Animal cruelty

Interesting way to interpret what I said, perhaps I should not have given you the room to twist it, or perhaps it is a failing of yours, not sure which.

Okay

Here is the discussion ender. Mankind by nature is a predator. Mankind is the firercest meanest, and deadliest predators on this planet. Mankind kills to eat. Mankind kill to clothe ourselves. And unlike animals mankind kills for sheer pleasure. Take meat away from mankind and eventually mankinds aggressive nature turns on itself.

Vegetarians as a group only prove this. Vegetarians sit on their high chair and loudly villify Mankind for doing as nature intended us to do. They decry mankind for not having the "morals" to quit eating meat. When any member of mankind points out the canine teeth of human beings or his prediliction towards meat and Vegetarians run hiding behind their favorite argument.

Mankind is a predator as nature intended. To defy that on an individual scale is fine. to force that on others is morally bankrupt. To claim you are doing it for moral reasons is the height of immoral behaviour.
 
vslayer said:
a dog would not enjoy torture either, so you are saying the only difference between torturing a dog, and torturing you, is that it is you. that is clearly trying to justify torturing other animals because your species is dominant, and that exactly what you oppose when it said that you think 'might is right'.
Click to expand...
With me, it's not so much "might is right"...it's more like "I is right" from my perspective.
And when did I say that it was okay to torture a dog? Torture is unnessesary cruelty. Killing an animal and then eating it isn't torture, because it's dead and can't feel anything anymore.
 
TW Scott:

You are committing what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy". The naturalistic fallacy is in saying that what is "natural" must be ethically "good".

I have made this point several times already in this thread. I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read it - or you didn't understand it the first couple of times.

It may be "natural" for humans to murder each other in the absence of laws. It may be "natural" for some men to rape women. I'm sure pedophiles feel that it is "natural" to have sex with children. In general, it is probably "natural" for human beings to put themselves above every other creature on the planet, and do whatever pushes their buttons. But regardless of whether things things are "natural", it is legitimate to question whether they are ethically "right or wrong".

Can you see the distinction? Questions of morality are quite separate from what is "natural".


Hapsburg:

With me, it's not so much "might is right"...it's more like "I is right" from my perspective.
Click to expand...

i.e. anything Hapsburg wants to do is, by definition, good and right.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the chasm you have to cross to begin to develop morally is almost immeasurably wide. I pity you.

And when did I say that it was okay to torture a dog? Torture is unnessesary cruelty. Killing an animal and then eating it isn't torture, because it's dead and can't feel anything anymore.
Click to expand...

By the same argument, killing a human baby in a "humane" manner (say, with a single gunshot to the head), and eating it, would be just fine, too.
 
James R said:
i.e. anything Hapsburg wants to do is, by definition, good and right.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the chasm you have to cross to begin to develop morally is almost immeasurably wide. I pity you.
Click to expand...
And aren't you just the son risen. Don't pity him. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

By the same argument, killing a human baby in a "humane" manner (say, with a single gunshot to the head), and eating it, would be just fine, too.
Click to expand...
In some cases.
 
James R

You are committing too many falacies of your own to even list. you are taking a moral high ground that does not exist. You are commiting the ulitimate evil and you'll never realize it.
 
TW Scott:
You are committing too many falacies of your own to even list.
Click to expand...
LOL. What a load of BS. James R catches you with your pants down making a Naturalistic logic fallacy, and you chuck a tantrum instead of retracting your fallicious statements. *sigh*
 
mountainhare said:
TW Scott:

LOL. What a load of BS. James R catches you with your pants down making a Naturalistic logic fallacy, and you chuck a tantrum instead of retracting your fallicious statements. *sigh*
Click to expand...

If there was such a thing a Naturalistic Logic Fallacy, I would retract my statement. However there is not. Nature does not make mistakes. Species live or die by how they evolve. We evolved as omnivourous predators for a reason. To state than killing prey animals is the same as killing human being is no more logical than claiming killing bacteria is the same as murdering humans. As for the lack of meat cuasing violence theory. Think of this every period of history that we think of as barbaric and unnecessarily violent was the same period meat consumption was low for any number of reasons.

What James R is guilty of blind judging of others. From anything resembling a logical standpoint eating a steak is not the same as killing a child. To even think the two are connected is a sign of serious mental deficencies. next you're gonna tell me that writing the word combustion is the same as setting of a Nuclear device. Sounds kind of crazy? Well. that is what James R is doing.
 
I didn’t read most of this thread, so I apologize in advance if I’m repeating anything. It looked like most of the discussion was ridiculous anyway.

I’m a vegetarian. Inevitably, people find this out about me. Half of the time they don’t care. The other half of the time they want to talk to me about it. Some of those people I end up having a pleasant conversation. However, most of the time it goes something like this.

-Person: Hey, there’s no meat on your plate, you a vegetarian or something?
-Me: Yeah.
-Person: Why is that? You’re not one of those PETA animal rights people are you?
-Me: I’m a vegetarian for ethical reasons. I’m not a fan of PETA or their methods.
-Person: OMG quite trying to shove your beliefs down my throat!

Other annoyingly common queries include:

-Person: Being a vegetarian isn’t natural!
-Me: Okay.

-Person (while eating fast food or something): Not eating meat can’t be healthy for you. You’re missing out on essential nutrients and stuff that you can’t get anywhere else. There’s no way you’re gonna be able to go without meat for any length of time.
-Me: I’ve been a vegetarian for more than a decade.
-Person: Holy Guacamole! That means you started when you were a kid.
-Me: Yeah, it was the summer before 7th grade.
-Person: And your parents let you do that? Are they vegetarian?
-Me: Yes they reluctantly let me do that, although I wouldn’t have taken no for an answer. No they aren’t vegetarian.
-Person: If my kids ever told me they were vegetarian, I’d shove meat down their throats.

-Person: Hey gsys, how would you like a big, juicy STEAK, huh? HAHAHAHAHA I’m so funny!

-Person: Do you eat animal crackers?

-Person (while eating meat): Oooh, look at me, I’m eating MEAT!! Does this gross you out.


TW Scott said:
Here is the discussion ender. Mankind by nature is a predator. Mankind is the firercest meanest, and deadliest predators on this planet. Mankind kills to eat. Mankind kill to clothe ourselves. And unlike animals mankind kills for sheer pleasure. Take meat away from mankind and eventually mankinds aggressive nature turns on itself.
Click to expand...
Wrong on all counts.
TW Scott said:
Vegetarians as a group only prove this. Vegetarians sit on their high chair and loudly villify Mankind for doing as nature intended us to do. They decry mankind for not having the "morals" to quit eating meat. When any member of mankind points out the canine teeth of human beings or his prediliction towards meat and Vegetarians run hiding behind their favorite argument.
Click to expand...
Again, wrong on all counts.
TW Scott said:
Mankind is a predator as nature intended. To defy that on an individual scale is fine. to force that on others is morally bankrupt. To claim you are doing it for moral reasons is the height of immoral behaviour.
Click to expand...
Nature doesn’t intend.
 
TW Scott:

You are committing too many falacies of your own to even list.
Click to expand...

Unsupported assertions such as this are worthless.

you are taking a moral high ground that does not exist. You are commiting the ulitimate evil and you'll never realize it.
Click to expand...

Please tell me why not eating meat is somehow more evil than eating meat. I can't wait.

If there was such a thing a Naturalistic Logic Fallacy, I would retract my statement.
Click to expand...

Closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears, pretending not to hear what you don't want to hear, won't get you very far in life.

Nature does not make mistakes. Species live or die by how they evolve. We evolved as omnivourous predators for a reason.
Click to expand...

I'd say we evolved that way by accident, coupled with a complex set of environmental factors which meant human beings came to occupy a particular ecological niche. I guess your explanation is something like "God made us this way!"

To state than killing prey animals is the same as killing human being is no more logical than claiming killing bacteria is the same as murdering humans.
Click to expand...

Right. It's a good thing I never made that statement then, isn't it? Are you sure you're keeping up with the train of the argument?

As for the lack of meat cuasing violence theory. Think of this every period of history that we think of as barbaric and unnecessarily violent was the same period meat consumption was low for any number of reasons.
Click to expand...

Good, good. You're starting to develop an argument. Now, you need to provide the evidence which backs up your assertion. Got any?

What James R is guilty of blind judging of others.
Click to expand...

Not blind. If I judge you, it is on the basis of the views you espouse in your posts. How else could I judge you? I can't see you. I don't know anything about you, except what you write. But your writing speaks volumes about you.

From anything resembling a logical standpoint eating a steak is not the same as killing a child.
Click to expand...

Right.

Now consider: Is eating a steak the same as eating a cucumber? (Because that's the argument we're meant to be having here, remember.)
 
gsys:

Welcome to sciforums. Sounds like you've heard all the "arguments" for meat-eating before, too. It can get a little tiring, can't it?

The interesting thing is that, deep down, the belligerent meat eaters know that they are doing something wrong. If they truly believed they weren't on shaky moral ground then they wouldn't feel the need to defend their actions so stridently.
 
James R said:
gsys:
Click to expand...

At first I thought you said gays.

The interesting thing is that, deep down, the belligerent meat eaters know that they are doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

Probably, but not all of them. Animals don't feel wrong if they kill, because they only do it for survival, and scientists say that we are animals.

If they truly believed they weren't on shaky moral ground then they wouldn't feel the need to defend their actions so stridently.
Click to expand...

There are many people who don't defend their actions, but this is a discussion forum so it's only natural.
 
James R said:
gsys:

Welcome to sciforums. Sounds like you've heard all the "arguments" for meat-eating before, too. It can get a little tiring, can't it?

The interesting thing is that, deep down, the belligerent meat eaters know that they are doing something wrong. If they truly believed they weren't on shaky moral ground then they wouldn't feel the need to defend their actions so stridently.
Click to expand...
Quite frankly the exact same argument you just used could be used against vegetarianism, ie that we are sick of hearing vegetarians reasons and that they know that they are going against nature.
 
Quite frankly the exact same argument you just used could be used against vegetarianism, ie that we are sick of hearing vegetarians reasons and that they know that they are going against nature.
Click to expand...

The experience that gsys wrote about above is common with vegetarians. Most people consider meat eating to be completely normal. They have eaten meat all their lives. Most people they know eat meat. Chances are, they've never thought about the ethics of it at all, beyond the point of "Well, everybody does it, so it must be ok." So, they regard the ethical vegetarian as some kind of freak. They figure that, deep down, the vegetarian must have some kind of mental problem, and that they are just being stupid and have some kind of martyr complex for not eating that tasty steak. If only they knew how good it tasted and how healthy it was, then if they didn't have a mental problem they'd come to their senses and join "normal" society.

But when the vegetarian calmly explains the ethics of meat eating, which the meat eater is often hearing for the first time, suddenly there's a niggling worry at the back of the meat-eater's mind. What if, all this time, they really had no good ethical justification for eating meat? What if killing animals really is a bad thing, once you start thinking about it.

Most meat-eaters overcome these niggling pangs of conscience. The conversation moves on, and they forget it ever happened as they munch their juicy hamburger. But if the conversation continues too long, they often react with anger. After all, they're good, ethical people. Therefore, their actions must be justifiable ... somehow. Maybe it's healthier to eat meat. Er, no, that doesn't work. They try other tacks. None of them stand scrutiny.

Some meat eaters at this point realise that what they are doing is fundamentally unjustifiable. Perhaps eventually they decide to reduce, if not completely eliminate, their meat intake. Or maybe, as a first step, they start to consider their purchases of animal products, at least to ensure that the animals they eat were treated humanely while they were alive. The thing is, going vegetarian is logical, but it's hard. Most people just don't have the commitment and willpower, so they go the easy road.

Then there are the belligerent meat eaters. Once they know they are on unsteady moral ground, they throw logical thought completely out the window. They start to insult the vegetarian for no apparent reason. They make a point of being "in your face" about their immorality. They rant on about how much they love chowing down on a juicy piece of lamb - like it somehow makes it justifiable. And they argue about how they behaviour is "natural", because, after all, it is natural for them. They've dug in, and refuse to let a mere ethical argument get in the way of the conveniences and pleasures of their lives.
 
I don't want to go through it all, and you're probably aware of it, you being a bleeding heart liberal and all ;), but cars are bad.

Worse than meat. And there are alternatives, it only takes a little work. Car pooling, buses, bikes.

So why do you drive?
 
I live 15 minutes drive away from the nearest public transport. It takes me 1.5 hours to get to work by car, and would take much longer by public transport.

I do not drive a gas-guzzling monster of a car, so I try to minimize my environmental impact in that regard. I also share as many trips as possible with my partner, and also try to minimize the amount of travel I do.

When I'm not using my car, I mostly walk from place to place.

I don't know how you can say cars are "worse than meat-eating". I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

Are you trying to argue that because the environment and animal cruelty are problems, we can only try to tackle one of the two problems, and not both?

Please explain. Are two wrongs somehow better than one wrong?
 
I think I'll log off and go have some vegetarian pasta and a glass of wine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top