(January 19, 2014 at 12:14 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I am not really interested and am truly uncconvinced by vegan 'ethical' arguments. To me, its very simple: I respect your right to control and choose what you eat, I don't give a fuck about your opinion of me based on what I eat.

It seems to me that some (<--not all, some) vegans adopt a cult-like attitude with many analoguous traits to religious cults. Example: some vegans only accept their view and attack others that think differently. You want to eat non-meat products? Cool. You want to tell me what I should eat? Fuck you.

Ok, so it's wrong for vegans to project their ethics on to you, but you think its ok for you to project your ethics onto the lives of animals? I am sure you see why vegans disagree with this!

I, like you, am happy to not get involved with tell others what to do, as long as they don't infringe the rights of others. Meat eating however certainly does infringe the rights of animals.

To me, the eating of meat is very much like a religion. Instead of God, they worship some bizarre conception of nature which they use to justify their actions. They unquestioningly adopt their parents beliefs. They sit together worshiping a roast, and experience rapture at the experience. Challenging their beliefs is met with denial and obscurification.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 12:15 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 11:54 am)jg2014 Wrote: Are you going to figure out the answers to quantum physics or something if you live for 5 more years? No. So does that mean your life has no value? Why then do you value your life and the lives of other people?

The fact is I might actually come up with something to benefit others. I have done it before and I probably will do it again. A chicken won't and you know it.

But why would it matter if you could come up with something to help others? Why does helping others matter?

Quote:
Ok, so it's wrong for vegans to project their ethics on to you, but you think its ok for you to project your ethics onto the lives of animals? I am sure you see why vegans disagree with this! 

The fundamental difference is that LastPoet is a human being, and the animals are, well, animals. Since human beings have rights which animals don't have, I see no problem with him imposing his views on cute, tasty animals but not wanting someone else's views imposed on him.

---

Quote:Question for the veggie. If you were out for a walk and And saw a hawk swoop on a rabbit, would you feel a moral obligation to save the rabbit?

Quote:Jacob. If you wish to ask me a question then use my name.

Fine, fine.

Question for the batshit crazy veggie who can't tell the moral difference between child rape and doner kebab. If you were out for a walk and And saw a hawk swoop on a rabbit, would you feel a moral obligation to save the rabbit?

Better?

(January 19, 2014 at 12:30 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Ok, so it's wrong for vegans to project their ethics on to you, but you think its ok for you to project your ethics onto the lives of animals? I am sure you see why vegans disagree with this!

Animals are not capable of reason. Overblown empathy and first world problems, coupled with shitty rethoric do not make a valid or sound argument.

Quote:I, like you, am happy to not get involved with tell others what to do, as long as they don't infringe the rights of others. Meat eating however certainly does infringe the rights of animals.

Human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other animal rights.

Quote:To me, the eating of meat is very much like a religion. Instead of God, they worship some bizarre conception of nature which they use to justify their actions. They unquestioningly adopt their parents beliefs. They sit together worshiping a roast, and experience rapture at the experience. Challenging their beliefs is met with denial and obscurification.

(bold mine)

Of course, it is I that am telling you that you aren't 'ethical' and being a general prick towards people with different ideas. Riiiiiight



ETA: I am an atheist, but I do not want to impose my atheism on others, nor I would approve legislation forbiding religious beliefs. I may find it silly, argue about it and if many people arrive at it by their own leg, its cool, but I'd never impose it on others.

(January 19, 2014 at 12:35 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: The fundamental difference is that LastPoet is a human being, and the animals are, well, animals. Since human beings have rights which animals don't have, I see no problem with him imposing his views on cute, tasty animals but not wanting someone else's views imposed on him.

But surely there must be some property of being a human that confers these rights, which all humans have but animals don't, right?

So what is that property? consciousness? the ability to suffer? Desires which they can express their behaviour? Animals have all these things.

And I suspect you would give animals some rights, such as the right not be treated cruelly, e.g. a dog owner in the UK can be jailed if they violently abuse their dog. The question then becomes why not give animals all the rights to be protected for other actions of equal cruelty that would logically follow from this right, such as not to be farmed and have their lives brutally cut short?

(January 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Animals are not capable of reason.....

Human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other animal rights.

......
Of course, it is I that am telling you that you aren't 'ethical' and being a general prick towards people with different ideas. Riiiiiight



ETA: I am an atheist, but I do not want to impose my atheism on others, nor I would approve legislation forbiding religious beliefs. I may find it silly, argue about it and if many people arrive at it by their own leg, its cool, but I'd never impose it on others.

Please try to not call other people "prick"s, it just undermines your argument.

Ok, so only those that reason are deserved of ethical consideration?

1. What type of reasoning? Animals can solve problems that are suggestive of some forms of reasoning.

2. And what about people who cant reason? eg people with serve mental disabilities or babies.

3. How does the ability to reason affect our capacity to suffer? Surely if one is conscious and can feel pain then one can suffer, and if so why does the inability to suffer decrease its value?

4. If animals have some rights to not be subject to cruelty (ie a dogs right not to be violently abused by its owner) then why should this right not be extended to prevent the cruelty of farming. And if animals should not have rights, because they cant reason, then why is the violent abuse of pets wrong?

The fact is only valuing humans based on our ability to reason is nonsense

Are you suggesting that animals deserve the SAME rights as humans?

(January 19, 2014 at 1:04 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Animals are not capable of reason.....

Human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other animal rights.

......
Of course, it is I that am telling you that you aren't 'ethical' and being a general prick towards people with different ideas. Riiiiiight



ETA: I am an atheist, but I do not want to impose my atheism on others, nor I would approve legislation forbiding religious beliefs. I may find it silly, argue about it and if many people arrive at it by their own leg, its cool, but I'd never impose it on others.

Please try to not call other people "prick"s, it just undermines your argument.

Ok, so only those that reason are deserved of ethical consideration?

1. What type of reasoning? Animals can solve problems that are suggestive of some forms of reasoning.

2. And what about people who cant reason? eg people with serve mental disabilities or babies.

3. How does the ability to reason affect our capacity to suffer? Surely if one is conscious and can feel pain then one can suffer, and if so why does the inability to suffer decrease its value?

4. If animals have some rights to not be subject to cruelty (ie a dogs right not to be violently abused by its owner) then why should this right not be extended to prevent the cruelty of farming. And if animals should not have rights, because they cant reason, then why is the violent abuse of pets wrong?

The fact is only valuing humans based on our ability to reason is nonsense

Irrelevant.

Only those consideration for whom could, broadly speaking, plausibly result in tangible future benefit for humanity deserves consideration. Whether they are sentient or capable of reason is a mere crude rule of thumb for those who like to pretend to be moral but doesn't care to take the necessary trouble, and is quite immaterial in any more diligent analysis.

Any system of ethics which steps beyond those bounds - morality can not be justified by anything other than broad but tangible good of those holding the morality - will act to eventually defeat the reason why it might be advisable to be ethical in the first place. They nominally attempt to make the world a moral place but in reality act to gradually weeding out from the world those who would have cared to embrace that system of morality.

When animals become vegan, I will become vegan. Until I see animals (especially carnivorous ones) reciprocate the same ideals to humans that you as a vegan espouse towards animals, I will continue to eat meat. The whole vegan philosophy appears to be that animals have the same rights as humans do and that we should afford them those rights. However if we were not the civilized society that we are, animals would just fuck us up on the daily. Here is the defining difference between humans and animals. I might not agree with veganism, but I understand the principles behind it. Animals will never understand what veganism is. Some might live a "vegan" lifestyle, but they have no conscious idea or reason as to why they do so, other than they just don't eat meat. You may value your life as equal to that of an animal, but an animal will never value your life as equal to its own.

"we should be better than that argument in 5, 4, 3, 2..."