(January 16, 2014 at 9:30 am)bennyboy Wrote:

Quote:So... what? Lions and cheetahs and wolves and sharks and eagles and every other carnivore ever only gets to eat suicidal prey animals?

That's not how life works. Animals get killed and eaten regardless of whether they want to be killed and eaten.

That argument is weak. Humans are different, because we are sufficiently developed to comprehend and care about the suffering of others. We are also so advanced that we can grow and even synthesize alternatives to meat if we choose to do so.

This is the argument that is being made:

(January 15, 2014 at 12:29 pm)là bạn điên Wrote:

Quote:If a vegetarian doesn't like eating meat, they should not eat meat.

if an animal doesn;t want to be killed then it shouldn't be killed

It may be that mine is a weak argument, but the argument la ban was making is not an argument that is confined to merely human-animal interactions and that's what I was trying to point out. Jacob's statement about vegetarians applies to every situation I can think of: If a vegetarian (human or herbivorous animal even) doesn't want to eat meat (or can't eat meat in the case of herbivorous animals), they shouldn't be forced to eat meat. If a carnivorous animal (be it a human, a lion or any other carnivore) wants to eat meat (or is nutritionally required to eat meat as obligate carnivores are, and it seems Rexbeccarox requires to maintain her health) than they shouldn't be forced not to eat meat.

La ban's argument doesn't apply to every situation because there are animals all over the world being killed by other animals right now that don't want to be killed and is, IMO, not a strong argument advocating for vegetarianism. Appealing to the cognitive ability of humans to understand suffering in other creatures doesn't overcome this flaw in la ban's argument for me and appealing to the ability of humans to synthesize their own meat alternatives doesn't address the issue of the needless suffering caused by animals on other animals.

Quote:What if I kill another person and say, "Well, judge, apparently it's in my nature to kill others. That's just the way the world is." Would this work? Of course not!

That's not addressing my argument, it's also not an analogous example. I'm not saying that it's in the nature of animals to kill other animals indiscriminately so we should let all murders and psychopaths off the hook for killing their victims. We're talking about killing animals as a means feeding ourselves so your example should have read more like "If I kill a cow/goat/chicken/another human and say "Well, judge, apparently it's in my nature to kill others for food. That's just the way the world is."" You're conflating the intentions behind the argument - killing another person just because it's your nature to kill is not the same as killing another person so that you can eat them.

Quote:People are expected to recognize the value of others, and to avoid inflicting suffering on them. The question is whether that same umbrella of comprehension and respect should apply to other entities we know are capable of suffering. I don't see any particular reason why not; what makes the value of human suffering important, but that of other animals unimportant?

The reality is this. We know that eating meat involves horrible living conditions and an unwanted death of an organism (unwanted by it, that is). We make a choice between saving that suffering and having that Big Mac, and choose the Big Mac. But there's nothing natural about it.

So if, like Raeven (back in post #100), everyone raised their own animals for slaughter, grass-fed them, let them roam free in their pastures and generally live a fantastic life except for the day they get slaughtered, would that meat be okay to eat? After all, they're not living a suffering life in horrible conditions, in fact they would be living a less-suffering life than a free-ranging wildebeest who gets killed and eaten by a lion. And if that meat is okay to eat, is it also okay to eat grass-fed, pasture-raised, humanely treated meat that was raised on a commercial farm? Or do you see this as a slippy slope argument where if you're okay eating meat you raise yourself than you're a mere slip of the foot away from careening down the slope to "fuck it, just eat the factory-farmed animals"?

(January 16, 2014 at 1:22 am)là bạn điên Wrote:

---

(January 15, 2014 at 2:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I've repeatedly asked you, la ban, to comment on my posts in this thread, starting on page four, and you still haven't addressed them. Is there a reason? I mean, you have pretty definite opinions, you MUST have one for my situation. Here are my posts in case you missed them:

http://atheistforums.org/post-578461.html#pid578461

http://atheistforums.org/post-578510.html#pid578510

http://atheistforums.org/post-578728.html#pid578728

---

You want me to comment directly on your comments ? You aren't even going to the effort of asking a question?

Your first comment seems to be about iron deciciency which you admit can be solved through eating spinach but then claim you will eat steak because it has protein as well whereas you could eat spinach nuts and seeds , tofu etc and get both that way

Your second comments complain that you are not being answered properly.

Ask a specific question and you will get a specific answer

---

---

elsewise why is it when you stick someone on ignore they always reply to you knowing that you aren't actually goin to read it.

---

(January 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Because they are not universal moral standards, but mere opinions.

And that's OK! But you still don't get to elevate them higher than being simply "your opinions".

Not really. I'm pointing out that while you hold one view, lots of people hold different views.


I'm getting that. So you think the choice of what other people are allowed to eat IS yours to make. I think you're rather self evidently wrong. Or perhaps you SHOULD be empowered to make that decision for everyone.

Gee, if only there was a system of government where people could vote in people who would change things they felt strongly about.

Because the last time I saw that argument was from a theist (I forget the stripe) making the argument that since atheists were ok with homosexuality they must be ok with paedophilia as well. Almost verbatim actually. If their was no moral standard then ANY behavior must be ok.

You know whats the same as Kiddie rape? Kiddie rape. And that's it. Neither homosexuality nor eating battery farmed eggs are the same as kiddie rape.

I'm sorry, but even bringing that into an argument about eating meat and farming is a bit of a douche move. Its not the same ball park. It aint even the same fucking SPORT.

Ha fucking ha. Complete hypocrisy. You claim I am not allowed to impose my view because it is not a universal moral position but you are allowed to impose your view that Having sex with 10 year olds is wrong even though that is NOT a universal moral opinion. Having sex with 10 year olds is quite allowable in a number of areas in the world.

Go on ,redefine and wiggle out of that one

---

Oh, huh. I guess you're too short-sighted to find a question in my post, and too lazy to actually read it. I guess you missed the part where I have an allergy to nuts and that I was a very unhealthy vegetarian when I was one. Never mind, la ban. You go on with your bad self on this one. You are extremely closed-minded. Also, you can put me on ignore. It's fine. I don't really care if you read this or not.

(January 16, 2014 at 1:30 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: If a carnivorous animal (be it a human, a lion or any other carnivore) wants to eat meat (or is nutritionally required to eat meat as obligate carnivores are, and it seems Rexbeccarox requires to maintain her health) than they shouldn't be forced not to eat meat.

Rexbeccarox's high emotional response to this issue aside, she didn't say she consulted a doctor or nutritionist, carefully studied the issue, and that she had an incredibly rare genetic requirement to eat meat rather than beans, tofu, flax, yeast, etc. etc. She said she quit eating meat, and quickly her health began to fail. Anecdotes are not a good substitution for actual nutritional education.

Quote:

Quote:What if I kill another person and say, "Well, judge, apparently it's in my nature to kill others. That's just the way the world is." Would this work? Of course not!

That's not addressing my argument, it's also not an analogous example. I'm not saying that it's in the nature of animals to kill other animals indiscriminately so we should let all murders and psychopaths off the hook for killing their victims. We're talking about killing animals as a means feeding ourselves so your example should have read more like "If I kill a cow/goat/chicken/another human and say "Well, judge, apparently it's in my nature to kill others for food. That's just the way the world is."" You're conflating the intentions behind the argument - killing another person just because it's your nature to kill is not the same as killing another person so that you can eat them.

I'm saying that having something in one's nature is not necessarily sufficient reason for one to act on one's nature. Yes, people like to eat meat. No, it is not necessary for people to eat meat.

And what if someone said, "I killed that person because I'm poor and hungry, and they were the nearest available source of protein"? Would you then be okay with the suffering that act would cause? No. You have a stronger "Ewww icky" reaction to cannibalism than to eating a steak, I'm guessing. But that's an emotional reaction, not a logical one.

Quote:So if, like Raeven (back in post #100), everyone raised their own animals for slaughter, grass-fed them, let them roam free in their pastures and generally live a fantastic life except for the day they get slaughtered, would that meat be okay to eat? After all, they're not living a suffering life in horrible conditions, in fact they would be living a less-suffering life than a free-ranging wildebeest who gets killed and eaten by a lion. And if that meat is okay to eat, is it also okay to eat grass-fed, pasture-raised, humanely treated meat that was raised on a commercial farm? Or do you see this as a slippy slope argument where if you're okay eating meat you raise yourself than you're a mere slip of the foot away from careening down the slope to "fuck it, just eat the factory-farmed animals"?

I've argued that given current farming techniques, natural grassland-fed cattle would probably save lives and suffering, since industrial farming equipment would probably cause the loss of many lives of voles, birds, etc. So unless people REALLY care to save all lives, there's going to be some hypocrisy involved.

However, ultimately, the question for me remains this: should the umbrella of protection that we offer to other people (some of whom are distinctly less worthy of continuing to live, imo, than your average cow) also be extended to animals? Isn't the simple fact that organisms do not wish to die sufficient reason not to kill them? Conversely, if I could kill a person peacefully in his sleep for the purpose of eating him, would the lack of suffering in his death make it okay to kill them?

---

(January 16, 2014 at 4:18 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Oh, huh. I guess you're too short-sighted to find a question in my post, and too lazy to actually read it. I guess you missed the part where I have an allergy to nuts and that I was a very unhealthy vegetarian when I was one. Never mind, la ban. You go on with your bad self on this one. You are extremely closed-minded. Also, you can put me on ignore. It's fine. I don't really care if you read this or not.

Do you have an allergy to soy, to beans, to mushrooms, to yeast, and to milk as well?

I support your right to choose your lifestyle. If you want to eat meat, and are willing to accept the consequences of eating meat on other animals, I support that right, too.

However, plenty of vegetarian people have allergies and still have good nutrition. I can almost guarantee you that a good nutritionist (or someone who's good with Googling things) could get you ALL the nutrition you need, while still being wary of your personal allergies and dietary uniqueness.

(January 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Conversely, if I could kill a person peacefully in his sleep for the purpose of eating him, would the lack of suffering in his death make it okay to kill them?

I support the legalization of cannibalism with consent.

Allergies to nuts are not a 'rare genetic disease' dumbass

I did consult a nutritionist and several doctors. I don't have some weird rare genetic disease. I have a nut allergy and an aversion to food... even food I like. Have you ever sat at the dinner table and stared at your food, knowing perfectly well it's delicious, but you can't put it down your throat without your gag reflex threatening to make you vomit? That happens to me almost every day, sometimes several times. Yes, I'm emotional about it. The TEN years I was a vegetarian was part of the cause of my aversion (which is sort of like food PTSD) because I was so nervous about eating. Do you realize how much stuff is processed with nuts? I went into anaphylaxis nine times when I was a veg (only three times in the sixteen years since I started eating meat). I have to look at every label, every package, ask a million questions, and my poor roommate has to alter the way she processes food in our kitchen to accommodate me. Guess what food is rarely processed with nuts. Yeah, guess. I'll wait.

ETA: bennyboy, you know nothing short of what I've told you about my dietary needs. Googling wouldn't even touch the surface, so eff off. (I really like you, but you are WAY off base on this.)

(January 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote:

(January 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Conversely, if I could kill a person peacefully in his sleep for the purpose of eating him, would the lack of suffering in his death make it okay to kill them?

I support the legalization of cannibalism with consent.

Why consent? Animals lack the capacity to consent. Why should I extend extra priviliges to human animals, given that I've found one I think looks delicious, and that I'm willing to take efforts toward a comfortable execution?

---

(January 16, 2014 at 6:23 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Allergies to nuts are not a 'rare genetic disease' dumbass

Who said they were, dumbass?

---

(January 16, 2014 at 8:19 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I did consult a nutritionist and several doctors. I don't have some weird rare genetic disease. I have a nut allergy and an aversion to food... even food I like. Have you ever sat at the dinner table and stared at your food, knowing perfectly well it's delicious, but you can't put it down your throat without your gag reflex threatening to make you vomit? That happens to me almost every day, sometimes several times. Yes, I'm emotional about it. The TEN years I was a vegetarian was part of the cause of my aversion (which is sort of like food PTSD) because I was so nervous about eating. Do you realize how much stuff is processed with nuts? I went into anaphylaxis nine times when I was a veg (only three times in the sixteen years since I started eating meat). I have to look at every label, every package, ask a million questions, and my poor roommate has to alter the way she processes food in our kitchen to accommodate me. Guess what food is rarely processed with nuts. Yeah, guess. I'll wait.

If you recall, I supported your right to choose, and stood against the right of others to pressure you. Re your most recent comment, let me say two things:
1) Your problem isn't so much with many foods, it's more with crappy industrial food production. And given said methods, a vegetarian diet probably does little to save lives anyway. It seems you need a nice rural setting where you can have full control of your food production (like a nice big garden and/or livestock). I do agree it's much more likely that meat will not have been processed with nuts, though.

As a picky vegetarian, I really do understand your discomfort: I cannot comfortably eat in almost any restaurant, because I'm worried about "veggie" burgers being fried on a greasy grill, or about ingredients other people don't consider (like gelatin or shortening) being present without the servers knowing about it.

2) The psychological component you are talking about is not really relevant to a discussion of morality of vegetarianism. To me, it's more a comment on two things: the hypocrisy of those who insist you see things as they do, and the poor state of an otherwise advanced system of food production when it comes to serving the needs of anyone outside the herd.

Quote:ETA: bennyboy, you know nothing short of what I've told you about my dietary needs. Googling wouldn't even touch the surface, so eff off. (I really like you, but you are WAY off base on this.)

It's true that I don't know more than what you've told me. That's why I conjectured that your psychological issues were due to peer pressure. Now, it seems clear that they are due to a mistrust of food producers, and to a fear of death or injury when you eat. Your psychology is perfectly understandable given your experiences. That being said, you do not have a nutritional issue with vegetarianism-- and I doubt anybody does, since there are plenty of non-nut vegetarian sources of protein. I would suggest that the "right" way to ensure people's safety AND to allow them moral options if they choose them, is to establish a better control over industrial food production, or for communities or individuals to localize their food production. But that would be troublesome.

(January 16, 2014 at 6:23 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Allergies to nuts are not a 'rare genetic disease' dumbass

(January 16, 2014 at 10:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Who said they were, dumbass?

(January 16, 2014 at 10:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Rexbeccarox's high emotional response to this issue aside, she didn't say she consulted a doctor or nutritionist, carefully studied the issue, and that she had an incredibly rare genetic requirement to eat meat rather than beans, tofu, flax, yeast, etc. etc.

You did, dumbass

---

(January 16, 2014 at 10:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why consent? Animals lack the capacity to consent. Why should I extend extra priviliges to human animals, given that I've found one I think looks delicious, and that I'm willing to take efforts toward a comfortable execution?

There is no physical reason why you cannot eat another human being. But, by killing an eating another human being for no other reason than you wanted to, is probably a symptom of being a psychopath. Also considering all the people you will hurt by killing the person and by cutting short all those relationships for no other reason than eating the person and taking into consideration that there is literally billions of other animals you could eat, it would be extremely selfish of you.

You really don't read what you post do you bennyboy?

I also have a nut allergy and hate the people who actually doubt that I have one....when I eat foods that contain nuts, my throat closes and I can't breath which unsurprisingly causes me to go into a sort of shock because I'm not yet ready to die and my brain is forcing my body to keep living (that and shoving some antihistamine down my throat before I die).

Back on the subject, many of us end up being vegetarians (vegan is too much because then you have to start being anal about what you put in your body) because we either don't have enough money to purchase meat, are not willing to eat sub-standard meat (pretty much a 1st World problem), or are just too lazy (this is me) to actually cook dinner.

I'll eat meat when it's presented and love eating meat, but I rarely have non-dairy protein in my diet. I'd want to die if I had to become a vegan though. Life has so little pleasure that being vegan would be the last straw.