Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[c172]

I actually like eating vegetarian, and respect those that are vegetarian, but I can't do it all the time due to health issues that the rest of you wouldn't have.

Veganism I don't even know too much about, but if it works for certain people, I have no moral issue against it. Just don't try to push your way of being on me. We're all different, with different needs. Not to mention wants.

[LastPoet]

2. Causing suffering is wrong

Except that in the modern world, animals do not suffer when they are put down for meat, try to keep up. There goes your argument.

ETA: actually, some animals have a better live than alot of humans and when put down, they don't even feel a thing.

[James2014]

2. Causing suffering is wrong

Except that in the modern world, animals do not suffer when they are put down for meat, try to keep up. There goes your argument.

ETA: actually, some animals have a better live than alot of humans and when put down, they don't even feel a thing.

Come now you don't believe this...... take for instance the cow, forced to be almost continuously pregnant to produce milk. After just a day, her young is forcibly removed. Overfed to produce as much milk as possible, the mechanical suckling cause infections in her udders. Most dairy cows only live a five or six years, when they have a natural life expectancy is around 25 years. Why do you think this is? They have a short brutal life, and when there exhausted bodies stop producing large amounts of milk they are killed.

And how are dairy cows and beef cows killed? Usually a capacitive bolt is used to induce a state of unconsciousness before having their throat slit. However studies show this is frequently not effective, with 8% of cattle(15% for young bulls) showing signs of consciousness http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.026 The fact is eating meat is cruel, and causes horrible suffering. An even if you could ensure a pain free life, they are still conscious beings whose life would be brutally cut short.

[FlyingNarwhal]

So do severely mentally disabled humans have rights? They cannot reciprocate any rights they have either. They do not understand the laws of man either. So what is it to be, do they have rights or not?
The fact is while correlative rights and duties are great for a legal system, they are nonsense when talking about ethics.

Yes they have rights because they are still expected to reciprocate those rights and if they don't there are consequences. An autistic kid that goes off the deep end and breaks someone's arm may be placed in an institution to prevent him from hurting anyone else, essentially limiting those rights like we would anyone else that breaks them. What you seem to argue for is that animals should be afforded the rights, but not allowed to face the consequences of the responsibility of those rights. I'm not allowed to kill animals because it's cruel, but other animals are allowed to kill each other and it's not cruel. Do you see the hypocrisy?

[James2014]

So do severely mentally disabled humans have rights? They cannot reciprocate any rights they have either. They do not understand the laws of man either. So what is it to be, do they have rights or not?
The fact is while correlative rights and duties are great for a legal system, they are nonsense when talking about ethics.

Yes they have rights because they are still expected to reciprocate those rights and if they don't there are consequences. An autistic kid that goes off the deep end and breaks someone's arm may be placed in an institution to prevent him from hurting anyone else, essentially limiting those rights like we would anyone else that breaks them. What you seem to argue for is that animals should be afforded the rights, but not allowed to face the consequences of the responsibility of those rights. I'm not allowed to kill animals because it's cruel, but other animals are allowed to kill each other and it's not cruel. Do you see the hypocrisy?

And if an animal breaks those rights we give to it will also be placed in an environment where it cant cause harm. If a lion is on the loose that kills people, it will be killed. There are consequences for the animal just like the autistic kid. Both the animal and the person with mental disabilities cannot understand their duties, and so cannot be expected to uphold them. If they are a danger to others they are treated the way they are to protect others, where as you would be sent to jail not just to protect others but as a punishment because you disregarded your duties. Do you see the difference? Do you see your hypocrisy?

[KUSA]

The same can be said to your arguments for veganism. All you presented is: "I'm lilly-livered and everyone else must conform to my sensibilities"

ETA: shit, got ninja'd by KUSA.

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.

[LastPoet]

Come now you don't believe this...... take for instance the cow, forced to be almost continuously pregnant to produce milk. After just a day, her young is forcibly removed. Overfed to produce as much milk as possible, the mechanical suckling cause infections in her udders. Most dairy cows only live a five or six years, when they have a natural life expectancy is around 25 years. Why do you think this is? They have a short brutal life, and when there exhausted bodies stop producing large amounts of milk they are killed.

And how are dairy cows and beef cows killed? Usually a capacitive bolt is used to induce a state of unconsciousness before having their throat slit. However studies show this is frequently not effective, with 8% of cattle(15% for young bulls) showing signs of consciousness http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.026 The fact is eating meat is cruel, and causes horrible suffering. An even if you could ensure a pain free life, they are still conscious beings whose life would be brutally cut short.

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.

[Anomalocaris]

Our survival does not require eating meat, and while survival may be an important part of an ethical system there is no reason to suggest it should be the only consideration.

Our survival requires us not to substitute the dictates of personal squeamishness for general standard of morality. General standard of morality amongst humans should be silent on that which does not impact adversely on the general welfare of humans.

The fact that you wish there to be additional considerions is fine so long as you keep it to yourself. Those consideration are 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 just because we do generally eat meat. So don't tell us what we can, or should eat.

[FlyingNarwhal]

Yes they have rights because they are still expected to reciprocate those rights and if they don't there are consequences. An autistic kid that goes off the deep end and breaks someone's arm may be placed in an institution to prevent him from hurting anyone else, essentially limiting those rights like we would anyone else that breaks them. What you seem to argue for is that animals should be afforded the rights, but not allowed to face the consequences of the responsibility of those rights. I'm not allowed to kill animals because it's cruel, but other animals are allowed to kill each other and it's not cruel. Do you see the hypocrisy?

And if an animal breaks those rights we give to it will also be placed in an environment where it cant cause harm. If a lion is on the loose that kills people, it will be killed. There are consequences for the animal just like the autistic kid. Both the animal and the person with mental disabilities cannot understand their duties, and so cannot be expected to uphold them. If they are a danger to others they are treated the way they are to protect others, where as you would be sent to jail not just to protect others but as a punishment because you disregarded your duties. Do you see the difference? Do you see your hypocrisy?

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?

[Anomalocaris]

The same can be said to your arguments for veganism. All you presented is: "I'm lilly-livered and everyone else must conform to my sensibilities"

ETA: shit, got ninja'd by KUSA.

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.

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.