are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?

[ideologue08]

Well, I eat meat because I believe God said it is allowed. That's pretty much it.

One of the ten commandments clearly states: Though shalt not kill.

Nothing about humans. Would you dare to re-interpret Her word to suit your case?

And completely on the side: Appealing to God is not going to convince a lot of people in an atheist forum.

I'm not Christian, I'm Muslim and plus "thou shalt not kill" does apply only to human beings. By your logic "thou shalt not steal" also applies to animals? Haha

Who cares if Atheists aren't convinced, it's none of their business. All that matters is the fact that I am convinced God said so and so I'm going to eat meat, I don't give a shit what other people think. Nobody's business apart from mine.

[NoraBrimstone]

God shouldn't even come into this. Humans are omnivores. We can eat meat if we want to. If we weren't meant to eat meat, meat would make people ill all the time. Didn't you learn about the food chain at school? It's perfectly natural for humans to eat meat, so nobody should be made to feel guilty about it.

[littleendian]

God shouldn't even come into this. Humans are omnivores. We can eat meat if we want to. If we weren't meant to eat meat, meat would make people ill all the time. Didn't you learn about the food chain at school? It's perfectly natural for humans to eat meat, so nobody should be made to feel guilty about it.

Category error, we're not talking about the physical capacity to kill animals, we're talking about its moral justification or lack thereof. This kind of reasoning has been repeatedly refuted, even within this very thread.

Let me illustrate the fallacy: Men are often physically stronger than women. From your logic above it would follow that men are not acting immorally if they rape women because they have the biological capacity to.

I believe that's what a scientist would call bullshit.

---

I'm not Christian, I'm Muslim and plus "thou shalt not kill" does apply only to human beings. By your logic "thou shalt not steal" also applies to animals? Haha

"Haha" is all you have for an argument? An animal doesn't steal because they are not agents to the law, simply because they have no way of comprehending the law. Thanks for reminding me why I so strongly distrust your dogma.

Who cares if Atheists aren't convinced, it's none of their business. All that matters is the fact that I am convinced God said so and so I'm going to eat meat, I don't give a shit what other people think. Nobody's business apart from mine.

Great then. Thanks for deteriorating the noise-to-signal ratio here.

[NoraBrimstone]

Category error, we're not talking about the physical capacity to kill animals, we're talking about its moral justification or lack thereof. This kind of reasoning has been repeatedly refuted, even within this very thread.

Let me illustrate the fallacy: Men are often physically stronger than women. From your logic above it would follow that men are not acting immorally if they rape women because they have the biological capacity to.

I believe that's what a scientist would call bullshit.

Now there's a false anaolgy if ever there was one. Rape=harmful. Meat=harmless.

[ideologue08]

God shouldn't even come into this. Humans are omnivores. We can eat meat if we want to. If we weren't meant to eat meat, meat would make people ill all the time. Didn't you learn about the food chain at school? It's perfectly natural for humans to eat meat, so nobody should be made to feel guilty about it.

Category error, we're not talking about the physical capacity to kill animals, we're talking about its moral justification or lack thereof. This kind of reasoning has been repeatedly refuted, even within this very thread.

Let me illustrate the fallacy: Men are often physically stronger than women. From your logic above it would follow that men are not acting immorally if they rape women because they have the biological capacity to.

I believe that's what a scientist would call bullshit.

---

I'm not Christian, I'm Muslim and plus "thou shalt not kill" does apply only to human beings. By your logic "thou shalt not steal" also applies to animals? Haha

"Haha" is all you have for an argument? An animal doesn't steal because they are not agents to the law, simply because they have no way of comprehending the law. Thanks for reminding me why I so strongly distrust your dogma.

Who cares if Atheists aren't convinced, it's none of their business. All that matters is the fact that I am convinced God said so and so I'm going to eat meat, I don't give a shit what other people think. Nobody's business apart from mine.

Great then. Thanks for deteriorating the noise-to-signal ratio here.

You're the one that said the ten commandments don't only apply only to humans, stupid idiot. I eat meat because of my theology. If you're not down with that, you can kiss my ass.

[littleendian]

Category error, we're not talking about the physical capacity to kill animals, we're talking about its moral justification or lack thereof. This kind of reasoning has been repeatedly refuted, even within this very thread.

Let me illustrate the fallacy: Men are often physically stronger than women. From your logic above it would follow that men are not acting immorally if they rape women because they have the biological capacity to.

I believe that's what a scientist would call bullshit.

Now there's a false anaolgy if ever there was one. Rape=harmful. Meat=harmless.

No, its not harmless only because the victim who suffers and dies is non-human.

[Creed of Heresy]

I kill a mosquito that is going to sting me, yes, that is called self-defense and is quite justifiable.

Self defense? Are you fucking KIDDING ME?

Neither do most human beings have a good understanding about what death means or what life is, but that doesn't allow us to exclude them from moral considerations. Neither has any brain study ever shown that another human being has quite the emotional range that you yourself as the subject of those experiences have, all you see is some neurons firing. It is all based on reason and inferance. That doesn't lead you to question that other people have very similar experiences and desires as you do.

Uhm, actually we have a much better idea of what life and death is than we let on, even the most religious of us betray that with their fixations on death and equating it to being something possibly bad or horrible. The people who ask the question "why am I?" already have answered the question by merely existing; "Because I am.", it's just superfluous questions made up by people who try to make out like they're sounding smarter than everyone else when in fact they're not.

I never dismissed that plants have some kind of consciousness and will, that they are very much alive. However it is never immoral to do what I need to do to stay alive, and I have to eat plants in order to stay alive. I don't have to eat animals, and I have much more direct evidence of the suffering and pain of a screaming pig when it is butchered than when I pick an apple from a tree. Which, by the way, is not killing the tree, matter of fact it is what the tree has produced the apple for in the first place, reproduction. I'm actually giving the tree its equivalent of sexual pleasure for all I know.

So in other words you live by an undefined double standard where the only morality involved is your own subjective one. Well, at least you have openly admitted to having no basis in any kind of truth in reality that anyone here should take on face value, then!

Just shut up and quit bitching and eat a damn steak.

I'll consider the screaming all capitals and the insulting tone as a confirmation that you, too, deep down inside can feel that there is actually something very wrong here. Why else would you, and not only you, get so emotional despite your proclaimed trust in reason.

Also, it is unworthy of someone who quotes Hitchens in his signature to tell someone who he disagrees with to "shut up".

Wow, are you a psychologist or something? Because you nailed me dead perfectly. I'm serious, it's like you're psychic or something! Wait, no, I'm lying, that actually doesn't describe me at all. I don't think there's anything wrong with eating plants OR animals but I DO think there's something wrong with someone who turns his nose up at particular types of food WHEN THERE'S CHILDREN FUCKING STARVING TO DEATH ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, you fucking uppity snob! You're the fucking epitome of being a picky shithead!





Ok...so...you're trying to say...that if these children were to be eating meat, to be fed meat, or otherwise consume meat...it'd be...immoral.

...I'm going to let you think about why I am acting like there's something wrong when I am discussing this issue with you. Mm-k? REALLY...REALLY think hard on it...and maybe you'll realize my problem isn't with the morality in eating animals...but rather, the immorality in stating that everyone should eat like you or else they're not being moral, even if they're fucking starving to death.

THAT. Is my problem. It's with you. I am so fucking sick of vegan and vegetarian health-nazis as it is trying to force this idea that I need to only eat vegetables because it's healthier when science is in complete lack of consensus on the matter at all, but even more so am I sick of you nitwits that poke your head up to spew some bullshit like "eating animals is IMMORAL!" Oh REALLY, and what fucking objective morality are you using to justify this statement? NONE. You don't even have any scientific evidence to back this statement up! NONE WHATSOEVER. So you're insulting starving people by saying that if they were to eat meat it would be immoral.

Unless of course suddenly it would become very moral for them to do so which further pours more bullshit into the equation because then why is it suddenly good to feed a person at the expense of an animal's life if both lives are supposedly equal, hm? Regardless, your morality bullshit is just that: BULLSHIT.

---

Now there's a false anaolgy if ever there was one. Rape=harmful. Meat=harmless.

No, its not harmless only because the victim who suffers and dies is non-human.

Uh, yes it is, and who are you to say otherwise? I've asked for proof as for WHY eating an animal is wrong and you haven't provided anything, whereas I was at least kind enough to provide a link to an interview with a biological scientist stating how plants are capable of feeling like humans and animals in many ways. Death. Comes. From Life. Deal with it.

[NoraBrimstone]

Now there's a false anaolgy if ever there was one. Rape=harmful. Meat=harmless.

No, its not harmless only because the victim who suffers and dies is non-human.

By that logic, domestos is harmful because bacteria suffer and die. Or eating carrots is harmful because vegetables suffer and die.

If you're not a fruitarian, your argument is a hypocritical one.

---

there's something wrong with someone who turns his nose up at particular types of food WHEN THERE'S CHILDREN FUCKING STARVING TO DEATH ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, you fucking uppity snob! You're the fucking epitome of being a picky shithead!

In what way would me eating meat help those people? If anything, it would leave me with less money to donate to charities that actually will help those people, because meat is more expensive than veg here.

[Creed of Heresy]

It won't help either way, but he is laying the claim that eating meat is itself immoral...when there are starving children out there in the world who never get ANY food. He has no factual basis in his claim about eating animals being immoral in any way, so it's merely his opinion...meaning he's in a nation, a culture of plenty, and saying that eating meat is unanimously wrong because it's immoral. And I'm asking, what about those starving children? If you cannot value a human life over an animal life...that means you would deny them much-needed sustenance if it came from the death of an animal.

It has nothing to do with actually helping starving children. I do that at the soup kitchen, and it's good as I can give since my travel abilities are kind of non-existent right now. It's a matter of taking some smug holier-than-thou stance of supposed morality, which when you look at it, isn't nearly a quarter as noble as this halfwit would like to think. It's ok, at best, if you're a vegetarian for health reasons; the science is inconclusive but if you honestly believe it's better for you, whatever. But the moment someone starts trying to lord themselves around as some paragon of morality when the most these armchair crusaders do is type furiously at a keyboard, by utilizing what is in reality a pretty fucking immoral set of ideas, then their ass is mine.

[littleendian]

So in other words you live by an undefined double standard where the only morality involved is your own subjective one. Well, at least you have openly admitted to having no basis in any kind of truth in reality that anyone here should take on face value, then!

It's not subjective that it requires a central nervous system to feel pain. Actually it is one of the functions of our brain to create painful stimuli based on sensory data arriving through the sense organs. There is no such thing as "objective" pain, it is always subjectively produced by an organism to react to a threat to its well-being. This only makes sense in relation to an organism that can actually change something about this situation, in every other case as for example with plants this expensive processing of stimuli would be a waste because the plant couldn't do anything about the threat anyway, and evolution would not allow for such waste. Of course this is not about hard-set truths, because we also could never prove that all the people around us aren't in fact only robots without emotions in them, it is impossible to prove or disprove because of the subjective nature of the problem. This is all about likelihoods, as with all of science. If you have ever seen a hurt animal you can have no more doubt about its pain than about the pain of those poor children you so feverishly posted images of.

I don't think there's anything wrong with eating plants OR animals but I DO think there's something wrong with someone who turns his nose up at particular types of food WHEN THERE'S CHILDREN FUCKING STARVING TO DEATH ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD,
[...]
Ok...so...you're trying to say...that if these children were to be eating meat, to be fed meat, or otherwise consume meat...it'd be...immoral.

You are deliberately misunderstanding me. As I have repeatedly said (do you read?), anything anyone has to do to survive is never immoral, so neither would it be to give those children meat to eat.

Death. Comes. From Life. Deal with it.

True, I don't advertise a romanticised view on nature and its cruelty. However, we're not talking about nature, we're talking about our human system of ethics, and there is a clear inconsistency in a system of ethics that sees it as immoral to kill people and doesn't see it as immoral to kill animals because there is no significant difference between the two.

---

No, its not harmless only because the victim who suffers and dies is non-human.

By that logic, domestos is harmful because bacteria suffer and die. Or eating carrots is harmful because vegetables suffer and die.

Regardless of whether vegetables suffer or not (and there is a good argument for that they don't suffer or at least not to the same extent as animals, see above), it is a necessity for me to eat plants or otherwise I die. Therefore, this is no more a moral question than it would be to ask whether anti-biotics are immoral because they kill bacteria which invade our body. This all serves self-preservation which is never immoral. What is immoral, however, is to kill someone for ones selfish indulgance.