Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[TheJackel]

Plants don't have a nervous system capable of supporting sentience. Show me a plant that can meaningfully suffer and then there will be an issue.

You are still killing life... You are just discriminating based on what you think suffers more. And that's fine.. However, you are still killing life and even contributing to the extinction of many species as you compete for resources and habitats. Seems you don't have an issue with agriculture destroying entire ecosystems while you pile your plate with vegetables ect. So where is your moral boundaries when it comes to the destruction of life?

[Scabby Joe]

[The Grand Nudger]

That's bad ag, cattle are actually wonderful little creatures but not cheap enough for us to consume in the manner that we do without resorting to soy or corn (which is problematic in and of itself). Of course, massive swaths of land are great for soy or corn production but not mixed veggie production. This place isn't exactly a paradise.

Pointing to inefficiency in a system as though it were somehow indicative of the value or merit of the product is pretty narrow minded. As is ignoring why we adopted the system in the first place

Try "to feed the poor among us". Now, smugly argue against that, if you please.

(pro-tip, human beings also lack the ability to discuss the issues in a rational manner, by and large)

[jackman]

not sure of the level of sentience that matters here for the plant eaters. if "happy" is the only word used to describe a plants feeling, then ok, i don't think plants can be happy or feel sad if they're eaten. but, if you go a little more into what can lend itself to having a consciousness, then let's go to defenses that some plants have developed to avoid being eaten. maybe answer to venus fly traps, roses and poison ivy. sure, they're maybe not plants in particular that vegetarians eat, but by developing defense, it's it showing that they're sentient to an extent as well?

[Scabby Joe]

That's bad ag, cattle are actually wonderful little creatures but not cheap enough for us to consume in the manner that we do without resorting to soy or corn (which is problematic in and of itself). Of course, massive swaths of land are great for soy or corn production but not mixed veggie production. This place isn't exactly a paradise.

Pointing to inefficiency in a system as though it were somehow indicative of the value or merit of the product is pretty narrow minded. As is ignoring why we adopted the system in the first place

Try "to feed the poor among us". Now, smugly argue against that, if you please.

(pro-tip, human beings also lack the ability to discuss the issues in a rational manner, by and large)

Hey, sorry you thought it smug. It's just a few facts that are hard for you to deal with.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, when it comes to ag all facts are hard to deal with. This addresses what? Ag is not a place for hardline idealism, people need to eat, regardless of what they may believe about morality or ethics, it is a long list of concessions along the lines of practicality.

Let me help you. Yes, more acreage would have to be converted for a full vegetarian diet, this is due to suitability of land.

No, livestock production is not "less economic" than vegetable production, again, due to suitability of land (and just icing on the cake, suitability of crops for human consumption). We actually engage in it only when it is "more economic", why you think otherwise is beyond me... Do you think that livestock producers are in the business of losing money?

Greenhouse gases are symptomatic of/required by life, not just this or that bit of life, all life. In fact they facilitate life, without them we're fucked, entirely (it's awfully cold out there in space).

[LiberalHearted]

I think that it does not follow that being an atheist means that you should be a vegetarian. Of course not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in something.

I do agree, logically speaking that a magic man were magicians, illusionists. It is all entertainment.

However, believing in a god or gods which people state are really a magic man and had written a book that is the word of this god. With no evidence is where I think most atheists derive the non belief in what is being said.

I didn't come into atheism all angry, irate stomping my feet. I came into this with a great deal of peace and relief.
[quote='Scabby Joe' pid='273870' dateline='1334686594']
It maybe atheism attracts those who don't want to live by any ethical or moral code; maybe that's what they didn't like about religion.

Only if there were no ethics or moral code at all, and generally the old fashioned word sociopaths would fit better. Claiming to be an atheist at that point is moot.

However, for those thinkers out there atheism does at least raise some issues to consider.

Haven't met an atheist that wasn't a great thinker. Come to think about it haven't read a book from an atheist that was not great for thought.

First, we were not created in the image of God. We are not special, just another animal. We do not necessarily need to hold onto the Christian idea of dominion.

Yet many do hold on to the thoughts (which haven't ended) in evolution.

We are now a social creature, there are cities, to consider and the general social environment, not to mention laws of the society, whichever country.

Second, atheists reject God given moral law. Morals or ethics may be subjective or objective but some atheists may want to to ethical/moral even without the threat of eternal hell. So, can we agree on the following:

Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is unethical.

I like this, not all do which for them is ok. If we are just considering 'farm animals' etc. People need to eat. The choice is theirs.

Now back to the sociopath, yup it's known most or a majority begin their behavior by hurting animals. ie The Iceman (former hit man for the mob) began by throwing puppies off the roof. Back to nature or nurture. Problems in psychology are passed on yes, but is it primarily nurture which prevents them from acts that are considered unethical or immoral?

For those that can, and do eat factory farmed meat, how is it ethical.

After seeing some videos I had no stomach to eat anything from industrial farms. But, that is me, I'm not everyone. I do have friends on the same page. Cool and that is all there is to say about it, if Richard Dawkins claims the same, extra cool once again I'm in good company.

[Scabby Joe]

LOL, when it comes to ag all facts are hard to deal with. This addresses what? Ag is not a place for hardline idealism, people need to eat, regardless of what they may believe about morality or ethics, it is a long list of concessions along the lines of practicality.

Let me help you. Yes, more acreage would have to be converted for a full vegetarian diet, this is due to suitability of land.

No, livestock production is not "less economic" than vegetable production, again, due to suitability of land (and just icing on the cake, suitability of crops for human consumption). We actually engage in it only when it is "more economic", why you think otherwise is beyond me...

Are you more of an authority than the United Nations? Let's have some sources plkease to back up your claims. Let's see the evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

What would you like a source for? I'm always looking for an excuse to talk food.
(you're going to be very dis-appointed when we're done, the UN isn't exactly an impartial body, or an authority in the field of ag. It's a political body.....that comes with certain issues)

[TheJackel]