Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[NoahsFarce]

You are vastly overestimating the "luxury" of veganism. The reason it's difficult for anyone to be vegan right now is that we've had a system in place for ages that doesn't value non-human animal life. An absolutely ridiculous amount of resources go toward producing animals for people to eat. It's estimated that 50 billion animals are killed each year for food. That's the reason you consider veganism a luxury. It's not because veganism is difficult for humans. It's because our resources are being used elsewhere.

Am I? How much of the world has this luxury to be Vegan? Take for instance, a poor Chinese citizen. Fish is readily available and is a staple Asian protein. It's both obtainable and affordable. It's more appropriate for these people to continue their fish consumption rather than spending more time/money on vegetables to obtain the same amount of nutrients. Meat is also more filling. You know the original purpose of rice was to be a filler. Make you full.

So while you and I can go to any grocery store in our neighborhood and have our pick at a wide variety of vegetables and supplemental vitamins, a lot of the rest of the world does not have this luxury.

And speak for yourself about converting to Veganism not being difficult. I would have to change not only my diet, but my son's and wife's as well. Unless I want to be the only "moral" one. Not to mention that we live with family so I would either have to force them to alter their diet drastically, or always shop and cook separately for myself. Not to mention the hours I need to initially spend to research the Vegan diet and recipes.

Why are you discussing objective morality? I don't believe in "absolute" truths, but that does not mean we can't find a good set of guidelines that contains rules of what to do and what not to do. So you have a problem attempting to find absolute moral truth. Does this mean that you're okay with pedophiles doing whatever they want, or do you think we should still attempt to find some idea of morality to enforce?

If we aren't discussing objective morality here, what is your basis for saying meat consumption is an immoral act? You must have some sense of an objective moral to be able to sit there and tell us that meat consumption is immoral.

I hold a different view on morality. I don't like the idea of absolute morals. I think some are objective and others are subjective. In the case of meat consumption, it is subjective IMO.

Also, don't sit there and ask me why I am talking about absolute morals and then follow up with a comment stating that you would force me to change my culture by banning meat consumption. If that's not act of implementing absolute morality, I don't know what is. HAIL MEAT HITLER!

This is a nonsensical question. This is like having a discussion of pedophilia or rape and saying "we're just talking about sex!" Yeah, once you ignore all of the negative aspects people are actually objecting to and reduce it to a single word, it certainly doesn't sound as bad. If we were talking murdering humans for food, I don't think you'd make this same ridiculous comment.

This is nothing of the sort. To say a discussion about the morality of meat consumption is anything near the level of the subject of pedophilia or rape is NONSENSICAL.

Let me make my stance clear to you... and I'm sure you'll find me immoral for it.

I VALUE HUMAN LIFE MORE THAN I VALUE OTHER LIFE. If you delve deeper into my mentality, I value my family's life over YOURS. Rape and pedophilia causes direct and intentional harm to my fellow human beings. If a child is molested or a woman (sometimes men too) raped, they will more often than not suffer emotional distress for likely their entire lives. If I eat a cow that, to the best of my knowledge, was raised on a good farm with good practices and was killed instantly, there is no harm done to my fellow species.

For you to even suggest that pedophilia and rape deserves to be made into an analogy on a debate about meat consumption is DISGRACEFUL.

Are you on the TTA forums? Is your name on there NotSoVacuous? Because it's striking that both you and this character uses this exact "Pedophila" and "Rape" analogy in a debate about the morality of meat consumption.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Spider-Man, but it has a pretty choice quote: "With great power comes great responsibility." Humans have a reasonable capacity for intelligent thought, so we should use it to determine if what we want to do is right or wrong. If you have a decent argument and come to a different conclusion, that's fine. If you have a terrible argument and come to a different conclusion, that's also fine. Most beliefs are based on terrible arguments anyway.

As perfectly evidenced by your beliefs on meat consumption. That quote is great and I love Spider-Man. But sorry, I don't really agree with it. With great power comes the CHOICE to be that much more responsible. You could be a couch potato Superman for all I care. I'm not going to call you immoral because you choose not to save the world. After all, that's your freedom of choice. I dare not say I deserve to be saved from a mugger by you just because you have the capacity to do so.

Don't get me wrong here, none of that means I have to like you for making that choice. It's just your right to do so. I would find it more unethical to place that type of weight on an individual's shoulders no matter how powerful they are.

I'm not interested in comparing how human pain differs from cow and chicken pain. In my view, that is not relevant to why it is wrong to own, hurt, or kill them. I don't only place value on beings that possess human qualities. I think cow qualities are good enough.

You prove over and over again that you really don't care much about your fellow humans at all in the case of meat consumption. It's a "fuck you, it's wrong" situation. Don't deny it, you already said you'd rule down on it with an iron fist if you were supreme ruler of the Universe. At least something to that effect.

As for your use of the word abuse, my definition would contain killing another being for its flesh. If yours doesn't, that's okay. Regardless, I think you're overestimating the amount of animals that aren't raised in terrible conditions. Over 99% of the livestock killed in the US are raised in factory farms. I'm not familiar with other countries, but the numbers should be similar in any developed country.

I don't care about that statistic. It would be more interesting if it told me how many of those factory farms are abusing their animals. Abuse as in ramming them with forklifts and throwing chickens into cages like a baseball. In case you're confused about definitions here.

Where in there does it say anything about raping children? Where does it say anything about murder? Where does it say anything about the definition of "humane?" Your question is nonsensical. Why would the definition of ethics contain something about consuming meat?

So you do understand what I'm getting at after all. None of those definitions say anything about specific matters. So why do you define it with such objectivity by going as far as questioning my use of words? Make up your mind bro. Don't argue with me about how you don't care about objective morals, but then use vague definitions against me like you do have objective answers.

Also, my point was that killing beings for their flesh is, by definition, not humane. That's not judging the act, only the word used to describe it. I don't feel a need to describe the empire state building as a short horse, since those are not the appropriate words to describe it. In the same vein, humane is not the right word to describe killing beings for their flesh. That's not an argument against the act, but against incredibly poor word usage.

Again, you posit an objective definition here. Sorry, that is just your opinion. If some super advanced alien race starts farming me for food, I'm going to ask for humane treatment. You can argue semantics with them.

I try to avoid ending intelligent life and causing harm where possible and practical. I obviously live in a society where my views are not shared by many, so it is impossible for me to avoid everything. The problem is not with the people who dislike sweatshops and other problematic industries, though. It is with the people who run them.

Intelligent life is what exactly?

[/quote]Personally, yes. If I had control, killing intelligent beings for their flesh would be illegal everywhere. I do not have control, though, so you're able to make your own decisions. This is like asking me, as an ethical non-pedophile, whether I think asking you to stop raping children is ethical. Of course I do.[/quote]

So you think cows and pigs are intelligent beings? Or are you just flat out saying that you would force the world to be vegans? Because that would be spoken like someone who believes in absolutes.

[/quote]I don't care what value you place on culture or what weight you give to your father's opinion of you. If you were raping children fortnightly, and your culture and father approved completely, I'd still consider it ethical to make you stop. I think people should approach the issue of morality as it relates to killing other beings to eat them with logic and reason, though they will not necessarily reach the same conclusions as me. Culture and personal opinions are meaningless to me, since they offer no argument as to why something is right or wrong.[/quote]

I addressed this above.

Alien's Day Out is literally the only blog I follow, and it just happens to be a vegan blog from someone in Korea. It's good stuff if anyone is interested.[/quote]

Wow, a Korean Vegan in a first-world country. Imagine that. What a beacon of morality amongst countless immoral peers.

I'm not sure why self-recognition is important to you. It's one of those arguments that seems to be used to separate humans from non-humans, but I've never seen a reason as to why it's a worthwhile point to focus on. Could you let me know why you feel self-recognition is necessary for a life to have value? It seems like an incredibly arbitrary thing to focus on when there are so many more aspects of intelligence that are shared by humans and non-human animals. It's like people examined humans and non-humans to find a difference, found one thing where they saw little overlap, and said, "this is the thing that's important!"

If self-recognition is not important to you, then you have a very relaxed definition of intelligence. Again, at the expense of sounding elitist, if you don't have the capability to recognize yourself outside of yourself, you lack one of the fundamental aspects of intelligence. No self-recognition = no self-reflection.

I don't use this to separate myself from other animals. Quite the opposite. When I discovered this fact about other primates, my views on them changed vastly. I wonder if they regret past transgressions as we humans often do. I wonder to what point, they reflect on self.

I'm against murdering humans even if you kill them instantly. My arguments for veganism are not purely based on suffering. I have arguments against suffering, but I also have arguments against killing. They're very similar to the arguments you have against doing those things to humans, I just substitute "human" with "intelligent being." I'm omitting the next chunk you wrote since it should be clear now that I'm against all those things.

So you wouldn't kill a human being in self-defense?

Wow, that is completely nonsensical. I feel the need to throw out that Billy Madison quote here.

Show me a victim of walking upright. I could give a shit about offense.

I know you don't think murdering and eating a human is on the same level as offending a human. Here, though, you're comparing killing a being for its flesh with offending a being. Why would you think this comparison is anything less than absolutely terrible?

I'm still interested in hearing what makes a life have value for you, unless your self-awareness comment earlier was your argument. I imagine it's not, though.

I really don't know what makes life have value. Hell if I don't try to live my life trying to figure it out though.

I think what you're really trying to ask me is, do I value the life of those animals I consume. Yes I do. I value them for food. Selfish huh? I'd value them as pets as well if I had a pet cow and had the time to attribute human characteristics to it. But that's normal. People attribute human characteristics to stuffed animals and robots.

By the way, this mirrors a Theist vs Atheist debate. Vegans are the theists here.

Here we have vegans going against the natural aspect of meat consumption. Humans are born omnivores. You indoctrinate your children against this nature into Veganism. You do so based on moral arguments. Us meat eaters demand evidence for these "morality" cases you make.

Yup, naturalism doesn't always justify the morality of acts. But sometimes, it's good enough.

Just to remind you, I don't for a second deny that Veganism could in fact be the MORE moral option. I am simply defending against the claim that consuming meat is unethical/immoral. It might be, but until you can provide solid evidence to favor your argument, I will continue to commit the act you deem "immoral".

---

There is no logic or reason there. His argument is that it's unethical to make people stop performing an act simply because those people perform that act. It's a ridiculous non-argument that anyone who values reason should be ashamed to present. This is what people mean when they say they do things for cultural reasons. People who use logic and reason to evaluate options and make decisions are not doing things for cultural reasons.

The logic and reason is fine. You just don't agree with it. That's fine.

Please don't generalize what I said in my comment. Remember, I don't hold the same view as you on meat consumption. I don't equate this cultural reasoning with the cultural reasoning for say Circumcision. That is WHAT YOU are doing. Not me.

Some cultural arguments are perfectly fine and logical. Indians don't nod their head up and down. They wiggle it side-to-side. It's their culture. They can stick to it even if the rest of the entire world only nod their heads up and down. Their cultural reason for doing this act is perfectly fine.

You just have an agenda against meat consumption therefore, my cultural "excuse" is not logical TO YOU. If I had an agenda against wiggling your head from side-to-side, the Indian's cultural excuse would not be logical to me.

You don't care for other opinions on this subject. You're ethics are etched in stone on the matter of meat consumption. You already proved that with your statement about what you would do as a supreme ruler of the cosmos and its 11 dimensions of hyperspace.

I'm genuinely interested in evidence that suggests eating meat is immoral. I don't see any. Maybe I'm just too set in my ways. But one would think that if I could free myself from religion after being faced with mountains of evidence against it, I could do the same for meat consumption.

Or maybe I'm just that stubborn