Heh, I'm so moved by these veggie's arguments that I'm going to have some ribs with rice and a salad on the side, yum.

(January 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm)jg2014 Wrote: I value reducing suffering because I value the experience of conscious creatures more widely, and while reducing suffering is of primary ethical concern, positive emotions are slso of ethical concern. Essentially the fundamental premise of the utilitarian argument, which I support, is an equation which is used to judge if our actions produce more harm or more benefit.

Utilitarian? Grasping at straws, are we?

What is the utility of the positive emotion of an animal? What is the utility of "experience of conscious creatures"?

(January 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm)jg2014 Wrote: With meat though there is no such ambiguity. It is wrong and cruel. Cruel not just to the animals, but .....resulting in years being taken off their life.

A meatless diet doesn't actually make you live longer, it only make your life appear to drag on for longer.

---

(January 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm)jg2014 Wrote: So you put an animal through the horror of the farm, merely to justify the killing of it to end the suffering you caused it to feel in the first place! You would reduce the suffering of the animal even more by not farming it.

You presume to speak for animals with whom you undoubtedly have profound philosophical conversations?

How do you know animals that wouldn't even exist without farming arn't grateful for their existence and think being killed a necessary end and a worthy price to pay for the chance of being allowed to live at all?

Wish think to justify more wish think.

(January 23, 2014 at 2:41 pm)StoryBook Wrote: So, having shelter, food and water is worst than, no shelter(being in rain or snow) , scarce food(starving for days sometimes), little water(it they can find it)?

Stop trolling us, now you are just being ridiculousness.
You can't even get what you are arguing straight and command us to change to your way of thinking?

You are not responsible for what happens in the wild, you are however responsible for the brutal short lives that farmed animals live.

What troll backs up there argument with the amount of evidence that I have? Be it the studies showing that the capacitive bolt frequently fails to induce unconsciousness before an animals is killed, or the studies showing the capacity of animals to experiences episodic memory, or the ability of animals to have cognitive biases, or the effect of meat eating on health? All you have done is appealed to nature, tried to argue that animals are not conscious (without any evidence), tried to argue that humans have some non defined magical property that means only they are worthy of ethical consideration, before finally making a few unsuccessful attempts to argue against utilitarianism as an ethical system.

I have never tried to divert the argument, or insult anyone. Your suggestion that I am a troll is simply another ad hominem. Once again my argument....

1. Animals are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

Therefore eating meat is wrong

---

(January 23, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Chuck Wrote: What is the utility of the positive emotion of an animal?

It satisfies their need /desire to be happy and free from suffering.

(January 23, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Chuck Wrote: You presume to speak for animals with whom you undoubtedly have profound philosophical conversations?

Firstly, the animals in the wild are amoral, so their experience is not ethically relevant.

Secondly, If we did not breed farm animals, then all we have are "potential" animals who might want to exist if they were alive. But as they don't exist they have no ethical value. Animals lives are however undoubtedly filled with suffering, and all that suffering would be prevented.

Thirdly even if we consider those farmed animals alive now, they would have had a better life living in an animal sanctuary, as they would never face the horror of what is done to them on farms. eg think of the distress caused when a calf is forcibly removed from its mother, or the recurrent mastitis they can get. And they would have a longer life too.

Eating meat is simply cruel.

Then I like being cruel!

(January 23, 2014 at 3:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote: You are not responsible for what happens in the wild, you are however responsible for the brutal short lives that farmed animals live.

What troll backs up there argument with the amount of evidence that I have? Be it the studies showing that the capacitive bolt frequently fails to induce unconsciousness before an animals is killed, or the studies showing the capacity of animals to experiences episodic memory, or the ability of animals to have cognitive biases, or the effect of meat eating on health? All you have done is appealed to nature, tried to argue that animals are not conscious (without any evidence), tried to argue that humans have some non defined magical property that means only they are worthy of ethical consideration, before finally making a few unsuccessful attempts to argue against utilitarianism as an ethical system.

I have never tried to divert the argument, or insult anyone. Your suggestion that I am a troll is simply another ad hominem. Once again my argument....

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 was about us eating meat because it is done in nature. Then went to suffering, which is also in nature.

Quote: tried to argue that animals are not conscious (without any evidence), tried to argue that humans have some non defined magical property that means only they are worthy of ethical consideration, before finally making a few unsuccessful attempts to argue against utilitarianism as an ethical system.

I never said animal were not conscious. I said that when they are dead they still have muscle reactions. I have watch many animals die. I've went to school for animal science. I watched a horse be euthanized, fall to the ground dead and still moving. Watch air escape its lungs, eyes react to touch. An hour after it die and had been cut opens it still reacted and kicked when its legs was touched. The muscles were still twitching.

So excuse me for actually knowing about animals instead of claiming I know more then a vet.

(now I'm late for work. I'll play your game again later)

(January 23, 2014 at 3:44 pm)StoryBook Wrote: So excuse me for actually knowing about animals instead of claiming I know more then a vet.

Firstly, I said I was more qualified, but there will be many things that vets know that I do not. With regards to chemistry, do you not you agree that in principle anything that is in meat and is required for health can by synthesised or derived from non meat sources and used to create a vegan cat food?

If you do, and you really ought to, then I would suggest that you too know more than the vet in question. And if you understand enough chemistry to know that there is nothing magical about any chemical in meat, then I would also suggest that with regard to the question at hand, you are more qualified too.

(January 23, 2014 at 3:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote: 1. Animals are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

1. Agree
2. Disagree in this scenario
3. Don't care and never will

Answer me this. If we breed an animal that had essentially no brain would you eat it? I mean this animal basically didn't have a head and was just kept alive on a machine to grow it's flesh. There would be no brain to perceive any pain or suffering. How about it?

(January 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 3:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote: 1. Animals are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

1. Agree
2. Disagree in this scenario
3. Don't care and never will

Answer me this. If we breed an animal that had essentially no brain would you eat it? I mean this animal basically didn't have a head and was just kept alive on a machine to grow it's flesh. There would be no brain to perceive any pain or suffering. How about it?

No I would not eat it. Eating meat is bad for ones health

(January 23, 2014 at 6:09 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm)KUSA Wrote: 1. Agree
2. Disagree in this scenario
3. Don't care and never will

Answer me this. If we breed an animal that had essentially no brain would you eat it? I mean this animal basically didn't have a head and was just kept alive on a machine to grow it's flesh. There would be no brain to perceive any pain or suffering. How about it?

No I would not eat it. Eating meat is bad for ones health

Would it be morally wrong to eat this animal this animal though?

I am curious if là ban and jg have convinced anyone here that they should quit eating meat.
If you have changed your eating habits because of the deranged misfits please chime in and let us know. I'd like to know what the turning point in this thread was for you.
As for me, if they could give absolute positive evidence that I would live 5 more years if I went vegan I still would not do it. There is no way that I could go vegan more than a few weeks or days before I lost my mind. I'd be looking at animals and only see drumsticks and steaks.