| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
On September 22 2012 18:12 Waxangel wrote: I'm kind of glad it's moved onto an ethics discussion from the OP's awful awful understanding of nutrition what does a snorlax know about nutrition! jsut eat everyting right? | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On September 22 2012 18:18 StayPhrosty wrote: 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'm done trying to debate this, but thank you for enlightening me on your point of view. I stand my ground with where I believe for now. While I would prefer a world with no abortion, I am still very torn on this subject because there is so much I simply do not know about it and I accept that it is happening and have no intention of trying to stop anyone from getting one, only express my beliefs when asked. Maybe some day I will change my mind again, believe it or not I used to be pro-choice, but for now I'm still not convinced abortion is acceptable. | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: 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. I don't think you need to project your own feelings about animal slaughter onto others. I agree that it's unnecessary to "treat animals like shit", but that's a bit tangential since there's no need to treat them like shit to raise them and slaughter them for food. I think everyone has a line between "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible", and all other forms of life. Personally, I draw the line at "creatures that I can relate to (because they can unequivocally communicate sentience)", which means humans only. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that all life is sacred just for the sake of it. For example, if you got septicaemia, noone in the world would refuse life saving antibiotics simply in order to avoid the genocide of billions of bacteria. Even higher life forms are contentious - parasitic helminths are higher life forms (by which I mean eukaryotes), but they kill millions of people a year. Again I don't think anyone in the world would argue against killing them in an infected person, even if that person's life is not at risk and it's only to make them feel better. And although a cow is bigger and looks more like a human, it is no more capable of communicating sentience than the worm. So I think it is entirely reasonable to use completely different standards for humans vs other forms of life. If you want to disagree and not eat meat then go right ahead, but having a different opinion doesn't make you any more (or less) right. | ||
|
StayPhrosty
Canada406 Posts
On September 22 2012 18:22 Kaptein[konijn] wrote: 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. Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition? No, he did not just compare executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition, he just compared killing jews because we dont care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them. Animals are sentient beings who are conscious, have emotions, and feel pain. Killing them is inhumane and arguing for killing them because you like being ignorant is like arguing for killing jews because you like being ignorant. I can get nutrition from killing and eating humans, yet this is not acceptable because I have other choices. A family has a pet dog, they love it, and the dog loves them back. The dog runs to the door and wags its tail when then return because it is happy to see them, and so is the family. The family would NEVER consider crushing the dogs puppies at birth because of their gender, and they would NEVER consider cutting the dog open while it was still alive because it's more efficient than spending time and money killing it first. Yet these are some of the practices that happen with other animals, simply because we don't spend any time thinking about other animals. I can love humans, I want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing. I can love animals, and i want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing. Also, your entire counter to his "I eat meat" and "I hate black people" argument was entirely subjective. Honestly who cares what a TL poll on the subject would say? You're trying to support your argument by saying that you "bet" people would agree with you, instead of actually providing any support for your argument. You attacked him for being "judgmental", yet you failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer to "SHOULD WE KILL THINGS BECAUSE WE CAN" He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance. Your "circle of life" argument about cattle eating grass is factually incorrect. It has been cited several times in this thread but I'll repeat it for you, it takes more plant matter to raise a cow for eating, than it would take to eat plant matter yourself. An animal does not simply store everything it takes in as meat. Mammals give off heat and excrete waste, these release energy that was obtained from whatever they ate. Yes, veganism is not the 'ultimate solution' to climate change, but the solution is not "everybody stop using electricity" as you suggest. Because this sounds sarcastic to me, I'll assume you don't really mean it, and therefore you leave us with the choice of doing nothing, but this too seems ineffective at combating climate change. There are many things everyone can do to reduce their carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of beef you eat is one of many things you can do to reduce your impact. Carpooling, recycling, riding a bike, upgrading the efficiency of your home, and purchasing sustainable products, as well as making your voice heard to your local government are all small things that can help. Regarding your argument against vegans not caring that they kill plant life, this has been addressed REPEATEDLY, but again you incorrectly assume nobody has ever said anything about it. Vegans consider animals to be sentient, conscious beings capable of feeling pain, while plants are not. Therefore plants should be eaten and animals should not, when a lot of people have such an easy choice in what they eat. Animals deserve many more rights than they currently receive, which is a major reason why some people chose to become vegans. Diets containing meat are generally easier to maintain in the current western world. But that does not mean it is inherently the best way to eat. In fact, a diet consisting entirely of prepackaged, convenience, processed, and other junk food would EASILY be more available. Actually this the leading causes of death in north america today are due to the current food system. It is imperative that people begin to educate themselves on a healthy diet, and (although they do exist) the argument vegans tend to make is rarely against other forms of eating healthy, but rather simply arguing against the average food people eat today. There are many cases of professional body builders, weight lifters, olympic and professional athletes who ear vegetarian or vegan. I cannot say what is the "best" method, but I can say that there are many methods available. (Just as an example for protein, chickpeas are very high in protein as well as very low in saturated fat, and low in net carbs) Anyway, please read a little more and try to perhaps consider that someone who has devoted their life to avoiding an entire food category may likely have done a little research about it, compared to the average person. | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death? I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all  .You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On September 22 2012 18:22 Kaptein[konijn] wrote: 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. Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition? Why would I NOT ignore your other points if I mostly agree with them? I'm not sure how you're failing to see the parallel between "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" and "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone". -"Both statements include "I do x because I like doing x" - while that obviously is an argument it's also a very shallow one without any backup. Just like "I don't like blacks because I don't like them" the argument "I eat meat because I like it" is one that only a person can make who never really thought about the whole topic. -Both statements convey the intent to not wanting to discuss the opinion itself. Whether you would like to call that stubborn or stupid is up to you. Why would I make a poll about something that can be also done by just going through the sentences word by word? Polls have a tendency to reflect opinions. When we have opinions that aren't in line with what we would like to think of ourselves they tend to be heavily biased, up to the point of lying to ourselves just to keep our integrity up before ourselves. Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition? I never said anything against consuming animals for nutrition. That's fine by me. What I do say something against is putting a bunch of living beings under horrible circumstances because of a stupid ideology or pure pleasure. We have lots of people in this thread who proudly shout out how they eat meat on a daily basis, some even multiple times. That's not about nutrition. In fact, we are able to make the choice to get the nutrition we need from sources which do not include treating animals like total crap. Since that exact choice exists for pretty much everyone who is able to post in this thread every single one of us could act up to the responsibility that comes along with the freedom to choose. Not stepping up to that privilege at all by making a conscious, informed decision goes back to what I outlined above: It's typical for a low intellect and highly ignorant. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On September 22 2012 18:55 dmfg wrote: I don't think you need to project your own feelings about animal slaughter onto others. I agree that it's unnecessary to "treat animals like shit", but that's a bit tangential since there's no need to treat them like shit to raise them and slaughter them for food. I think everyone has a line between "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible", and all other forms of life. Personally, I draw the line at "creatures that I can relate to (because they can unequivocally communicate sentience)", which means humans only. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that all life is sacred just for the sake of it. For example, if you got septicaemia, noone in the world would refuse life saving antibiotics simply in order to avoid the genocide of billions of bacteria. Even higher life forms are contentious - parasitic helminths are higher life forms (by which I mean eukaryotes), but they kill millions of people a year. Again I don't think anyone in the world would argue against killing them in an infected person, even if that person's life is not at risk and it's only to make them feel better. And although a cow is bigger and looks more like a human, it is no more capable of communicating sentience than the worm. So I think it is entirely reasonable to use completely different standards for humans vs other forms of life. If you want to disagree and not eat meat then go right ahead, but having a different opinion doesn't make you any more (or less) right. Pretty much the only point I disagree is with the line you're drawing for "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible". For me what I need to relate to something on an emotional level is to understand it's responses with my senses. If a dog or cat gets kicked, it will show me that it hurt it. Same goes for pretty much any mammal. Do you really think that there is nothing besides humans you wish to preserve if possible? I just can't get that attitude at all. Besides that, we'd all be dead if everyone would think like that. As for how we treat animals, sure it IS possible to raise animals for food without treating them badly. Though for one, probably not in the huge quantities we like to shove meat into us and for the other most people don't seem to want to know about which meat comes from where. =P | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
You realy have a choise here,but i will just let you know that A is the right choise and B is the wrong choise. Its not that you can not choose B, its just that if you choose B you are an asshole. It almost reads like this and its not much of a choise then annymore. If you realy think its a choise you should respect whatever people choose. Somehow wish that in this thread there would be more emphasisis on the healthy aspects of veganism and unhealthy aspects of eating meat, instead of the moral aspects. There are manny indications that veganism and other more extreme eating habits have verry healthy effects. Now that i have read more about it, manny famous people who where vegan or had other extreme diets claim to have gotten enormous amounts of energy from it. Would love to read more about thoose things and the bad effects of eating meat in this thread instead of the endless moral discussion. For example,Eating red meat makes you more vulnerable to getting adicted to annything in general. | ||
|
Kaptein[konijn]
Netherlands110 Posts
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: No, he did not just compare executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition, he just compared killing jews because we dont care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them. Honestly who cares what a TL poll on the subject would say? Hitler killed minorities because he hated them and wanted to cleanse the world of them. We kill animals because of their nutritional values. I'm not going to spend more time arguing this silly point, if you don't see the difference between those two then I don't know what to say. And yeah, of course you're going to pretend you don't care what a poll says, because that any sane human doesn't need much time to realize the stupidity of comparing racism/Hitler with the animal industry. Talk about a slippery slope. On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance. And I'll repeat what I stated before: it's statements like these why some vegans are social recluses. You're calling the entire world ignorant and stupid. On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: Your "circle of life" argument about cattle eating grass is factually incorrect. It has been cited several times in this thread but I'll repeat it for you, it takes more plant matter to raise a cow for eating, than it would take to eat plant matter yourself. Ah yes, more energy goes in than goes out; no argument there. But explain to me how much energy you would've gained from that grass and those bushes? On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: Regarding your argument against vegans not caring that they kill plant life, this has been addressed REPEATEDLY, but again you incorrectly assume nobody has ever said anything about it. Vegans consider animals to be sentient, conscious beings capable of feeling pain, while plants are not. Therefore plants should be eaten and animals should not, when a lot of people have such an easy choice in what they eat. The simple fact is that we don't know if plants feel pain. This we do know: 1. Plants have nerves 2. Plants are a form of life You are killing both. How do you feel? On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: Diets containing meat are generally easier to maintain in the current western world. But that does not mean it is inherently the best way to eat. In fact, a diet consisting entirely of prepackaged, convenience, processed, and other junk food would EASILY be more available. Actually this the leading causes of death in north america today are due to the current food system. I agree - but the fact remains that it's much easier, more practical and less expensive to live as an omnivore than as a vegan. You have to look really close at your diet and take supplements (B12) to sustain your needs on a vegan diet. It's incredibly hard to get enough bio available amino acids when you're into power sports on a vegan diet. All those nuts contain so much fibre that you're constantly on the shits. Meanwhile, I'm having my chicken 'n rice, get all vitamins, minerals, high quality essential amino acids with a decent amount of energy, needing no supplements at very low price. By the way, how reliable are those supplements? Do you know how they're made? How effectively they're absorbed by the body? On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: There are many cases of professional body builders, weight lifters, olympic and professional athletes who ear vegetarian or vegan. I cannot say what is the "best" method, but I can say that there are many methods available. (Just as an example for protein, chickpeas are very high in protein as well as very low in saturated fat, and low in net carbs) Please tell me how many Mr. Olympia's were vegans? There might be a few winners of some competitions - compared more than a thousand non-vegans that won. At 7 to 8 gram of protein/100gr in edible form, chickpeas are high in protein for vegan food, yes. Unfortunately, that's still nothing compared to the 25g/100gr in chicken. Moreover, said peas contain a good amount of carbs and 6 grams fibre, contrary to chicken on both accounts. You want to get 30 grams of protein from those peas, you'll also have 24 grams of fibre, which is already 80% of the maximum daily amount for males. You will be on the shits 24/7 and have your intestines sucked dry from all that fibre. So, still waiting for that source of lean protein+vitamins & minerals that the supposedly (more) healthy vegan diet can provide. So to conclude: not, removing the richest source of protein, minerals and vitamins generally is not a good thing to do with your diet. Yes, you can still come around if you're not into power sports, but it takes a lot of effort, money, inconvenience when eating out, and some supplements. Anyway, please read a little more and try to perhaps consider that someone who has devoted their life to avoiding an entire food category may likely have done a little research about it, compared to the average person.[/QUOTE] | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
Hitler killed minorities because he hated them and wanted to cleanse the world of them. We kill animals because of their nutritional values. I'm not going to spend more time arguing this silly point, if you don't see the difference between those two then I don't know what to say. If you simply ignore what people say and twist their sentences so it fits your skewed view of how all animals exist for your pleasure, there is no point to even try. Here is my original statement about which you wanted to run a poll because as we all know the majority (which wanted at one point in history to not let woman vote, kill Jews and have Blacks as slaves) is always right. 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. You took that quote and mixed it with "He compared killing Jews because we don't care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them." ... Sure, a few guys might have started the whole ordeal because of other reasons. The majority stood there and didn't want to know about it or pretended it's not that bad. Why is that comparison completely valid? Because the majority of "I eat meat 10 times per week"-posters in this thread stated that they don't want to know how the animals they're eating are treated or that it's no big deal. Exactly the same train of thought. PS: Please look at what you're writing. You just claimed that racist people aren't ignorant because of their reasonings and then you claimed that plants suffer just like animals or humans if they die. .. .. | ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
and then you claimed that plants suffer just like animals or humans if they die. .. .. It's pretty safe to say that plants don't suffer like us. They don't feel pain, they don't have a nervous system, pain would have absolutely no biological meaning for them, because they can't run away. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On September 22 2012 21:49 SnipedSoul wrote: Vegans don't have constant diarrhea :/. Greatly increasing fiber intake can make things messy for a few days until you get used to it, but after that you're all good. I eat a ridiculous amount of dead animals and I don't have diarrhea unless I'm sick which happens every other year. | ||
|
oygp
United States40 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On September 22 2012 22:29 peacenl wrote: It's pretty safe to say that plants don't suffer like us. They don't feel pain, they don't have a nervous system, pain would have absolutely no biological meaning for them, because they can't run away. so what you're trying to say is that it's perfectly fine to kill something and eat it as long as it can't feel pain? What about narcotizing animals before killing them? Let's say for the sake of it, we go back to how it used to be a couple of hundred years ago, cattle ("normal" ones, not the ones bred for making as much milk as possible) living a considerably nice life and when the time comes you're giving it a painless death so you can eat it instead of giving it to the bugs and worms :p I don't see a problem with that. Why do we have to completely stop eating meat if the problem isn't whether or not we're killing other beings but whether or not they suffer for our sake. Sure the first one deals with the problem indirectly but shouldn't we just try to attack the problem itself? Or do you consider that utopian? | ||
|
Nevermind86
Somalia429 Posts
At the end of the day both groups are trying to save the world. I guess this orientation of self-mutilation is quite common, I've seen it in communists with good education who refuse to work high paying professions out of a sense of solidarity with the working class, "as not to exploit them", or rock lovers who refuse to get anywhere close to people that listen rap. What motivates a human being to self-mutilate behind senses of morals?, That is an interesting question, but like I said the answer must be biological because of the similarities, it's like twins who like the same colour without them not knowing each other. | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On September 22 2012 21:08 r.Evo wrote: Pretty much the only point I disagree is with the line you're drawing for "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible". For me what I need to relate to something on an emotional level is to understand it's responses with my senses. If a dog or cat gets kicked, it will show me that it hurt it. Same goes for pretty much any mammal. Do you really think that there is nothing besides humans you wish to preserve if possible? I just can't get that attitude at all. Besides that, we'd all be dead if everyone would think like that. As for how we treat animals, sure it IS possible to raise animals for food without treating them badly. Though for one, probably not in the huge quantities we like to shove meat into us and for the other most people don't seem to want to know about which meat comes from where. =P I think we tend to anthromorphise too much. You kick a cat or a dog, and it will react in the way its brain is wired to in order to minimise or stop damage to itself. We then interpret that as pain (a subjective experience) because we are capable of subjective experience, and because if a similar thing happened to us we would experience pain. Does it actually experience pain? Probably, but noone knows. So, I'll go out of my way to avoid harm to anything that can communicate sentience to me. I'm not gonna go around needlessly killing/harming anything that can't, but I'm not gonna lose too much sleep over whether they live or die. That pretty much applies equally whether I'm taking medicine to kill parasites that make me feel shitty, or whether I'm paying for animals to be raised and slaughtered for meat. You can call it selfish if you like, but at the end of the day, pretty much everything anyone does it selfish  | ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
On September 22 2012 20:03 BlueBird. wrote: I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals. But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: No, he did not just compare executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition, he just compared killing jews because we dont care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them. Animals are sentient beings who are conscious, have emotions, and feel pain. Killing them is inhumane and arguing for killing them because you like being ignorant is like arguing for killing jews because you like being ignorant. I can get nutrition from killing and eating humans, yet this is not acceptable because I have other choices. A family has a pet dog, they love it, and the dog loves them back. The dog runs to the door and wags its tail when then return because it is happy to see them, and so is the family. The family would NEVER consider crushing the dogs puppies at birth because of their gender, and they would NEVER consider cutting the dog open while it was still alive because it's more efficient than spending time and money killing it first. Yet these are some of the practices that happen with other animals, simply because we don't spend any time thinking about other animals. I can love humans, I want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing. I can love animals, and i want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing. Also, your entire counter to his "I eat meat" and "I hate black people" argument was entirely subjective. Honestly who cares what a TL poll on the subject would say? You're trying to support your argument by saying that you "bet" people would agree with you, instead of actually providing any support for your argument. You attacked him for being "judgmental", yet you failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer to "SHOULD WE KILL THINGS BECAUSE WE CAN" He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance. Your "circle of life" argument about cattle eating grass is factually incorrect. It has been cited several times in this thread but I'll repeat it for you, it takes more plant matter to raise a cow for eating, than it would take to eat plant matter yourself. An animal does not simply store everything it takes in as meat. Mammals give off heat and excrete waste, these release energy that was obtained from whatever they ate. Yes, veganism is not the 'ultimate solution' to climate change, but the solution is not "everybody stop using electricity" as you suggest. Because this sounds sarcastic to me, I'll assume you don't really mean it, and therefore you leave us with the choice of doing nothing, but this too seems ineffective at combating climate change. There are many things everyone can do to reduce their carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of beef you eat is one of many things you can do to reduce your impact. Carpooling, recycling, riding a bike, upgrading the efficiency of your home, and purchasing sustainable products, as well as making your voice heard to your local government are all small things that can help. Regarding your argument against vegans not caring that they kill plant life, this has been addressed REPEATEDLY, but again you incorrectly assume nobody has ever said anything about it. Vegans consider animals to be sentient, conscious beings capable of feeling pain, while plants are not. Therefore plants should be eaten and animals should not, when a lot of people have such an easy choice in what they eat. Animals deserve many more rights than they currently receive, which is a major reason why some people chose to become vegans. Diets containing meat are generally easier to maintain in the current western world. But that does not mean it is inherently the best way to eat. In fact, a diet consisting entirely of prepackaged, convenience, processed, and other junk food would EASILY be more available. Actually this the leading causes of death in north america today are due to the current food system. It is imperative that people begin to educate themselves on a healthy diet, and (although they do exist) the argument vegans tend to make is rarely against other forms of eating healthy, but rather simply arguing against the average food people eat today. There are many cases of professional body builders, weight lifters, olympic and professional athletes who ear vegetarian or vegan. I cannot say what is the "best" method, but I can say that there are many methods available. (Just as an example for protein, chickpeas are very high in protein as well as very low in saturated fat, and low in net carbs) Anyway, please read a little more and try to perhaps consider that someone who has devoted their life to avoiding an entire food category may likely have done a little research about it, compared to the average person. because someone does not agree with you and reject your oppinion on a subject does not make that person ignorant. i think none of the people who have been arguing against the view that animals should have similar or the same rights as humans based on them being sentient have shown or pleaded ignorance in their defense... this is such a non-argument i find it weird that you can throw it out there and still try to continue civilised discussion. the point for me is a simple as this, we treat rocks different from people in practical and theorethical sense, why would we treat them the same in moral sense? it wouldnt really be intuitive to do so. We treat plants different in practical and theoretical sense, why not also in moral sense? Same goes for animals. We treat rubies and bricks different, we treat cacti and pinetrees different, and we treat cats and dogs different. We treat all humans the same in practical and theoretical sense because they are all similar in potential, even though we treat adults different than kids, and sick people different than healthy ones etc. It makes sense to treat them all similar in practice (we send all our kids to get education) it makes sense to treat them similar in theory (neuro-science is not any different for me than it is for you) and we treat everyone similar in moral sense (most moral systems are universal laws that apply to everyone so to speak, this is ofcourse a simplification but it should do). Ofcourse we consider every human individual, as we do every individual dog or plant and even collection of stones (mountains) or individual stones. But we feed a dog like a dog and not like a cat because it is a dog and not a cat... Why would we have moral applications meant and designed for humans transferred to a dog when we would in no other way treat a dog like a man. (I'm aware that some people do see their dogs as companions or even as friends, and that they often imagine the dog to have human qualities or imagine even that the dog understands not just obeys what he is being told, they even give them clothes or let them write books, but even these people I think would admit that dispite all these warm feelings they have, a dog is still not a human). Now explain to me why it would make sense to treat an animal similar to humans in moral sense when we do not treat it similar in practical and theoretical sense? Also if we give an animal rights, do we also demand of the animals that they fullfill the duties that are attached to these rights? Humans do not just have rights, but duties as well and they are part of the same package. (But i digress now, its besides the point even). One can ofcourse say that we share the common ability to suffer and therefor it would make sense to treat animals the same morally as humans. But we share the common ability to sustain life with plants as well, why do we not treat them the same morally? After we do have a moral code that covers murder, aka ending the ability to sustain life. But we can go further, why do we not also treat rocks similar in moral sense, rocks and humans share the common quality of existing (existing withing the cosmos, the cosmos being the place where everything exists). I agree morals get a bit fuzzy on existing but there is enough metaphysical background for those interested to make for an interesting debate (object orientated onticology for example). But why not ideas? Why should we treat ideas any different than humans when we both share that humans are capable of imagining both? Maybe that is a step too far? But please tell me on what grounds do you draw the line at the ability to suffer and on what grounds is that line any more valid than any line before or after the one you draw? We treat them all different in practical and theoretical sense and application after all. i can understand very well why people draw the line at the ability to suffer, but to act as if this is something that is inherently moral, evil, good or whatever and not just an arbitrary boundary is something i cannot agree to. drawing the line at human or rational being is also arbitrary, drawing the line at living being is equally so. but if someone can convince me otherwise i will reconsider. You attacked him for being "judgmental", yet you failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer to "SHOULD WE KILL THINGS BECAUSE WE CAN" He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance. That is hardly a fact, besides the epistemological discussion about knowledge, justification, belief, universal laws, causation/corrolation and probability, the discussion on whether there are actually any things as moral facts is not close to being decided. and even if there were facts, the interpretation of these facts might also be of subjective nature and not of objective nature. it is rather dogmatic of you to just make such a bold claim and not back it up. and then even make the bolder claim that you have the right to look down on other people for having different views on you. i have never read any document that mentions this right. or do you think there are such things as universal rights of nature bestowed upon us by the grace of being what? humans? sentient animals? living beings? things in existance? possibilities? you are making so many assumptions here, how can you say for certain that one person is looking for the truth and the other is not? even if one is right and the other is wrong both could be looking for the truth. what you say here shows so much prejudice i do not see how you behave any better than the people you condemn. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
