at water purification facility. I have to be mindful of the sufffering of those lives. I don't hear that very often. Is it because somehow cow's life is more important than a bacterium?
|
On September 22 2012 15:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 14:26 StayPhrosty wrote:On September 22 2012 13:25 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 12:50 StayPhrosty wrote:On September 22 2012 12:17 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 11:59 StayPhrosty wrote:On September 22 2012 09:23 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 09:06 BlueBird. wrote:On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)? I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs. No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated. So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all. It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated? I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together. I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced. Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against. Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness. Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers. You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother? Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception? In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc. You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future. The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue. Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally. I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception. I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine. In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant. Okay, thanks for hearing me out. I wonder, perhaps if you read this and then reread my post you might get a little insight into what i was saying. It's interesting to me that you believe life begins as conception, as in, the instant a sperm touches an egg, life begins. To me, a sperm is just as alive as a zygote (what first forms when sperm and egg meet), though a sperm has a short lifespan, and a zygote does not. I do not feel bad when a sperm dies, just as I do not feel bad when a zygote dies, because ia zygote is honestly only a few cell divisions above a sperm. Sure, a zygote unhindered will form a human, but so will sperm when they're near eggs. The act of touching to me is not quite so significant. I see the decision not to create life as being just the same as killing life before it fully develops. Because, is not the act of finding a partner to have sex with, just as important as the actual act of sex? You cannot form a baby without a sperm and an egg, and in most cases this means two people finding each other and having sex. So would it not be correct to say that if we were (hypothetically) to prevent everyone from having sex on a single day (say, by forcing them to use a condom), that we were killing every baby that would have been made that day otherwise? We would be actively stopping a thing which would naturally happen with human beings which would lead to more human life. So what about a single person? To me the idea of babies not being made is less important than the discontinuation of our species if we all use condoms every time. The result of these masses of people using condoms means potential children are not formed. This is also the result of masses of people getting abortions, more potential children are not formed. Another point would be to say that the quality of one's life is inherently related to the need for one's life. If a pet dog has an inoperable tumor and is in pain, a vet will put it down. I see this as kindness, as the dog had little to no quality left to the remainder of it's life. If a child is in a coma and will never wake and are slowly dieing while the family suffers (can't put food on the table) from medical bills, I would say it would be right for the parents to decide to 'unplug' the equipment keeping them alive and let them die. To me it then follows that if, say, a 16 year old girl living on the street is raped, I would call it kindness to let her make the choice to have an abortion or not. No, I certainly cannot make the decision for her, but if she is in a proper state of mind and is fully aware of the consequences of her actions, I believe she has the right to make her own decision. This is assuming she has received proper consultation, and that she feels that she does not currently posses the ability to raise a child with a quality of life worth living. Perhaps this child would've been born, and she would've gone back on the street and abused substances, and the child would've lived a short life in pain and misery, unloved, and then died. Personally I believe it would be better if such a child were not brought into this world in the first place. Obviously this is an extreme situation, but the point is that such things can happen, and that if the choice is denied to women legally, they often go through other methods which can actually kill the mother as well. Obviously there needs to be improvements to the current system, but this is true of many aspects of our lives. We need to work to create support systems and ensure that the people making these decisions are not doing so uninformed, etc. Perhaps in the future we will develop a way to incubate a human egg all the way into a full grown baby, and perhaps there will be a sort of adoption system with enough checks and balances that it actually creates a loving home and a proper childhood experience. In this case, it would be obvious to me that any life would be preserved, but in our current situation, we cannot afford to decide that all life is worth living. The parents of the child in the coma had to decide to end their child's life, because the child was not in a position to make that decision and the parents understood that he would not have any quality left to his life. So, I believe that because an unborn child cannot make a decision for itself, it must fall to the mother/father to decide whether or not the child will have any quality to it's life. I feel alright killing a plant, as it is not sentient and does not feel pain. I would feel bad killing an animal, because the reverse may be true. I understand your position, and I know it seems reasonable just to want to live and let live, but I think if you give it some more thought you might find that there is merit to my position. I have to say this has been the most civil and reasonable discussion on this matter I have ever had, thank you for considering my stance and for respectfully giving yours without being condescending or "know-it-all". I have taken everything you stand into consideration and must admit even I am not completely solid on my position as there are so many grey areas and I can't help but feel compassion for women who are just simply not in a good position to have a baby. One thing that kind of intrigues me is that we as human beings tend to draw the line somewhere as to "when it is ok to destroy, and when it is not ok". Most everyone would agree that after a baby is born that it is not ok to destroy it, so the line must be before then. During pregnancy is where many people feel it is right to draw the line. Some say after the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it is wrong to kill it. Some say it is ok all the up until just before the baby is born. Others (including myself) say the line is at the moment of conception. The only reason I refuse to draw the line any farther is because I feel that is similar to playing "God" on deciding whether or not nature takes its course. Why can we decide for the unborn as to whether or not it deserves life? Like I said before, the difference between a sperm and a zygote is that one is actively growing, the other is not, and to me that is significant, to others maybe not so much. Another thing I tend to look at is trying to put myself in the zygotes shoes. It's impossible, but I want to continue to grow and live now, so I don't think it is completely unreasonable to say I wouldn't have wanted to continue to grow and live then, despite not knowing whether or not I would have cared then. A big thing for me is that there are so many unknowns that it seems wrong for me to assume that it is 100% inconsequential to kill an unborn human. As far as the argument of everyone wearing condoms for a day, that seems kind of moot point. What difference does it make if everyone doesn't have sex? If theoretically you could go back in time (keyword THEORETICALLY) and prevent a pregnancy, would that be murder? I don't think so, because the person who would have been born no longer exist.
Hey, thanks for actually responding to me and not just ignoring me, which I get sometimes with a thing like this. I agree it was definitely not an easy decision to come to, and your post made me look into it a lot more than I had previously, but my point still stands I believe.
What I was trying to get across with the hypothetical condom situation was that it comes down to my opinion that actively making a decision to put sperm away from eggs so they cannot join and the sperm dies is the same as actively making a decision to put a zygote away from a womb so that it cannot form and will die. We do not limit which people are allowed to reproduce, but we do limit which sperm are allowed to reproduce. This is because sperm are basic cells which, while 'alive', are not actually conscious beings who feel pain. It is many weeks into a pregnancy before a fetus develops individuality (as in, could end up being twins), or before it develops the capacity to feel pain, or before it develops consciousness and self awareness. I'm sure you understand much of this biology info, but I really just want to re-frame it so you understand my line of thinking. Why do you find that 'actively growing' is so important? And why only actively growing zygotes? Stopping a married couple trying to have kids in the act of sex is also actively deciding to stop an event which could have otherwise resulted in a child, yet stopping them is not what you would call 'abortion', why? In both an abortion and the above situation there is an egg inside the woman which will die unless she actively decides to keep it alive. I'm assuming you don't see every period as an abortion, yet each period contains a living cellular microorganism which would start to grow into a person if the woman did not stop it. I personally feel that the egg does not have enough of the basic functions of a human being to be considered a living person, and I feel the same about the early portion of an actual pregnancy. a zygote will divide its cells on its own and an egg will not, however this is not the definition scientists use to decide if a microorganism is "living". A zygote still relies entirely on the woman's decisions for survival, just as an egg does. (how long before we must draw the line, though, is a much more difficult question. suffice it to say that the longer it takes to be aborted, especially after the parents are aware, the better the reason for abortion must be imo)
You try to put yourself 'in the zygotes shoes', and yet you find this is the limit of what you can conceive of as the beginning of the life, but other events prior to and after the actual zygote formation are critical to it's existence. It is because if this that I believe it is wrong to think of a zygote as an early human being, as the act of letting it exist inside of a woman is no different to me than the act of letting a woman have sex. You cannot truly put yourself in a zygote's shoes any more than you could put yourself in any other microorganism's shoes. It is quite simple, the organism doesn't "want to continue to grow and live" any more than the bacteria on a dirty kitchen counter. It is their basic evolutionary function to cellularly divide and grow and exist, but I'm sure you do not consider bacteria to be equal to a human being. Over time a fetus develops these 'human' characteristics, but before it is even remotely close to having them I do not think you can call a zygote a full human being. Sure, there must be some sort of line drawn on what is human, but I would say this should be associated with what makes a thing human, not just what makes cells divide.
In summary, in this case the act of doing something is no different from the act of not doing something when the result is the same, a baby will not exit a womb. We do not see having a period as being the same as killing a human being because the mother has the right to decide when to have a child. By having her period she has not ended something that was a living, breathing, (conscious, self aware, pain feeling) human being. She has let a potential situation go by which could have resulted in a baby. By using a morning after pill she is doing the exact same thing, she is letting a potential situation go by which could have resulted in a baby.
It is vitally important to understand for ourselves what is and isn't a living being.
|
I feel sorry for all the extra plants dying for the lives of animals.
|
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote:
A person who uses their brain and the ability to make conscious choices is, if you consider intelligence a standard, intellectually superior. You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
That's not the same thought at all. I dare you to make a poll here and ask how many people agree with you. Spoiler: no one does. At which point (if you have the balls to take the dare), you'll claim that everyone is uninformed, ignorant and intellectually inferior. Just like in Starcraft: if you see everyone lagging, then it's you who lags.
I also see you ignored my other points, as expected.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote:
Since this comparison is something most people refuse to understand, I'll rephrase it for you: "Jews don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare burning them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition?
|
You know I can change the statement as well, does not mean it has any more (sarcastic) force...
"Plants don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare growing and eating them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
"Rocks don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare enslaving them and using them as commodities in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
"Ideas don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare how we abuse them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
|
man meats taste good! but i'm eating a lot more plants now too so ^__^
but man meat taste too good ahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
