(January 19, 2014 at 5:04 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I don't have to believe, I've been there, done that and know all about it. You see, I now know you are talking out of your previleged city slicker ass. You probably would still juggling yourself from ball to ball in your dad's croutch while I was already helping cows in labour, feeding them, sanitizing their indoor quarters. I also visited many slaughterhouses, including worked on some. Any modern one makes sure the animal doesn't suffer because of ethical reasons and more importantly to them, stressed animals make bad quality meat.

I'm done with you and your pontification attempts, squirm all you want, I'm eating meat, vegetables, whatever and you have no right to tell me what I should or should not eat. Make all the excuses you want, its just whining from a previleged kid. Go join PETA or play with your willy, I'll give 0 fucks about it.

And yet the studies speak for themselves, for example this one http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.4.473 , performed in 2013, "Inadequate stunning occurred in 12.5% (16.7% of bulls, compared with 6.5% other cattle). Bulls displayed symptoms rated the highest level for inferior stun quality three times more frequently than other cattle. Despite being shot accurately, 13.6% bulls were inadequately stunned compared with 3.8% other cattle"

If you value suffering, then one should not eat meat.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 5:21 pm)plaincents822 Wrote: But we are not just talking about people harming people or animals harming people. We are also talking about people harming animals and animals harming animals. If animals should have the same right to life as people do, what are the consequences for an animal that ends the life of another animal? Because your answer seems to have been that animals are amoral and should not be punished for eating other animals. Why am I being held to a higher standard as animals if I am going to be sharing the same rights with them?

Simple, because unlike animals you have the ability to change your behaviour and make decisions based on values. Male animals will frequently fight and kill to mate with a female. The even have characteristics selected for this, as do we. Its ok for animals to do this to each other because they cannot reason, but we are held to a higher standard because we can hold values and change our behaviour.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Chuck Wrote: The fact that you wish there to be additional considerions is fine so long as you keep it to yourself. Those consideration is only applicable to the individual who choses to take on the burden. The rest of us don't. We won't kill you painfully to eat your meat because we do generally eat meat. So don't tell us what we can, or should eat.

This is something I've said many times, even in this thread and the whole shitload of threads that we had on this issue: Someone wants to go vegan? Sure, its one's right to do, as is my right to choose what I want to eat.

Meh, from time to time there is fundie vegan joining here trying to pontificate his superior morality for not eating meat. I guess if they were in the savanah near a pack of hungry lions they would totally go "Nah, we won't eat this guy"

(January 19, 2014 at 4:57 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 4:30 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Here we go then...

1. Animals are conscious and can suffer

2. Causing suffering is wrong

3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

Therefore, eating meat is wrong.

Which part of this argument suggests I am cowardly or timid? Does my debating style suggest I am timid? No, the fact is meat eating is so bound up in your head with being strong and powerful that to challenge it would therefore make one of weak character. Meat eating is so bound up in your identity that when it is challenged, it is not just the argument that is being challenged but your perception of yourself. With men this is further bound up with our perception of masculinity, with timidity being the antithesis of this strong male identity. This is why you are so defensive.

Your argument is a logical fallacy.
1. I am conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Your opinion causes me suffer

Therefore, your opinion is wrong.

3 should be re written to read, your obsession with eating meat causes me to suffer when this obsession is challenged.

Therefore, being obsessed with eating meat is wrong.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 5:36 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I guess if they were in the savanah near a pack of hungry lions they would totally go "Nah, we won't eat this guy"

Appeal to nature

Your whole argument seems to be that animals suffer, so we shouldn't eat them. Well, if animals didn't suffer would it be ok to eat them?

And btw, I saw you have copied and pasted your paragraph about cows and bulls from some website or other. It doesn't lend credibility to your argument when you didn't write it yourself.

And besides, animals we eat have a better life than they would in the wild. No predators to worry about, a consistant supply of food, a safe place to sleep at night. And at the end, a relatively painless death. Euthanasia. Even we aren't allowed to do that to humans who are suffering. Most of the time, these animals actually get an easier death than humans. I would much rather be killed like a cow than lying in a hospital bed struggling to breath from old age. Or wasting away from cancer and some other disease.

---

Obsession with eating meat? No it doesn't work like that. Eating meat, is completely normal and natural. It is in fact you that has the obsession.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:22 pm)Chuck Wrote: 1. Animal can suffer

2. Animal tastes good

3. Making animals suffer to eat them does not adversely effect general welfare of humanity

4. Therefore making animal suffer to eat them is neither right nor wrong on that count

5. But improving the diet of humanity by making their meals palatable enhance general welfare of humanity

6. Therefore making animal suffer to eat them is right on that count.

In order for this to be true you have to add in a whole load of other points eg ethics is only concerned with the welfare of humanity. To which I would reply what gives humanity ethical value is our ability to suffer. Therefore other things that suffer should also be given ethical consideration, and your argument is disproven

I've been a vegetarian for 8 years now, for ethical reasons. But I would eat meat created by a Star Trek replicator, because no animals have to die in order to replicate the meat. I still wouldn't eat hamburgers, hot dogs, sausage, or pepperoni, because those are just gross.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And btw, I saw you have copied and pasted your paragraph about cows and bulls from some website or other. It doesn't lend credibility to your argument when you didn't write it yourself.

The paper he linked deals with the importance of making accurate shots when killing the animals and perform maintenance to the guns, it really doesn't support his 'argument' at all. If anything, recommends better practice, that I support (the meat has better quality if the animal is killed correctly).

Anyway, he has gone the deep end and calling everything a fallacy... Forgetting his all 'argument' since the beginning has been one big appeal to emotion.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:46 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 5:22 pm)Chuck Wrote: 1. Animal can suffer

2. Animal tastes good

3. Making animals suffer to eat them does not adversely effect general welfare of humanity

4. Therefore making animal suffer to eat them is neither right nor wrong on that count

5. But improving the diet of humanity by making their meals palatable enhance general welfare of humanity

6. Therefore making animal suffer to eat them is right on that count.

In order for this to be true you have to add in a whole load of other points eg ethics is only concerned with the welfare of humanity. To which I would reply what gives humanity ethical value is our ability to suffer. Therefore other things that suffer should also be given ethical consideration, and your argument is disproven

Perhaps you need review the concept of proof before you make an idiot of yourself.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:47 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: I've been a vegetarian for 8 years now, for ethical reasons. But I would eat meat created by a Star Trek replicator, because no animals have to die in order to replicate the meat. I still wouldn't eat hamburgers, hot dogs, sausage, or pepperoni, because those are just gross.

The original animal had to die to get the code to replicate. You'll have to just keep eating your morning star burgers.

---

What we need to do to make everything ethically correct is to breed a pig that wants to be eaten.

(January 19, 2014 at 4:57 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 4:30 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Here we go then...
1. Animals are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer
Therefore, eating meat is wrong.

Your argument is a logical fallacy.
1. I am conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Your opinion causes me suffer

Therefore, your opinion is wrong.

Sorry, you've missed this one, 'KUSA', because your counterargument is clearly not of a like kind. YOU are complicit in your own suffering: you choose to read the article, you choose to engage in the debate, etc. A cow obviously is not complicit in the decision to execute it and put it on a bun.

If 'jg2014' trapped you in an enclosed space with thousands of other people, and tied your hands or crippled you so you couldn't cover your ears, and started shouting philosophical ideas at you, THEN you'd have a more comparable argument.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And besides, animals we eat have a better life than they would in the wild. No predators to worry about, a consistant supply of food, a safe place to sleep at night.

The same argument has been made for slavery. Have you asked the animals how THEY feel about being locked up, force-fed and killed at the height of their health? Consider the possibility that there's a serious conflict of interest involved, in having people who want to eat animals being the sole determiners of the morality of doing so.

Quote:And at the end, a relatively painless death. Euthanasia. Even we aren't allowed to do that to humans who are suffering. Most of the time, these animals actually get an easier death than humans. I would much rather be killed like a cow than lying in a hospital bed struggling to breath from old age. Or wasting away from cancer and some other disease.

Would you still feel that way if the choice wasn't yours? What, for example, if the government decided 70 years is old enough, and a team of qualified professionals threw you onto a truck for your "painless euthanasia " against your will?

---

(January 19, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Chuck Wrote: General standard of morality amongst humans should be silent on that which does not impact adversely on the general welfare of humans.

Replace "humans" with "white people," or with "Americans," and see if this argument is as good as you think it is. Should white people have stayed mum on the wrongness of slavery, just because they were not slaves?