just gotta ask but how much farm land do you think it would take to have all the people in the world to eat only plants would we not have to tear down a shit load of forest for all the extra plants killing the so called aniaml you want to protect.
I'm a vegan and I come in peace...
- Thread starter Cadmium Magenta
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like the flippant argument of "If God didn't want us to eat pigs, he wouldn't have made them out of bacon". I eat meat because I like meat.
Also, welcome to the forum!
Ok, let me get this straight. If you were starving in a room with a rabbit, your wouldn't kill and eat it?Cadmium Magenta said:
But morals are subjective, heavily based on time period and culture. Also, we are animals. The only thing that separates us from the rest of the kingdom is the fact that we are at or near the top of the food chain and sapience. A huge part of what makes our population size viable is the fact that we have learned (non-vegan) agriculture and to herd animals.Cadmium Magenta said:
Also, welcome to the forum!
The difference is that a baby has the potential to grow into rational and moral human. A cow will only ever be a cow at a cow's cognitive level.evilthecat said:
We also only have a tolerance for immoral and irrational humans (be they handicapped or otherwise), but once it gets to a point where they are directly hurting other humans, we tend to revoke their rights for liberty, and even life, as well.
Maybe it is discrimination based on species. My point was that the OP made a specific point of humans being moral and rational as opposed animals, and therefore obligated not to eat them. The premise was not mine, but the OPs, and if the premise stands, so does my argument.
As I said, if the premise is untrue and animals and humans are equally "moral and rational", then we are all just animals doing what animals naturally do: eating each other.
I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but I really don't think you did.AndyFromMonday said:
If you could quote yourself defining 'consciousness' at this point, I'm sure I'd look like an enormous idiot..
'Intelligence' isn't intrinsic, a human infant is no capable of demonstrating 'intelligence' than an adult cow.AndyFromMonday said:
It's also extremely complicated to talk about intelligence in the sense you mean, because there's not just one variable at work. In terms of overall brain size and neurological function, chimpanzees and humans are not that far off.
Again, the only real candidate for what marks humans apart in terms of intelligence is the ability to develop language, because language allows for symbolic thought, it allows for the expression of recognizable emotion (no, the expression of emotion isn't intrinsic, a newborn baby doesn't cry because it feels sad). A lot of what we lump together as 'intelligence' is simply the ability to use language.
At some point, the distinction ultimately comes down to 'because this organism is human (and therefore substitutable for me) and this organism is not', you might have to go quite far down the line, but that's ultimately the reasoning. Intelligence doesn't (on its own) determine whether it's acceptable to kill something, emotion doesn't determine whether it's acceptable to kill something, the distinction ultimately comes down to the relatively 'irrational' variable of species boundaries.
That was always my point.
Not true.. suffering can be a response to physical pain, it's just the affective part rather than the sensory part.AndyFromMonday said:
And I don't think you've sidestepped the problem. If I beat a human and a dog with a specific stick every day for a week, and then later on I take the stick out and show it to them. Which of those responses is suffering, and how do I know?
Spanking isn't acceptable in my country, it's actually illegal, I believe.AndyFromMonday said:
And forgive me, but I also don't think 'spanking' qualifies as 'beating'. Beating kind of implies a degree of disproportionate physical force. Spanking generally involves the bottom specifically because it's very hard to injure someone that way.
I don't think you're comparing like with like, hitting a dog is certainly no more unacceptable than spanking a child. Beating implies the force is disproportionate.
...actually, all we would have to do is breed fewer livestock animals. 400lb hogs and 1000lb cattle eat a lot of plants. Far more than human beings, even pound-for-pound. If we cut cattle, pig, and chicken meat production, we could reconstitute the land used to feed them for crops better suited to human consumption (also, what animals we do still raise for meat could have more space, live healthier lives, and be less prone to disease... ie the meat would be higher quality)Zenthunder said:
...and that's from a guy who lives in the middle of nowhere and kills his own meat when the season is right.
You may not think so, but I certainly do.Cadmium Magenta said:
I love meat, and I am not about to go vegan for the sake of an animal.
In truth, I see no reason to not eat meat.
I don't feel bad for the animals that are slaughtered for meat at all.
May come from the fact that I have not grown up in a city, because it seems to me that most vegans are from the city.
No really, I have yet to meet a vegan that did not grow up in a city.
I theorize that it might have something to do with being disassociated with nature, but I am rambling and shall end my reply here.
We are. At least I am. I defend my own, and my brain tells me to pass my genes.Cadmium Magenta said:
No matter what the law or my morals/ethics say I will protect those who are close to me, by any means necessary - even if it implies violence against someone from my own species.
It's exactly what an animal is.
Look, its very simple: humans arent FRIGGIN CANNIBALS because of the whole "we need to propagate the species!" thing + we generally feel bad for retarded people. Less people=less gene pools=less diversity=less survival=less people.
Also, humans taste bad.
Also, humans taste bad.
Animals are tasty, not sapient and therefore so long as we don't start causing suffering for no reason whatsoever I see no moral issue here. I can't see how the arguments for not eating animals would differ at all from saying we shouldn't eat plants and saying that is just retarded. Yes everything else would be much better off without humans so fucking what.
That would be a strange situation to be in, but yes, I'd certainly kill and eat the rabbit. However, these extreme hypothetical scenarios aren't applicable to everyday life. If it's either starvation or eating meat, obviously go for the latter, but how often do we actually face such a choice? At least in Western society, eating meat isn't about survival, but about taste and convenience.crudus said:
I agree that we are also animals, that passage in my original post was poorly phrased. What I was getting at is that there are some unique traits that set us apart from almost all other animals, and that is our capacity for complex reasoning and self-reflection. While I don't think this makes us superior (in fact, our intellect has led us to some pretty unintelligent things, like invent the nuclear bomb or design an economic system that is now melting down in our hands), our level of intelligence is the kind of great power that comes with great responsibility.
Morality is one way in which we have taken up that responsibility. I must say, I'm quite baffled by a lot of people here who openly denounce morality as naive, idealistic, scientifically baseless or even useless. Without morality, there would be no society. Society began when two cavemen met and suddenly realised that perhaps they shouldn't clobber each other over the head and explore ways of working together. Every law, every social norm, every collective achievement is based on a set of morals that governs how we treat one another. Without morality, we'd live in an anarchic wasteland and spend our days fighting for our lives... in fact, much like animals do in the wilderness.
Also, while I agree that moral nitty-gritty varies across cultures, families and individuals, basic morals are not subjective, but quite universal. As I wrote in my earlier post, there is no culture that allows arbitrary violence. We always demand a moral justification for violence: We send the criminal to prison to protect society. We shoot the gunman because he was taking aim at an innocent civilian. We wage war because someone, somewhere thinks this is a good idea that in the end will relieve more suffering that it creates. We also think it's just and moral to kill animals for food.
It's those last two examples that I think merit discussion.
And thanks!
Ethically, your arguments make perfect sense.
But honestly, I can only act ethically over so many things, and so far my consumption of meat has remained distinctly behind a whole host of other issues.
I'd say this is roughly where the line is drawn between you and these "denouncers".
But honestly, I can only act ethically over so many things, and so far my consumption of meat has remained distinctly behind a whole host of other issues.
There are morally just actions that benefit you / morally unjust actions you are punished for, and there are things that once upon a time were declared "moral" or "immoral", but do not directly benefit or punish you.Cadmium Magenta said:
I'd say this is roughly where the line is drawn between you and these "denouncers".
we need specific nutrients from meat, fish and other animal products,those nutrients help us think, meat is important for our diet but not necessary, it is the main source of vitamin B12 and protein though you can get it elsewhere, plus humans are animals, we have been eating meat since we the dawn of men.
P.S. I'm sorry if I don't have good grammar english is my second language
P.S. I'm sorry if I don't have good grammar english is my second language