(May 19, 2013 at 11:47 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: It won't help either way, but he is laying the claim that eating meat is itself immoral...when there are starving children out there in the world who never get ANY food. He has no factual basis in his claim about eating animals being immoral in any way, so it's merely his opinion...meaning he's in a nation, a culture of plenty, and saying that eating meat is unanimously wrong because it's immoral. And I'm asking, what about those starving children? If you cannot value a human life over an animal life...that means you would deny them much-needed sustenance if it came from the death of an animal.

It has nothing to do with actually helping starving children. I do that at the soup kitchen, and it's good as I can give since my travel abilities are kind of non-existent right now. It's a matter of taking some smug holier-than-thou stance of supposed morality, which when you look at it, isn't nearly a quarter as noble as this halfwit would like to think. It's ok, at best, if you're a vegetarian for health reasons; the science is inconclusive but if you honestly believe it's better for you, whatever. But the moment someone starts trying to lord themselves around as some paragon of morality when the most these armchair crusaders do is type furiously at a keyboard, by utilizing what is in reality a pretty fucking immoral set of ideas, then their ass is mine.

I see. Apparently I took your post completely out of context and thought you meant vegetarianism in general and not the just "I'm more moral than you!" cunts. Sorry about that. lol

(May 19, 2013 at 11:49 am)littleendian Wrote: Regardless of whether vegetables suffer or not (and there is a good argument for that they don't suffer or at least not to the same extent as animals, see above), it is a necessity for me to eat plants or otherwise I die. Therefore, this is no more a moral question than it would be to ask whether anti-biotics are immoral because they kill bacteria which invade our body. This all serves self-preservation which is never immoral. What is immoral, however, is to kill someone for ones selfish indulgance.

No, it is not a necessity for you to eat plants that have been killed for food. Fruitarians don't all drop dead, do they?
And antibiotics are used to treat non-fatal infections all the damn time. We are killing the bacteria just to make ourselves more comfortable! Poor widdle bacteria!!!!!

I'm going to just point out how significant the differences are. On a genetic level we're all very similar but here's the thing; we're genetically similar to bacteria. You wanna know how I base my differences off of? Like so:

Can animals build for aesthetics, for design, for multiple functions? Can they manipulate the environment surrounding them into an ordered fashion to serve themselves? Can they manipulate objects, or utilize social structures to utilize individual productivity? Can they communicate with one another?

No, no, and no. No. No, and no. And finally, no.

In other words there's a WORLD of difference between us and that's just scraping the iceberg. Shall I go into written communication, mathematics, space exploration? Shall I go into artwork? No I shan't because by then it'd just be humiliating you. Now, do tell me in what ways we are similar to animals, but without using any of the most obvious three similarities, namely being: Mammals [ergo warm-blooded], genetics [consider we are 68% similar in genetic code to trees and you'll see why I throw that idea out], common point of evolution. Also, what system of ethics are you talking about? Also, how does it apply? You keep making this nebulous claim first to morals, and now to ethics. Morals and Ethics 101 tip: Morals and ethics are two very different things and not interchangeable AT ALL, except in the minds of people who don't know what the fuck they're on about.

Also; feverishly posted up? "Feverishly?" Don't try to sound all florid, it just makes you come off even more like a condescending tool than you already are.

By the way, you wanna know how to butcher a cow? Here's a hint; you don't let it suffer. I might feel bad if the animals were killed in extremely slow, painful ways, but given how most the time it's a fucking bolt to the head when it comes to beef [meaning an instantaneous death, too fast for pain to even BEGIN to register on the nerve endings Wiki: before the vital life functions and the cerebral cortex itself are destroyed]. When it comes to pork, the pigs are knocked out before they're killed [both for humane reasons and for meat quality reasons; if the animal died in pain it'll mean a spike in adrenaline which ruins meat quality; this is why animals are killed quickly nowadays, in the economic and agri-cuisine terms] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_slaughter ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_slau...ted_States For listed means of animal slaughter. There are exceptions that crop up every so often in the US at least, but the FDA and USDA regulates this shit pretty intensely and when violations are found, they get fixed REALLY fucking fast.

So, that removes the issue of "pain," since the animals don't die in pain, they die instantly or are otherwise rendered into a state wherein they don't feel pain.

---

(May 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I see. Apparently I took your post completely out of context and thought you meant vegetarianism in general and not the just "I'm more moral than you!" cunts. Sorry about that. lol

Think nothing of it, I admit my post might've been a touch rambling. I uh...I kinda get emotional about certain topics. Hence another reason why I said this guy has no read on me. I respect discourse, but I have no emotional patience for ideas that are patently false or unfounded being thrust forward in my face as if they are valid and right.

If the cow is killed, I'll eat his meat so he didn't die in vain.

(May 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Can animals build for aesthetics, for design, for multiple functions? Can they manipulate the environment surrounding them into an ordered fashion to serve themselves? Can they manipulate objects, or utilize social structures to utilize individual productivity? Can they communicate with one another?

No, no, and no. No. No, and no. And finally, no.

Neither can the mentally handicapped or infants or many elderly, yet we still feel we have a moral obligation towards them. We have no objective reason to feel morally responsible towards these groups but not for animals.

(May 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: In other words there's a WORLD of difference between us and that's just scraping the iceberg. Shall I go into written communication, mathematics, space exploration? Shall I go into artwork? No I shan't because by then it'd just be humiliating you.

I'm sure that, as you so condescendingly hint at, I'm not even remotely capable of grapsing all these fascinating topics that you could write The Book on, but that won't win you this argument.

(May 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Now, do tell me in what ways we are similar to animals, but without using any of the most obvious three similarities

Animals can suffer. Humans are animals, so humans can suffer and share this with the rest of the animal kingdom. Thanks for the condescending lecture on the difference between ethics and morals, I'm sure it has significant bearing on the subject

(May 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: By the way, you wanna know how to butcher a cow? Here's a hint; you don't let it suffer. [...] There are exceptions that crop up every so often in the US at least, but the FDA and USDA regulates this shit pretty intensely and when violations are found, they get fixed REALLY fucking fast.

We're not arguing about humane slaughter, which makes about as much sense as speaking of a "human genocide". We're arguing about whether the act of killing already is an issue.

But as a total aside, you are lying to yourself if you think that the machine that is todays mass slaughterhouses has any consideration for the suffering of the "product" that goes through it.

---

(May 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: If the cow is killed, I'll eat his meat so he didn't die in vain.

The man's a saint!

---

(May 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: No, it is not a necessity for you to eat plants that have been killed for food. Fruitarians don't all drop dead, do they?

I've given this a try, admittedly only for a few days, and I felt sick, and I now know that is because it is quite an unhealthy diet for most people. I won't risk my health, which is again simply self-preservation.

Anyone who has seriously tried vegetarianism and was getting sick from it has every right to eat meat, however there are many living and very healthy vegetarians and also vegans who prove that it is quite possible in general. There are very few accounts of healthy fruitarians doing that for any extended time period.

The argument that you made that one should only eat fruits implicitly already accepts that it is wrong to take life without a good reason, and on that we can agree.

(May 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: If the cow is killed, I'll eat his meat so he didn't die in vain.

Anyways, the question is about suffering, as far as I can see it being an issue. Now, does a free range animal, restricted by a border of fences suffer? I think not.

I often view vegetarians as unrealistic idealists, who don't see that life consumes life - it's just how it is - we can lessen suffering sure, but do not let it delude ourselves about it by playing the morality card. We simply do not know if a free range animal suffers more than we do in our own daily lives, nor do I think it's even remotely reasonable to extrapolate our view of suffering unto an animal with a completely different view and experience of reality. Hell, if we can remove their experience of suffering out of the equation, I don't see why we could treat them carelessly; they wouldn't mind.

For me, I'll give Bessie an affordable and comfortable life for a couple of years, and then kill Bessie with a boltgun and consume its delicious flesh as a steak.

Where I come from we eat sheep and slaughter them, but that seems to change anyways, ourselves and then we hang the meat up to dry or cook it or whatever. I have no deceptive view about this - I can see that they probably are afraid in their last moments in life before they are shot in the head with a boltgun. But before that they roamed freely in the Faroese mountains doing what they do best, eat grass and shit all over the place.

There comes a point in every discussion, I think, where you have to realize when you've won and when you've lost. I'm not going to be responding any further, I'll let you come to your own conclusions as to why.

(May 19, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I'm not going to be responding any further, I'll let you come to your own conclusions as to why.

Lemme guess: Time for lunch?

So, littleendian, when you make something suffer and die just so you can eat it's "self preservation," but when others do it it's immoral? Gotcha.

(May 19, 2013 at 2:00 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I'm not going to be responding any further, I'll let you come to your own conclusions as to why.

Lemme guess: Time for lunch?

All this talking about eating flesh has made me hungry, what can I say. Time for some turkey sammiches!

Nora: Exactly. The double-standards this guy is saluting are flapping proudly in the breeze, aren't they?

(May 19, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Sal Wrote: For me, I'll give Bessie an affordable and comfortable life for a couple of years, and then kill Bessie with a boltgun and consume its delicious flesh as a steak.

It all boils down to this: If you do the above then you have no logical, objective way of arguing against someone who does the same thing to a human being, let them live for a few years in relative safety but not free and then kill them quickly to consume their "delicious flesh". There is no objective reason for why the one thing is okay but the other is not. To fall back to the default response of stating that humans are simply more important is a subjective feeling that has no objective basis and ignores the simple biological fact that any animal, human or not, has the same urge to live and be free of suffering. Using this capacity of suffering as a measure of who is eligible to our moral consideration is the only objective basis offered so far. So in order to remove this contradiction from morality, I would argue it is best to extend our sense of who our moral duties apply to.

---

(May 19, 2013 at 2:02 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: So, littleendian, when you make something suffer and die just so you can eat it's "self preservation," but when others do it it's immoral? Gotcha.

Do you see the difference between self-preservation and gusto? That's the difference between eating vegetables and eating meat for anyone who doesn't require meat to survive.

---

(May 19, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: There comes a point in every discussion, I think, where you have to realize when you've won and when you've lost. I'm not going to be responding any further, I'll let you come to your own conclusions as to why.

Thanks for the discussion, although it would've been even more interesting had it been more objective at times, it's hard work to pick out the worthwile arguments in between all the... strong emotions. But I see why my position is winding up people easily. Maybe this is hard to imagine but I could actually do very well without being the asshole who pisses off everyone at these kinds of heated debates, but I don't think I would do anyone a favor if I backed down from a position arrived upon by reason without a solid argument.