Login

James2014 · January 20, 2014 at 3:18 pm

(January 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Are you being intentionally dumb?

Are you being unintentionally sexist, or do you think its ok for people to use insults that cast negative aspersions on the female sex? It's like when young people call something they don't like "gay". They are not even aware they are using homophobic language. As I said, the banality of evil.

LastPoet · January 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm

You do know that the term 'pussy' has other meanings than female genitalia, right? You know, it can mean a cat and in the context I said it, an oversensitive squeamish person, that you are trying hard to prove that. Take your sexist derail to the Atheism+ forum.

And keep using the work 'evil', as often as you say it, you could start a religion ROFLOL

James2014 · (This post was last modified: January 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm by James2014.)

(January 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm)LastPoet Wrote: You do know that the term 'pussy' has other meanings than female genitalia, right? You know, it can mean a cat and in the context I said it, an oversensitive squeamish person, that you are trying hard to prove that. Take your sexist derail to the Atheism+ forum.

Those are quite some logical somersaults you are going through there, usually when someone uses the term they mean they are cowardly like a woman or an effeminate male. Just don't use the term again, it is sexist. I am sure you weren't knowingly using it the way that many people use the term, but that is irrelevant.

The "banality of evil" is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt, I was not using to imply the religious concept of evil exists.

LastPoet · January 20, 2014 at 4:02 pm

(January 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Those are quite some logical somersaults you are going through there, usually when someone uses the term they mean they are cowardly like a woman or an effeminate male. Just don't use the term again, it is sexist. I am sure you weren't using it know the way that many people use the term, but that is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant, as you tried a diversion maneuvre, here ya go champ, just for your education: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pussy

James2014 · (This post was last modified: January 20, 2014 at 4:13 pm by James2014.)

(January 20, 2014 at 4:02 pm)LastPoet Wrote:
(January 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Those are quite some logical somersaults you are going through there, usually when someone uses the term they mean they are cowardly like a woman or an effeminate male. Just don't use the term again, it is sexist. I am sure you weren't using it know the way that many people use the term, but that is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant, as you tried a diversion maneuvre, here ya go champ, just for your education: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pussy

And to you, for your education http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...lish/pussy
"a weak, cowardly, or effeminate man"

Its a sexist term, degenerating males who have what are considered female characteristics, thereby implying that female characteristics are inferior.

To return to the debate, if abusing an animal for enjoyment is wrong(eg a dog owner mistreating his dog) then why is meat eating, which comprises of comparable cruelty, merely for culinary enjoyment not also wrong?

LastPoet · (This post was last modified: January 20, 2014 at 4:16 pm by LastPoet.)

Keep trying to divert from the topic, to split hairs with sexist, I told you, go to the atheism+ forum, they will love you there. I take this last page and the whole divert as an admission that you have no argument for imposing veganism on others except for a fallacious appeal to emotion.

James2014 · (This post was last modified: January 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm by James2014.)

(January 20, 2014 at 4:15 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Keep trying to divert from the topic, to split hairs with sexist, I told you, go to the atheism+ forum, they will love you there. I take this last page and the whole divert as an admission that you have no argument for imposing veganism on others except for a fallacious appeal to emotion.

I am trying to bring it back to the topic! It was only went off topic when you started using insults. I answered all your arguments and what was your response "You fail at Biology forever."

So come on, which part of my argument appeals to emotion?

How is saying that we should value suffering, an appeal to emotion? How is saying that we are responsible for the suffering we cause by our actions an appeal to emotion?

My argument again

1. Animals are conscious and can suffer

2. Causing suffering is wrong

3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

Therefore, eating meat is wrong.

I ask again, if abusing an animal for enjoyment is wrong(eg a dog owner mistreating his dog) then why is meat eating, which comprises of comparable cruelty, merely for culinary enjoyment not also wrong?

Bad Wolf · (This post was last modified: January 20, 2014 at 5:02 pm by Bad Wolf.)

(January 20, 2014 at 1:54 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Firstly animals most certainly do have many human characteristics, do you deny this?

No, humans have animal characteristics. But no the characteristics we share aren't relevant

(January 20, 2014 at 1:54 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Yep, I would say the most people either never think about the rights or wrongs of eating meat or they are so obsessed with it they deny the obvious cruelty it causes.

And again, shout as loud as you want

(January 20, 2014 at 1:54 pm)jg2014 Wrote: To start with, most people would say that abusing for enjoyment an animal is wrong. They believe that animals such as dogs can suffer, and mistreating them is bad But when they consider meat eating, which objectively comprises of comparable cruelty,

No, here is where i'm going to stop you. Mistreating your dog is not the same as eating meat. It is nowhere near the same as that. It is ridiculous to suggest that. No wonder no one is agreeing with you. In most cases mistreating your dog is done on purpose for no other reason than you are taking out stress on a lesser being because you can get away with it. The CEO shouts at the manager, the manager shouts at the employee, the employee kicks the photocopier. No one else here agrees with you, that animals are mistreated or abused on the same level as abusing a dog. Abusing your dog is not necessary to survive but eating meat kinda is.

(January 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Ok, so its an old person who didn't have any other family an no other personal relationships. Many old people do live isolated lives, so its entirely feasible. The method the murder uses to kill the person is indistinguishable from dying from natural causes, so no chance of getting caught. Your ethics would say murder is permissible in this circumstances.

What would be the point of killing them? Is there a reason at all?

StoryBook · January 20, 2014 at 5:07 pm

(January 20, 2014 at 4:25 pm)jg2014 Wrote: So come on, which part of my argument appeals to emotion?

How is saying that we should value suffering, an appeal to emotion? How is saying that we are responsible for the suffering we cause by our actions an appeal to emotion?

My argument again

1. Animals are conscious and can suffer

2. Causing suffering is wrong

3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

Therefore, eating meat is wrong.

I ask again, if abusing an animal for enjoyment is wrong(eg a dog owner mistreating his dog) then why is meat eating, which comprises of comparable cruelty, merely for culinary enjoyment not also wrong?

1.Humans are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Shooting humans causes people to suffer
Therefore war is wrong.

Yet we still keep killing people for our country Undecided

Ok, so from the way you talks you must not own a pet. Or at least a dog or cat.
Dogs are carnivores. We own them and must give them food. Most dogs, like wolves, do best on raw meat. Most dogs don't know how to hunt. So to prevent the animal from starving to death we have to kill another to feed it.
Is it wrong to kill one animal to help another? This animal that we kill will most likely get a bolt to the head(here in the USA). A quick death(also nerves of a dead animal can still have reactions long after they die. Meaning their muscles still move. This happens even with euthanasia drugs) . It will then be processed or cut up.Then fed to dog.

How is that any different the a person eating the animal?

James2014 · January 20, 2014 at 6:32 pm

(January 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:
(January 20, 2014 at 1:54 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Firstly animals most certainly do have many human characteristics, do you deny this?

No, humans have animal characteristics. But no the characteristics we share aren't relevant

(January 20, 2014 at 1:54 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Yep, I would say the most people either never think about the rights or wrongs of eating meat or they are so obsessed with it they deny the obvious cruelty it causes.

And again, shout as loud as you want

(January 20, 2014 at 1:54 pm)jg2014 Wrote: To start with, most people would say that abusing for enjoyment an animal is wrong. They believe that animals such as dogs can suffer, and mistreating them is bad But when they consider meat eating, which objectively comprises of comparable cruelty,

No, here is where i'm going to stop you. Mistreating your dog is not the same as eating meat. It is nowhere near the same as that. It is ridiculous to suggest that. No wonder no one is agreeing with you. In most cases mistreating your dog is done on purpose for no other reason than you are taking out stress on a lesser being because you can get away with it. The CEO shouts at the manager, the manager shouts at the employee, the employee kicks the photocopier. No one else here agrees with you, that animals are mistreated or abused on the same level as abusing a dog. Abusing your dog is not necessary to survive but eating meat kinda is.

(January 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Ok, so its an old person who didn't have any other family an no other personal relationships. Many old people do live isolated lives, so its entirely feasible. The method the murder uses to kill the person is indistinguishable from dying from natural causes, so no chance of getting caught. Your ethics would say murder is permissible in this circumstances.

What would be the point of killing them? Is there a reason at all?

1. If we are to judge our actions by how much suffering they cause, the the ability to suffer is certainly relevant.

2a. People abuse animals for a variety of reasons, including because they enjoy it, for example the people that train pit bulls to become super aggressive, and then force them to fight and kill each other. They do this cause they enjoy, just like the enjoyment meat eaters get for eating meat.

2b. We do not require meat for survival. Vegans have a longer lifespan then meat eaters as shown in the adventist study I previously quoted.

3. The murderer wants to kill the old person to stop them claiming benefits, and increase spending on other things like education. The point is depriving a conscious being of life is wrong, even if it is done painlessly.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Any Nihilists here?	FrustratedFool	351	15247	August 30, 2023 at 7:15 am Last Post: FrustratedFool
	are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?	justin	266	77244	May 23, 2013 at 4:20 pm Last Post: fr0d0