Who needs science when they can refer to applied bullshit instead?

Quote:We have always eaten meat, along with everything else that we could fit in our mouths.

Thanks for the insight. Perhaps you covered some other aspects of our evolutionary past in your science class.

Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism)

You might also be aware that our ancesters practiced infanticide, sacrificed one another to the gods and impregnated girls at the age of 10 or 11 years old.

Now, if your suggesting we must do what our ancesters did then I would simply ask why?

Now that we can reason, can we not make up our own minds about what is moral?

Do you do just what the other guy does? Can't you think for yourself?

(April 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote: Now, if your suggesting we must do what our ancesters did then I would simply ask why?

Because we enjoy it.

(April 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote: Now that we can reason, can we not make up our own minds about what is moral? ?

We can. That's why we don't condescend to listen to your chickenshit take on morality. Eating meat is amoral in our book

(April 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote: Do you do just what the other guy does? Can't you think for yourself?

No, we are not doing what you do. We think. You feel.

Quote:Slavery, the oppression of women, and institutionalized racism also once had this status; however, few if any suppose that this status is what makes these practices morally right or wrong. Animal-eating (speciesism) is wrong for the same reason slavery is wrong:

When chickens organize and demonstrate for rights like blacks and women did then I will consider their petition. Until then, pass the barbeque sauce.

So much bluster!

Quote:My argument is that reducing intensive livestock production (regardless of whether we eat the meat or not, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of fertility and it's sources), would lead to increased reliance on petrochem.

I get what your argument is but you haven't supported it. As much as you enjoy bandstanding and making trite remarks, in your anger you cannot see the wood for the trees.

I do not need to come up with a alternative method of food production in every detail or risk losing the argument. I have presented an argument that it is not morally justified to eat meat because it causes unnecessary suffering. You are suggesting that the suffering is not unnecessary becuse were we to switch to a vegetarian diet, there woudl be an even greater reliance on petrochem and that would cause even more suffering. But you haven't supported this claim at all.

You seem to have some knowledge on the subject, but do not seem to be an expert. I'm no expert and so I turn to reputable sources. Amongst these are the United Nations and the institutions of the European Union.





http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/p...Report.pdf

http://ftp.ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0...701E07.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...-emissions

Now these institutions are producing reports based on scientific studies. They are concerned for the environment and about the huge impact the livestock sector has. They advocate EATING LESS OR NO MEAT. If they thought that eating less or no meat was bad for the environment, they wouldn't suggest it, would they?

Now, you may disagree. You may accuse me of arguing with myself blah blah but I'm not going to listen to you unless you can appeal to some authority on the subject. Otherwise, it's just hot air.

You can portray me as some lunatic if that helps you feel better. You can play to a sympathetic audience here too caught up in self-interest to actually consider the arguments, but the facts speak for themselves. If experts advise eating less meat is a positive step forward, to my mind your unfounded claim that even greater environmental damage would follow does not mean eating meat is necessary, but quite definitely unnecessary and therefore immoral.

---

Quote:When chickens organize and demonstrate for rights like blacks and women did then I will consider their petition. Until then, pass the barbeque sauce.

Nice thought. Of course your joke works on the basis that chickens cannot vocalise their objections, even if they had the intelligence to do so. A bit like the mentally retarded, the senile, the insane etc. These are all groups that cannot protest but we are morally obliged to consider their interests becuse they have a capacity to suufer and feel pain as we do. Your rather weak joke helped me make my point quite well. Thanks.

---

Quote:No, we are not doing what you do. We think. You feel.

I've seen no evidence of you thinking.

---

(April 25, 2012 at 12:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: Who needs science when they can refer to applied bullshit instead?

I think my argument is good. Richard Dawkins does. You can't. You delude yourself out of self interest.

I have, you're simply too lazy to click a link, or unwilling to respond. Vegetable production has very well defined fertility requirements. You have been provided with a list of those requirements (such a detailed list that it encompasses all crops that can be grown in my particular state, by crop, alphabetically, no less). Do me a favor, click on that link, and take a look at how detailed I'm willing to get here, how many things I'm willing to consider. Then, perhaps, you'll understand why I keep asking you to elaborate, to be specific. It's a little more complicated than you seem to have been led to believe.

Give me a fucking break, I do this for a living, and I'm good at what I do. If you want to know something about ag that I cannot help you with, I can find you the information you want in a heartbeat. I know my field, and I know where to find those bits of arcana in my field that are unfamiliar to me. You have your interpretation of what a report from the UN states. (I'm still reading it, and I still don't see any support for your position, all I see are a litany of reasons why the current production practices are unsustainable, and exploitative, which is precisely what the paper hoped to establish in the first place. Though it has been criticized on the grounds of basic fucking science as being a whitewash paid for by fossil fuel lobbies.)

They suggest eating less or no meat -based on an appraisal of current practices -with a questionable attribution of cause. Have you seen any of these papers suggest that it is a moral or ethical guiding principle which leads them to this? No, their strongest case is that of environmental and social impact, which has nothing to do with livestock and everything to do with current production methods. I keep attempting to drill this into your head and I'm beginning to think that you're purposefully ignoring me. You want a source, read the goddamned paper you linked......Nevertheless, those fertility requirements I mentioned above (and have linked you a comprehensive source for) hinge in part on intensive livestock production (except in the case of organics, where they comprise the entirety of the available sources of fertility). You need me to cite you a fucking source that states that if you had three marbles in a jar and removed one you would now have two marbles...unless you added another?

You haven't listened to a word I've said thusfar, so, business as usual. Do your own work. If this matters to you as much as your arguments would seem to imply you'd be engaging in due diligence before weighing in. That way some asshat wouldn't be able to annihilate your arguments on the grounds of abject ignorance of the subject. "Maybe we should do something" doesn't cut it. Definitions for what you feel to be "necessary" or "unnecessary" doesn't cut it. This is food, we live or die by it. You may be able to sit comfotably wherever you're att and spout off armchair philosophy but we're well beyond that point, aren't we. I've granted you your argument so many times and in so many ways that I would have hoped, by this point, you had at least attempted to find a way to bring it into the real world. I think that you get stymied at the point of assertion so often that you are unprepared to take it any further.

I'll ask you again, do you think that a pasture raised beef operation contributes more or less to environmental pollution and the suffering of sentient creatures than a commercial soy operation? Would you like to see commercial soy operations leverage "organic" or conventional methods in this envisioned vegan future? Let me explain why this is so important. If you go organic, you have two options. Animal manure, and nitrogen fixing crop rotations. Animal manure requires livestock, nitrogen fixing legumes decrease productivity and thereby necessitate an increase in cultivated area (or a measure of acceptance with regards to those that will not have access to food). You aren't going to be able to do the whole "hand picked bit" because you won't be able to even approach current yields without equipment in either case. If you would like to see us go the way of conventional methods (which utilize petrochem and natural gas based fertilizers -in addition- to manures for fertility you will need more oil, more wells.) I want to know which way you would go with this so that I can give you a detailed list of the potential environmental impact, since you claim to want such a list. I don't think that you actually do, or you'd have ponied up long ago. I think you find it much easier (and more comfortable) to continuously say "Prove me wrong!". Well, I'd like to, but you seem intent on avoiding it at all costs.

All you've offered thusfar is green manure, well, thats a decrease in yeilds, and the suffering of those who starve to death (already) will simply be exacerbated. There are a whole host of other concerns, but I'm trying to keep it surface side for you. Green manures also fail to address those livestock operations (that do currently exist) that would meet all of your requirements but for some reason you have decided that they are a no-go anyway. You are inconsistent in your application of your own terms and argument. You ignore the basic realities of agricultural production as though your arguments would have any value arising from your fantasies of agriculture. This is the issue I have with your arguments. Not whether or not you eat meat, or whether or not I eat meat, or whether or not it is moral or ethical to eat meat. Not how good you feel since becoming a vegan, not how healthy vegetables are, and not whether current practices are exploitative.

Quote:You might also be aware that our ancesters practiced infanticide, sacrificed one another to the gods and impregnated girls at the age of 10 or 11 years old.

Strawman fallacy.

Your basic premise is flawed,built on a moral value which you presume others necessarily share . What you consider unnecessary is irrelevant unless supported by credible evidence. Your argument is supported only by maudlin sentiment, declarative statements and an implicit claim of moral superiority.

I have nothing further to say on this matter to you..

PS it's 'ancestors'

Who's joking? I'm having chicken tonight. Before I turn on the grill I will ask if they object.

If they do, I'll stop.

(April 25, 2012 at 3:08 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote:

Quote:No, we are not doing what you do. We think. You feel.

I've seen no evidence of you thinking.

You couldn’t have seen much of anything anywhere to have come here to squat for so long on so insipid a position as yours in so inane a thread as this.

Scabby Joe Wrote:becuse they have a capacity to suufer and feel pain as we do

You make quite a few assumptions with your self righteous views. Oh, yeah that's usually what self righteous and absolutist people like you usually do. This argument is entirely based on your assumptions and is over. This is my last response.